Introduction

Chapter Version 1.1 [19MAR2013] Many truth websites have tried to do the best job they can to highlight sources of incompetence and corruption throughout all levels of society today. Take, for example, the UK Column. To a large extent this started with Brian Gerrishs research, and his exposure of the insidious Common Purpose organisation, and the UK Column has continued to expand outwards from there. Thats all well and good, and well worth complimenting. In terms of problem exposure the UK Column has done a massive job. And so has David Icke, of course, and many others too numerous to mention. But there is an inherent problem when it comes to that exposure. To some extent, it could be considered a question of timing. Please allow me to explain. People can become overloaded. Overloaded with anything ... sweeties, chocolates, icecream ... and even problem exposure. So, the question of timing is ... when to stop. That is, when to stop before brain overload sets in. Because once brain overload sets in, de-humanisation sets in. Stalin said: One death is a tragedy; One million deaths is a statistic. We could say One problem exposure is a tragedy; One million problem exposures is a statistic, couldnt we? Isnt there a time when enough becomes enough? You see, the thing about problem exposure is that it is very necessary. To start with. To bring the problems to light. It generates anger to be sure but it also generates a certain amount of fear at the same time, as in If they could get away with that, just think of what else they could do?. Is that not so? I think it is. And so we have a problem of balance. Balancing the anger (which we need as a spur) against the fear (that we dont need too much of, because it will hold us back). Which leads us back to timing, in the form of when to stop. Or when to include a different tack into everyones equation. Which now brings me, almost, to the point Im trying to make. Because there is, in existence, another tack. Its called solution exposure. The objective of solution exposure being to complement problem exposure, with knowledgeable solutions to the problems as exposed.

And that leads directly to this chapter, as a preface to others I hope to write. The reason for that is because for the last five years myself and many others have been working to gather solutions, and, in doing so, have acquired a considerable body of knowledge, in that respect. One example of this could be considered the UK Columns (to return to them, for a moment) recent initiative to send a Writ of Mandamus to David Cameron and George Osborne, commanding (as such a Writ does) that they immediately take steps to implement a modern equivalent to the 1914 Bradbury Treasury Notes , thereby forming our future debt- and interest-free monetary system. But theres a lot more to that effort, and a lot more background we have acquired. You see, what weve learned, in the last five years or so, is that knowledge acquired reduces the fear factor that problem exposure creates. It doesnt reduce the anger factor, which still remains an essential driving force, but it creates clearer minds and thoughts all round. Furthermore, knowledge enables one to focus ones anger more acutely on the root causes of the problem. However, and somewhat paradoxically, increasing the knowledge factor can when put into practice seriously increase what we call the fun factor. The paradox is, of course, the juxtaposition between anger and fun. However, if we lose the ability to laugh, then I suggest the Human Race is well and truly over. Even amongst all the angst, does Monty Pythons Fish-Slapping Dance not make you laugh? So, in short, what I hope to do here, is to create a series of articles as many as may be necessary - in order to start exposing solutions. I will, as far as possible, confine myself to those exposures with some kind of proven track record, because the very last thing I would wish to do is to present information which could turn out to be detrimental to anyone. This Chapter simply sets the scene, so Readers can know what to expect in further Chapters. In that respect, this introduction is very light on the sort of information being talked about, however I will add one piece of essential and valid information, which I hope will provide food for thought. Let me first of all quote the Hopi Indians, when they told us We ... are the ones weve all been waiting for. Now, that doesnt say David Icke is the one weve all been waiting for. Nor does it say Brian Gerrish is the one weve all been waiting for, any more than it says Veronica Chapman is the one weve all been waiting for. It says We. And that includes YOU. Yes, you. And what its trying to say, by using the word We, and by not identifying any single saviour or messiah, is that WE are the ones who MUST FINALLY REALISE that WE responsible for saving ourselves.

And there is a rider to that. YOU MUST ACCEPT THE RESPONSILITY FOR SAVING YOURSELF. Now Im fully aware that many people consider Jesus Christ said: The only way to salvation was through him. And they take that to mean praying to him. And thereby passing the buck to him, to some extent. But there is another perfectly decent interpretation (especially based on the fact that there was no tape recorder in existence at the time, in order to record any exact words that may have been said). The alternative interpretation (which, by the way, I suggest is a better interpretation) is The only way to salvation is though the ideals that have been attributed to Jesus Christ. Which, translated, means YOU MUST ACCEPT THE RESPONSILITY FOR SAVING YOURSELF and you do that according to the ideals attributed to Jesus Christ. I suggest this makes sense. I suggest it makes sense because, if you look back through history, you must surely come to the conclusion that following Leaders is an experiment that always fails. One quick glance should surely be sufficient? It also makes sense because, if everyone is busy saving themselves, how come you can expect them to have the time to save you, as well? Wouldnt that be just a little arrogant, dont you think? Well thats my view, anyway. And that wraps up this introduction, except to say one more thing. Unless, and until, we all learn to stop following Leaders, and learn to take responsibility for our own lives, and not to expect to keep passing the buck on to others, I do not believe the Human Race will make any spiritual progress(*) whatsoever, and will be continually lookeddown-upon by any other advanced races that may exist in this Universe. (*) Please note what is meant by Spirituality here. It does not mean Religion. It means Expansion of ones Consciousness and Awareness of ones place within the Universe, whereas Religion means Contraction of ones Consciousness and Awareness of ones place within the Universe, by the application of dogma.

Dedicated Non-Compliance
Chapter Version 1.1 [19MAR2013] This Chapter is a continuation of my previous one, which outlined the idea of exposing solutions, in order to complement an Internet-full of problem exposures. Can I tell you a story? It is the truth. Do you remember the Poll Tax, in the early 1990s? Do you remember what happened to it (and to its instigator, Margaret Thatcher)? Well, Ill refresh your memory by reminding you (if, of course, you needed reminding!) that the Poll Tax cost about 19 billion to introduce in 1989 (in Scotland, and then a year later in

the rest of the UK). It lasted all of four years (amid massive rioting) until 1993, when it was replaced by its close cousin, the Council Tax. Yes, the Poll Tax caused massive upheaval. And yes, it sparked a series of riots nationwide, but its actual demise was for other reasons. The first reason was that it was the most stupid idea ever conceived. But, that wasnt enough to defeat it by itself. Psychopathic Magistrates, all over the country, were only too happy fling their weight around, by jailing people who simply couldnt, or (as in my own case) wouldnt, pay it. And that started to fill up the jails. To fill them up at such a rate that the system struggled to cope. In those heady days it was estimated that it cost 2,500 PER WEEK to keep EACH SINGLE PRISONER. (Anyone who has ever been inside a prison, and looked around, will understand why it will cost so much). (This was a fact that the psychopathic Magistrates completely ignored). I leave the Reader to do the arithmetic necessary to create a similar estimate for 2013 or perhaps a Freedom of Information Request would be in order? Now, bear that in mind. The 28 days I spent at Her Majestys pleasure cost 10,000. And I didnt pay it. And I didnt pay the 525 Poll Tax demand either. So, hows that for economics? I was one of about 2,000 people who accepted a jail term rather than pay up. Depending on whereabouts they were in the country, people got up to NINE MONTHS. A gentleman, in Sunderland, called Norman Laws, refused to pay on the basis that Hed fought for this country in WWII, and he hadnt fought for a Poll Tax. At 69 years old, they jailed him for 3 months. The following year, at age 70, he was still refusing, and was jailed for 6 months. The following year (1993), at age 71, they jailed him for 9 months. Now, lets just add up the bill for Norman, shall we? First of all, zero payment coming in from Norman. Whereas 3 + 6 + 9 months = 18 months, or one and a half years, in total. By my arithmetic, based on 52 weeks in a year, thats 52 + 26 = 78 weeks. At 2,500 per week, thats a total cost of 195,000 ... JUST FOR NORMAN ALONE! I repeat, hows that for economics? Well, obviously it isnt economics, is it? I dont know what the average sentence was, but lets say it was nearer 3 months. My arithmetic puts that at a grand total COST = 65,000,000. Sixty-five MILLION. Not economics, by any stretch. Those calculations completely ignore the costs of processing from beginning to end, by the Council, by the Magistrates Courts, by the Police, etc. You are entirely welcome to roll in cost factors for all that (you can include policing of the riots as well), but the point is THE DEMISE OF THE POLL TAX WAS DUE TO HITTING THEM WHERE IT HURTS MOST i.e. in the pocket!

So, the conclusion we can draw from this is (surely): Non-compliance by even just a tiny number of people ... who have sufficient resolve ... can hit them hard enough in the pocket ... so as to render ANYTHING they do not a viable proposition. Yes, it may take people with sufficient resolve to accept jail time. But, having experienced that myself, Im here to say it really isnt so bad at all. Especially if, as a CIVIL prisoner, you realise you are doing it on the basis of conscience. And, I can assure you, both the Prison Staff, and the other inmates, will sort-of respect that (especially the Prison Staff). Now, Im NOT encouraging anyone to do anything to land themselves in jail. It may be quite possible, with a sufficient increase in numbers, and exposure of these hidden costs (which no-one else seems to consider), that no-one actually goes to jail. That would certainly be, and is always, the basis of any plan I come up with. What Im trying to do is to point out that Dedicated Non-Compliance works. And it works far better than any other method Ive ever seen, such as petitions, letter-writing complains, demonstrations, etc. (And please bear in mind that Ive been involved in all of these actions, at various times in my life). Now, that was a bit of history. And, as I said at the start of this article, the Poll Tax eventually morphed into todays Council Tax. (By the way, if you look at the Council Tax Legislation, and consider the speed at which Michael Heseltine invoked the changeover, you might very easily come to the conclusion that they took the Poll Tax legislation, and simply did a Find/Replace on the words Community Charge). Im running a bit ahead of myself when I say ALL Taxation, of any kind is unlawful. (Yes, its legal, but it isnt lawful), because I have yet to explain that aspect. Nevertheless there are many people in the UK who understand that statement, and its implications. And they are out there fighting, in various ways, to kill the Council Tax. The original method of killing the Poll Tax i.e. hitting the system in the pocket, is more difficult these days. The reason is that the system has learned that jailing people killed the Poll Tax. Consequently, in the case of Council Tax, it is far more reluctant to go that far (even though that penalty is still in the legislation). But it doesnt work. They know that. So they have gone for more creative methods, such as creating bankruptcies even though such bankruptcies, along with their other creative methods, ARE NOT ACTUALLY ALLOWED by legislation. (But we are dealing with a system that is so endemically corrupt, little things like that can readily be swept under the carpet). It is a plain fact that, if the system was honest, non-deceptive, non-fraudulent, and played by the book, it couldnt do very much at all. Thus it needs to be dishonest and endemically corrupt, in order to actually BE the system. Nevertheless, the benefit is that threats and intimidations aside the chances of actually ending up behind bars has dramatically reduced, since the 1990s. It is now more of a rarity, tending to be reserved for prominent figures. The problem with that is (as far as the system is concerned) it turns prominent figures into martyrs.

Thus Dedicated Non-Compliance can still be very effective, if approached from the point of knowledge and understanding of what you would face, and how to deal with it effectively.

The Fundamental Truth about "Law"

Chapter Version 1.2 [22MAR2013] In previous writings Ive discussed to need for solutions exposure, and gave an example of how Dedicated Non-Compliance works, based on the now-historic, 20th century, Poll Tax (bearing in mind that there have, historically, been three attempts at introducing Poll Taxes. None of them succeeded). In this article I would like to go back to basics because, unless we start from basics, we cannot work out any solutions, and we cannot understand any solutions. I will discuss the most basic aspects of Law, what it is, and why it is. Now, before I go one step further, I must draw your attention to one distinct kind of Law, and start from there. At school, in general science, we learn about (for example) about The Law of Gravity. Furthermore, at all times, day in and day out, in everything we do, we understand what The Law of Gravity means to us. We dont have any choice in the matter. It means that we are stuck to the surface of the Earth day and night. It means that, to leave the Earths surface takes effort (called jumping), and that - more often than not - we wont get very high, and will always return to the Earths surface. Now I point that out, because its called a Law. And there are many others like it. I could name them, but I wont bore you (in that respect at least!) The point is that we can collectively call them The Laws of Physics or better still The Laws of the Universe. They are inviolate. They are incontrovertible. They are implacable. They apply at all times, to everyone and everything, without fear or favour. They are LAWS in the truest sense of the word. An important point to note is that We (humanity) DONT MAKE THEM. All our Scientists have ever been able to do is to discover them. And as far as possible create mathematical formulae to express them. Now, a lot of people will say that The Bible is Law. But that cant be correct, because The Laws of Physics/Universe dont appear in the Bible. And then theyll say: Aaaah ... no ... I meant the Law for People is in the Bible!. But that doesnt work either, really, because the Laws of the Universe are also the Laws for People ... simply because people are affected by the Laws of the Universe ... just as much as anything else organic, and everything inorganic. So, personally speaking, I feel obliged to work it out for myself, from scratch, but based on the Laws of the Universe. Obviously anyone who wishes to call the Laws of the Universe the Laws of God, on the basis of God creating the Universe, and thus creating those Laws well, thats absolutely fine by me. Just so long as we talk about the same thing.

And, by doing that, I have established a yardstick for Law i.e. inviolate, incontrovertible, implacable, applying at all times, to everyone, without fear or favour. So, what else falls into that category? Well, nothing, really. But there is something that almost does its called Common Sense. And, whats more, we DO need some kind of Law so as to enable people to Live together, within a community, without too much acrimony. And most (if not all) of us know what that would entail by virtue of our Common Sense. We know (more or less) what upsets other people. We know what doesnt. How do we know? We just know. And that knowing, by virtue of our in-built Common Sense, as called The Common Law. The Common Law is not, strictly speaking, written down although its basics can be, in the form: 1. Do not deliberately cause injury to another, and (as far as possible) take sufficient precaution such that it doesnt happen accidentally; 2. Do not deliberately cause loss to another, and (as far as possible) take sufficient precaution such that it doesnt happen accidentally; 3. Do not deliberately breach anothers peace, and (as far as possible) take sufficient precaution such that it doesnt happen accidentally; 4. Do not employ any mischief in your promises, agreements, and arrangements. However, it isnt really necessary to write that down. Because we all know it to be true. Native American Indians have a way of saying things, based on their philosophies, which actually resonate everywhere. One, Chief Seattle, is quoted as saying (in relation to religions): Your religion is written on Tablets of Stone, whereas ours is written in our hearts. He was, of course, referring to the Ten Commandments. However, Chief Seattle could just as easily have said: Your Law is written on pieces of paper, whereas ours is written in our hearts. However, he did not say that, and would have been incorrect, if he had done. For the simple reason that Our Law is also written in our hearts. And its called Common Sense. And it forms our Common Law which is also known as legem terrae in Latin, or The Law-of-the-Land in English. And Our Law, our Common Law, is almost as inviolate, incontrovertible, implacable, applicable at all times, to everyone, without fear or favour- as are the Laws of the Universe. So, thats Law, what it is, and where it comes from. You don't think that's true? That Common Sense is as fixed as the Laws of the Universe? Well, even capuchins and other species have it ... so it's pretty Universal, as far as I can see. How it is applied, within the Human species, is by means of Juries of 12 ordinary people, listening to facts, and making a combined decision called a Verdict. And thats the only difference, in practice, between The Common Law and the Laws of the Universe. In the latter

case no Jury, no vote, no opinion is required e.g. things fall downwards, and thats all there is to it. But, it would seem, Ive missed out a whole lot of things from this discussion so far. Ive missed out Parliament, Acts, Statutes, Judges and Magistrates and everything in between. The reason Ive done that is very simple this was a discussion about Law, and they have nothing to do with Law. Which may sound a bit surprising (to say the least!). But it IS true. One quick example? Statutes can be repealed ... they have been on many occasions. Can you repeal Common Sense? Can you repeal any Law of the Universe? I suggest that a characteristic such as cannot be repealed is a very powerful characteristic. A DISTINGUISHING characteristic. Thus it distinguishes between Law and non-Law. So what are Acts of Parliament, and Statutes if they are not Law? And what are Judges and Magistrates involved in, if it is not Law? The answer to that is Legislation. To create Legal situations, legal positions, legalities, etc. But not Law ... if you wish to define Law as inviolate, incontrovertible, implacable, applicable at all times, to everyone, without fear or favour - as per the Laws of the Universe. The problem, of course, is that everyone has always been encouraged to refer to Legislation as Law. Thus the inviolate, incontrovertible, implacable, applicable at all times, to everyone, without fear or favour attributes of Law are taken on by Statutes. In everyones mind, at least. Thus a Parking Offence becomes as serious as breaching The Law of Gravity. Theres another distinguishing characteristic between The Laws of the Universe and Legislation. The Laws of the Universe cannot be broken, thus there is no penalty for breaking them. Legislation ALWAYS includes prescribed penalties for violations. In the case of The Common Law it is possible to break it, or course, but in this case a Jury decides the punishment to fit the crime, once again, by virtue of its innate Common Sense.

Statutory Provisions
Chapter Version 1.3 [21JUN2013] [Contains Errata: 1 2 3 4 and correction of Void Mortgages link] In previous Chapters Ive attempted to explain the need for solutions exposure, as a complement to problems exposure, and also the benefits of Dedicated Non-Compliance. In the immediately preceding Chapter, I presented the reasoning to understand what Law is, and what it is not. In that Chapter I pointed out that Statutes (i.e. Acts of Parliament) could not stand up to any distinguishing characterisation of Law. However, as all readers will know, Statutes form the body of legislation enacted by Parliament, and are thus the meat and drink of our so-called Judicial Processes. Thus, even though Statutes are not Law, it is possible to find some solutions by employing Statutes, particularly those which actually define Common Sense (and thus Lawful) provisions. Therefore in this Chapter I would like to provide a solution exposure based on the juxtaposition of certain Statutory provisions, and related to the emotive subject of Mortgages.

In this way I will seek to show (a) That every Mortgage is, and always was, utterly fraudulent and (b) What at least five Homeowners have done to expose that fraud, and thereby stay in their homes. I make no claim to having worked this out myself, although I have kept a close eye on it, as it transpired, and encouraged it as much as I could, by publicising it as much as I could. In order to make this explanation, I need to make two assertions, which I do not have space to prove here and now. Suffice to say that these assertions can be proved (in a number of different ways). Here they are, in relation to Mortgages: 1. The Bank/Building Society never signed anything to create a valid Contract ... and 2. Never lent anything, in the first place. I've been in County Courts when those arguments have been made, in order to try to stop evictions, and watched the supercilious smile on the faces of so-called 'District Judges' - who completely ignore those facts, and still go ahead and rubber-stamp the Eviction Orders. It's perfectly obvious that 'they are OK', and look down on the Homeowner (who they obviously see as 'pathetic'), trying to stop himself from being evicted. It's perfectly obvious that they actually take a quite a delight in the plight of someone else, and are only too happy to make that plight even worse. This is the mark of a true PSYCHOPATH (almost undoubtedly Common Purpose-driven, of course). But ... the Solids have now hit the Air Conditioning (as someone once said). See The Void Mortgages Website. The Void Mortgages people stumbled (somehow) [Errata 1: due to thousands of hours of combined research] upon the "Registration Gap" argument. Which (fundamentally) points out that - when a Mortgage is created - the Bank/Building Society start to 'run', before they are even entitled to 'walk'. And by 'running' (when they are not entitled to) they create a steamroller, which tramples on any 'niceties', such as would constitute a valid Mortgage, in Law. That's the simple analogy, anyway. The Registration Gap argument succeeds ... where no "Plea of mercy, due to the real-world FACTS of inherent fraud" succeeds, for three reasons: A. The argument is made in 'higher' Courts - which are less corrupt that lowly County Courts, and B. The argument points one Statutory Provision against another ... in a different Statute. C. The argument is irrefutable, while the current Statutory wording remains. I'll try to explain it as simply as I can.

One of those Statutes (the latest being the Land Registration Act 2002) says very clearly and unequivocally - "A Mortgage only comes into being when the Charge is lodged [Errata 2: by electronic-registration] at the Land Registry". Now, anyone who has ever had a Mortgage will recall that "the charge being lodged at the Land Registry" takes place last ... not first. Thus, by Statute, there is no Mortgage (at all!) until the very last minute of the process. Consequently, everything up to that point is not "The Mortgage", but is in fact nothing more than "a process leading up to The Mortgage". And the only process that would be valid, in Law, is a valid Contract of Obligation (on both sides, both yourself and the Bank). And there's another Statute (the latest being the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989) that defines a valid Contract of Obligation, and it says again very clearly and unequivocally "A valid Contract of Obligation MUST be signed by BOTH Parties". Now the START of the process is when the Bank/Building Society get you to sign (what is known as) a Title Deed. And this would constitute a valid Contract of Obligation, if they were to sign it as well. But, they never do. [Errata 3: Since 2013, examples of Title Deeds with a space for the signature of a 'Lenders' Authorised Representative have appeared. Word seems to have got around]. The reason being that a Mortgage is fraudulent, for the reason given in my second original assertion i.e. they never lend you anything except thin air. And a valid Contract of Obligation must consist of equal Contractual Consideration on both sides. That means, if you are prepared to offer the sweat of your brow as your part of the exchange, then they must offer you something of equal value, as their part of the exchange. Thin air is no fair exchange. Which, by-the-by, means that even if you sign something, and later discover a fraud - you have no obligation to continue to make payments, because the Contract was never valid, in Law). So, returning to Mortgages, there is never a valid Contract of Obligation, such as would create a valid pre-process, which would give Statutory validity to "lodging the charge at the Land Registry", and thereby "creating a Mortgage". According to enacted Legislation (and also, of course, The Common Law aka Common Sense, btw!) As of the time of writing, March 2013, this argument has now been made five times in 'higher' Courts, and has succeeded those five times [Errata 4: four out of those five times]. This obviously being due to the persistence of those five Homeowners (who, by-theby, have led the way for everyone). Furthermore, those people at www.VoidMortgages.com have created their own Security Guards, who will assist them to stand in the way of Bailiffs - Bailiffs who will still persist to try to bully their way - in spite of the fact that they are acting on the basis of utter frauds.

Jurisdiction & Jury Nullification

Chapter Version 1.1 [19MAR2013] In this Chapter I need to pick up some threads of things I have previously discussed. In a previous Chapter I discussed Law, what it is, and what it is not. I explained (I hope, rationally) that Law was the immutable Laws of the Universe, the most obvious one being the Law of Gravity. But there are others which are almost as obvious, for example the Laws of Motion, as expressed by Sir Isaac Newton. And I then proceeded to outline The Common Law, alluding to that as being almost as immutable, by virtue of its basis in Common Sense. And I also concluded that Statutes, based on Acts of Parliament, could never be considered to be Law even though they are constantly and continually referred to as such this being a collective mistake. A deliberate mistake, I suggest, in order to imbue the immutable qualities of Law on to Statutes, thus rendering Statutes as (conceptually) being fixed In Tablets of Stone. But they are not. Statutes can be repealed. Thus any immutability that may have been conceptually assigned, is utterly fake. Apart from which, they are created by two Houses of Parliament, which comprises a very small group of people (relative to the UK as a whole), and without any guarantee of any Common Sense being involved in the creation process. Do you really think those people, who talk so much utter rubbish in public, suddenly become geniuses when they vote according to Party Policy, under the so-called Whipping system? Well, no they dont. They are as ignorant within the chamber of the House of Commons, as they are arrogant and/or naive outside. And, of course, you know that. But many Statutes refer to themselves as Law. Indeed, in the previous article, I referenced one that euphemistically calls itself the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. You see? Its actually calls itself Law, in its title. They do that. Its part of the deception. Why is it a deception? Well, the first reason has already been given: Law is immutable, and the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, is quite capable of being repealed and replaced by (for example) a Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 if they so chose. Whereas the Law of Gravity cannot be replaced, and neither can your Common Sense or mine. You could look at this another way. No-one denies that a Statute is Legislation. What they do is to erase any distinction between Legislation and Law, by using those terms interchangeably. They all do it, including (of course) all the Media. And yet there is another big difference. The difference being how Legislation and Law are actually applied, in Courts. This brings into play the idea of jurisdiction, there being (roughly speaking) two possibilities, namely Legislative jurisdiction and Common Law jurisdiction. Legislative jurisdiction means that a sitting Judge, or a Bench of Magistrates, are awarded the ability to come to decisions based upon (solely) the wording of Statutes. In this case judgement of the Statute itself (i.e. whether or not it is fair and reasonable) is not allowed.

Common Law jurisdiction means that a Jury of 12 seconded, ordinary, people sit in judgement of an Accused individual, and reach a Verdict, based on the evidence placed before it. In this case judgement of the Statutes themselves is allowed, such that a Jury is fully entitled to ignore a Statute if it feels that the Statute is wrong or unjust. This being what is known as Jury Nullification, which has happened many times in the past and indeed even in the last few years, viz: the Inquests into the deaths of Princess Diana and of Ian Tomlinson, and also the Trial of MuadDib. By means of Jury Nullification, any Provision of any Statute can be overturned by a Jurys Verdict. It just takes the right circumstances, and the right arguments and evidence placed before the Jury (and to ensure that the Jury isnt knobbled- something Judges are prone to do, via a biased Summing Up). Those are the two main jurisdictions. They are distinguished immediately by the presence or absence of a Jury. Where a Jury is not present, the system relies entirely upon a Judge or Magistrates Bench. This, of course, is a recipe for tyranny. Does that explain quite a lot? For those who have not studied the UK Courts system, and dont really grasp the differences, there are Magistrates Courts, County Courts, Crown Courts and High Courts. (There are also Appeal Courts, which tend to come under the umbrella of High Courts). Crown Courts and some High Courts (e.g. the Old Bailey) are Common Law Courts (or, at least, they are supposed to be!) The problem is that Judges think they can tell a Jury what to do even though that is strictly debarred by The Common Law. Its very simple: If the Jury is simply there to rubber-stamp what a Judge tells them, then there is absolutely no point to the presence of the Jury. All the time, trouble and expense of requisitioning and convening the Jury is wasted if they simply rubber-stamp on the Judges orders. So, while such pseudo-tyranny takes place, there are no real Common Law Courts remaining. However (as I said) now and again usually when the bias against the Accused is too blatant to ignore Juries have been known to do their job properly. Common Law Courts are primarily employed for serious CRIMES however (due to a historical quirk) they are also employed for the CIVIL matters of libel and slander. There are no other kinds of Common Law Courts. All the others, namely County Courts (for CIVIL Claims, including the Small Claims Courts) and Magistrates Courts (for Summary CRIMINAL Hearings) have only Legislative jurisdiction. Which means tyranny rules the day. Even in the case of a Bench of three Magistrates, the two at the side will be simply nodding dogs to the chair in the middle. A Magistrates Court also forms the sole route to a Crown Court Trial. However, going back to the essence of The Common Law, in Crown Courts, the real job of the Judge is restricted to that of referee. To impartially ensure that all evidence placed before the Jury meets the standards of true and valid evidence, namely first-hand knowledge no hearsay. And Witnesses are required to swear an Oath to Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before providing testimony. Thus the essence of The Common Law is fulfilled i.e. that THE TRUTH is the most important thing, in order to decide the outcome. In all the other Courts this is not so. In Magistrates and County Courts, hearsay is perfectly acceptable. In a County Court no-one takes an Oath, in a Magistrates Court an Oath may- or may not be taken by Witnesses, but in all cases THE TRUTH is pretty much irrelevant. All

that is relevant is the wording of a Statute, and computer-generated outputs. As I said, its a recipe for tyranny.

Societies & Statutes

Chapter Version 1.1 [19MAR2013] In the first Chapter I promised to expose solutions, and so far I havent really done very much of that. The reason is, of course, the solutions depend on a lot of background knowledge. It would not be possible to play a game of Chess without knowing the layout of the board, and the attributes of each Chess piece. Thus, Im forced to continue to expand on the background. For a while, at least. And this Chapter will be no exception, because I know that I still have yet to get to the core of Legislation versus Law. Legislation comprises Statutes. We have got that far. So now lets examine the definition of a Statute, which is: The Legislated Rule of a Society. Which sounds fair enough. But what is a Society? The definition of a Society is A group of like-minded people who come together to deliberate, determine, and act towards common goals. And, if you think about it, thats correct. That defines Societies, in many contexts. Think about the British Medical Association. (Association indicates Society ... the soc is in the word). Now, they have their own Rules, dont they? Rules that Doctors, GPs, Surgeons and Nurses, etc. must obey (or be struck off!) These Rules are the Statutes of the BMA. The like-minded people are the Health Professionals, who have joined the BMA in order to practice professionally. The Rules (Statutes) have been deliberated and determined in the past, and acted upon to publish the common goals into instructions on how Health Professionals must behave (or be struck off!) Now, the question is: Are you a member of the BMA? If not, then the Statutes of the BMA do not apply to you, do they? Lets look at another example, The Law Society. This Society dictates how Legal Professionals will behave, such as to be able to practice in Courts. It has its own Rules (Statutes) which are not the same as those of the BMA. For example, Lawyers dont take the Hippocratic Oath, as do Doctors of Medicine. Now, the question is: Are you a member of the Law Society? If not, then the Statutes of the Law Society dont apply to you, do they? They dont apply to your Doctor either he or she has their own set of Rules, defined by the BMA. And, similarly, the Rules of the BMA dont apply to your Solicitor. And neither set of Statutes apply to your Postman.

And so on, which (hopefully) sets Statutes into their true context. YES they ARE Law TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY but not to anyone else! Similarly if you work for a Company (which is a Society, in fact), you will undoubtedly receive a Company Handbook, which defines how to behave during your working hours. These are the Statutes of your employer. And theres another similarity in all of this. Many of these Statute Rules only apply during working hours. In your Social Time, many of them can be disregarded. Now its important to investigate the attributes of any Society. I suggest they are: 1. A Membership (i.e. like-minded people, to go back to the definition); 2. A distinct Name (so as to distinguish it from all other Groups); 3. A Legislative Body (who deliberate, determine and act); 4. A set of Legislated Rules aka Statutes (which are published as common goals); 5. A defined method a creating the Membership (i.e. via Applications to join); 6. A defined method of Resignation. Now the question is: Can you become the Member of a Society, without you yourself deciding to join it, of your own free will? Can someone else decide to join you, and then just say Youre a Member, so you WILL obey the Statutes!? And, even if it is possible for someone else to join you up, what about your ability to resign? Is it possible to prevent the ability to resign? I think youll find that no honourable Society would ever accept Applications to Join other than from the actual person making that Application, out of their own free will. I further think that no honourable Society would prevent Resignations. But thats the exact opposite of the Society in which we live, isnt it? The Statutes decided upon by Parliament (whether you vote or not!) are enforced upon you (even though you never made an Application to Join), and oblivious to the fact that there is no Orthodox Resignation Method (except, presumably, to become a drop-out Hippie!) This so-called Society in which we live, which doesnt even really have a distinct Name, operates in the most DIShonourable manner possible. It decides, of its own accord, to collect you as a Member, enforces its Legislation upon you whether you agree or not by means of threats, coercion, extortion and intimidation, and wont even allow you to resign! If thats honourable then to quote an American friend from Louisiana Im a blowed-out peckerwood! Yes, Statutes ARE Law IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. BUT THEY ARE NOT LAW, IF YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER. Thats where they sit, in Law.

Fundamentally, if course, its all about consent. If you decide to join a Society, then you must be consenting to its Rules. If you dont consent, then you dont join, do you? So this is how we derive the shortform definition: Statutes are Law BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. The governed being those who have consented to be governed. But (I scream!) not Law that can be honourably enforced those who have never been consulted, or have withheld consent! And it is a CRIMINAL ACT to apply or enforce as Law Rules ... on those who have not consented to abide by them, in the first place. This is not to suggest that we should all ignore all rules of decency, and run riot. Of course its not! Go back to The Common Law, and Common Sense. That caters for everything. Who wants trouble? Who wants aggravation? Who wants war? No-one ... except Politicians! I might even be prepared to sign up to a Society that was honourable. One that made sensible Rules in the form of Statutes. One that regarded my Indefeasible Human Rights as paramount. One that allowed me the free will to decide to join. One that allowed me to resign, if I found the Society intolerable at some future time. One that wasnt utterly corrupt. I might be prepared to join that kind of Society. And obey its Legislated Rules. But thats not the one I see today ... do you? Perhaps you can begin to understand why myself, and others, are engaged in what is called Lawful Rebellion? We simply wish to rid our current Society of corruption, and bring it back to the Rule of Law, to the best justice we can find, via The Common Law. But you cant make an omelette without breaking eggs. This means we have the break the current stranglehold of Statutes, and fight tooth and nail to utilise The Common Law, as much as possible. Fortunately we still retain vestiges of it, and that is where we can find all of our possible solutions.

Private Criminal Prosecutions

Chapter Version 1.1 [19MAR2013] In previous Chapters Ive tried to present an overview of the situation that leads to the need for Dedicated Non-Compliance with the current system, leading to the need for Lawful Rebellion against it. Looking back on what Ive said, I realise that I have done nothing more than literally scratch the surface. Nevertheless I think it is time to take a wholehearted plunge into solutions exposure as was originally promised, and I will seek to do just that, in this Chapter. However, just before that plunge, I do need to say at least one more thing. It may be obvious, but there are no Quick Fix solutions. I need to say that because far too many people just require a solution to one particular aspect (for example a Parking Ticket, Speeding Fine, or some such). They want to be able to dash off a letter, get rid of the inconvenience, and put no more effort into the situation than that. And it doesnt work that way. There are far too many

variables. And, furthermore, the System is so utterly and endemically corrupt, The Powers That Be dont even obey their own Rules! Thus absolutely nothing can be guaranteed. That is not to say that success is impossible. Far from it. But one has to know enough to be able to deal with most (if not all) possibilities of bounce-back from the System. If one is in that position, it is perfectly possible to succeed, often by creating sufficient entanglement, such that those who operate the System dont know whether they are coming or going. I, personally, have done this on many, many occasions, and Im nothing like the only one to have achieved this, I assure you! (Much of the success relies on the simplest and most obvious of questions, such as: Are you prepared to swear, on Oath, under penalty of perjury, that your demand is Lawful?. And its such FUN!) Fundamentally, it is all about Mindset. Your own Mindset, understanding that you are a Sovereign Entity, a Human Being, with a Spirit and a Soul, and not some ROBOT or SLAVE to be pushed around. It also takes an understanding their LIMITED, ROBOTIC, Mindset whereby the simplest of questions can (a) Almost always cut them down to size (because theyve NEVER engaged in any depth of thought), and (b) Cause them to display their limited acumen, gained simply from quoting irrelevances (again, due to the lack of depth of thought). It comes down to the constant realisation that THEY EXIST, IN THEIR JOBS, TO SERVE YOU, AS PUBLIC SERVANTS, AND NOT TO TRY TO MASTER YOU, AND TRY TO TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN AND CANT - DO. You are their MASTER or MISTRESS. They are the SERVANTS. When the Servant tells the Master what to do, the tail is wagging the dog. And, furthermore, there is an overall solution, certainly to the gravest of wrongs you may suffer. It is called a Private Criminal Prosecution. What does that mean? First of all, it is the prosecution of someone who is accused of committing a crime. Thats the ... Criminal Prosecution part. The Private part means that you initiate the prosecution yourself as opposed to complaining to the Police, in the (generally faint) hope that the Crown Prosecution Service will initiate the prosecution. Its one of the remaining vestiges of The Common Law. Your entitlement to accuse someone whom you feel has done you wrong, and to commit them to Trial by Jury. Obviously thats not something one does lightly. And, I can assure that there are sufficient traps to ensure that frivolous attempts will come to nothing. But if the wrong (known as a tort ... the root of the word torture, of course), if the tort is real, and you have sufficient evidence to back up your accusations, then you do have a good chance of succeeding. You must have sufficient evidence. This can be documents, recordings (audio and video), and any other forensic evidence, and any independent first-hand eye-witness accounts, to back up your accusations. And it can be done. And it is being done, even as this information is being written. It is, however very rare. Most people will complain to the Police, thinking thats their only route. Or they will try to use Solicitors. And, when they get nowhere, they dont realise they have the private, the D-I-Y, route. But the D-I-Y route is open to anyone and everyone and, in my view, should be used far more frequently.

There is insufficient space in this article to detail what one needs to do. I can do nothing but provide a basic overview here. There is a detailed description that can be found on the Internet by clicking here. Here is an overview: 1. You decide who to prosecute, and why. This must be based on sufficient evidence that would (hopefully) cause a Jury to find your Protagonist guilty as charged. I suggest that you should, as far as possible, stick to Common Law charges and the remainder of this overview assumes that. 2. You prepare the Charge Sheet (known as the Indictments) in accordance with the template that you will find through the URL link, above. 3. You prepare a couple of pages of background information for a Judge to read, such as to show that your accusations have some validity and basis. 4. You can either make an appointment with a Magistrates Court, or just walk in on the off-chance. The objective to gain a private Hearing with a Judge in order to discuss your Indictments. The fundamental objective being to convince the Judge that your accusations are real, and to get him or her to sign your Indictments. The Judge may refuse. In this case you try somewhere else. You can try any Magistrates Court in the UK, until you succeed to get the signature you require. 5. Once you have that signature, your Private Prosecution is up and running. There will be a Hearing in the same (usually) Magistrates Court, in order to commit the Accused to Crown Court, and to decide on whether they are granted bail, or to be held in prison on remand. (Since the prisons are nowadays bursting at the seams, the Accused is likely to be granted bail. In point of fact, things are so bad, that bail is nowadays granted for the accusation of murder). 6. There will be a preliminary (Pleas and Case Management) Hearing in a Crown Court. At this point there will be no Jury. The Accused will have to attend, and will be in the Dock. They will invariably have a Barrister defending them. The Barrister will argue to have the case dismissed. The Judge will decide, based on a preliminary examination of your evidence, whether or not there is, indeed, a case to answer, whether or not your evidence is sufficient, and whether the quality of it is suitable for a Jury to hear. 7. If the Judge fails to be convinced in any of the above aspects, the case is likely to be dismissed. At that point you will have succeeded in giving the Accused the nastiest shock of their lives, but that will be as far as it goes. 8. If the Judge decides that a Jury Trial is warranted, then there will be that Trial at a future date. You will be the Prosecutor. You will need to have your case prepared. You will be the one asking all those awkward questions to the Accused when they take the Witness Stand. You may (at any time in this entire process) hand the reins over to a Barrister, but be careful only you know

what tort you have suffered. Make sure that the Barrister realises that if he puts foot wrong youll sack him, instantly! 9. The only flaw, in this method, is the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service may intervene, and take over the prosecution at any time. In cases where they have previously decided not to prosecute, they are likely to ignore all your evidence, and say they are offering no evidence thereby shutting your case down. This kind of act, on the part of the CPS, is currently (at the time of writing) under Judicial Review in the High Court.

Star Chambers & Re-Presentations

Chapter Version 1.1 [21MAR2013] In a previous Chapter I said that you can't play Chess without understanding the layout of the board, and the attributes of each Chess Piece. (I could have added that you also need to understand the ultimate objective of all of your Chess Moves, of course). The 'layout of the board' This is really the same thing as saying "What does the board consist of?" or, in the context of what we call 'Courts', "What do the Courts consist of?". And the answer has - to some extent - already been give in a previous Chapter i.e. in a Common Law Court, with a Petty Jury of 12 people, you have a Court of Law. For this reason Common Law Courts i.e. Courts of Law, can often be known as Courts de jure (Courts of Justice). Other 'Courts' - which deal with "Legislation", as opposed to "Law" (again, previously explained), are not dealing in "Law", so they can't accurately be called 'Courts of Law', can they? Even though they are called 'Courts of Law' in general parlance - but that is purely by deceptive consensus. What they actually are, is better described as 'Star Chambers'. Places ('rooms') where, historically, tyranny reined full swing. Causing such abominations to be banned. You can fully read up on Star Chambers by clicking here. (Please note that Wikipedia just parrots a 'normal objectively-written' description and definition. If the Writers of that article had ever been taken to, and 'processed' in, a real, historic, Star Chamber, it is possible that their description would have been 'slightly less objective', and considerably more 'subjective'). Nevertheless that article does point out that Star Chambers were banned, henceforth, in 1641.

So, there must have been something seriously wrong with them, I suggest. What was wrong was, of course, the construction of them i.e. those who ran them, and the way they were run. Which was a recipe for tyranny. Now where did I read the phrase 'recipe for tyranny'? Yes ... it was in a previous Chapter! Magistrates Courts and County Courts are simply Star Chambers under different names. Which is the usual trick. Ban something, and then just slowly feed it back into the system, under a different name - and NO-ONE NOTICES! In a similar manner to Courts of Law being known as Courts de jure, these erstwhile Star Chambers as often described as Courts de facto (Courts 'of fact'. Courts that just 'exist' without rhyme or reason. A 'de facto standard', is a standard that just simply exists, as an accepted fact of life). The 'attributes of each Chess Piece' Judges, Lawyers, Barristers, Solicitors, Magistrates, Clerks are 'Officers of the Court', by definition. Now, it may be reasonably assumed that their PRIMARY PRIORITY is 'to apply Justice'. But, unfortunately, it isn't! Their PRIMARY PRIORITY is 'to the Court' (whatever that may mean!) Their SECONDARY PRIORITY is 'to the General Public (again, whatever that may mean!) In the case of Barrister and Solicitors, their THIRD PRIORITY is 'to the Client' (you know the one pays their wages?) And, because their FIRST PRIORITY is 'to the Court aka Star Chamber', if the Star Chamber says "Jump!", they will respond "How high?". They will not respond "It's not in my Client's best interests for me to jump". I hope, by those examples, the situation is being made clear? But, there's more. What, exactly, is the status of 'the Client', anyway? And the answer to that is "A Ward of the Court aka Star Chamber". A 'ward', whose GUARDIAN is the Barrister or Solicitor. Children are made 'wards'. And adults are made 'guardians' of those children. When you go into a Star Chamber, represented ('re-presented to the Star Chamber in a different way') by a Barrister or Solicitor, you are being re-presented as a child - no matter what your age, in years, may be. You are being re-presented as a child who 'doesn't understand what's going on around them, and requiring an adult guardian, in the form of the Barrister or Solicitor, to protect them, and interpret things for them'. In other words you are being re-presented as 'an imbecilic child!' The 'Chess Moves'

When you are re-presented by a Barrister or Solicitor, they are responsible for the 'Chess Moves'. And, remember their priorities, that will determine their 'moves' - 'duty to the Star Chamber', 'duty to the General Public' ... finally 'duty to you as their Client'. But, of course, their overriding duty, will be to themselves - to make as much money, as possible, for themselves, from what transpires. The solution is simple. Represent yourself. As a Litigant-in-Person, whose sole duty is to themselves. And learn how to do that, by understanding the Chess Board.

But ... how?

Chapter Version 1.2 [24MAR2013] In a previous Chapters I've said that the solution was to represent yourself, thereby 'saving yourself', and not to expect someone else to do it for you. Which, of course, is all very well to say - but what does that mean, in practice? It means: TAKE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR GRANTED. ALWAYS QUESTION EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING WRITTEN, EVERYTHING SAID. ALWAYS ask: "Why?" ... "What gives you the right to demand that?" ... and the best one of all: "Do we have a lawfully binding Contract? Such that I have agreed an OBLIGATION TO ACCEED to your demands? Would you please show me your copy?" ... followed by: "Am I your SLAVE, then? When and how did that happen? Please be specific, you see, to the best of my recollection YOU are a PUBLIC SERVANT, and I - as a Member of the Public - am therefore your MASTER/MISTRESS. This would make you MY SERVANT, would it not? If the MASTER takes orders from the SERVANT, the tail is wagging the dog". It means NEVER LOSING SIGHT of the fact that you are EQUAL TO THEM IN ALL RESPECTS, AS HUMAN BEINGS (and in Law, of course, "Everyone is equal, under the Law"). Its very, very, simple. As Human Beings, they are your EQUAL.

But they choose, within their professions, to 'take on a Role' (just as if they are acting in a play). That Role grants them some 'authority to act on behalf of everyone' ... BUT THE ROLE ALWAYS COMES WITH SERIOUS LIMITATIONS! This is recognised by what they are, generally, called i.e. Public Servants. For example, acting Policemen are referred to as "Serving Officers". "Servant", "serving" ... it's all the same thing. It's THE MOST IMPORTANT WORD in the description, BUT IT'S ALWAYS GLOSSED OVER, AND IGNORED. Well, STOP IGNORING IT! Stop ignoring that word. Use it. Use it as frequently as you can. In their 'Social Time' i.e. when 'off duty', they are your EQUALS as Human Beings. In their 'Duty Time' i.e. while 'on duty', ''acting their Roles', they are BELOW YOU, they are YOUR SERVANTS. It is crucial to get your Mindset straight in that respect. Your Mindset doesn't need to change. Their Mindset needs to change between 'Social Time' and 'Duty Time'. But, that's the profession they chose for themselves. If they wish to 'grab a bit of authority', then that's downside of their 'authority grab'. In order to 'grab that authority', they ALL have to take some form of Oath of Service (Note: That word "service" creeps in, yet again!) Obviously, having taken that Oath (which is supposed to be ingrained into their Souls), they then immediately forget all about it, in their desperate grab for power (aka 'to be able to fling their weight about'). They won't like being reminded, so it's best to remind them as politely as you can. Another trick, discovered by a friend of mine, when being interviewed by a Policeman, was to ask - RIGHT AT THE START, BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE IS SAID: "Do you know about Magna Carta 45?". (He's had some wonderful replies, for example: "Is that a ship?"). Here is the Magna Carta 1215, Article 45: "We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well". And, when they say, "I'd not heard of that", you can say "Well, if you didn't even know there was a Law that said you must know the Law, we don't even have a starting point for any conversation, do we?" One final point, in relation to Police. If they arrest you, for any reason (trumped up?), they will tell you to 'make a Statement'. YOU DO NOT NEED TO MAKE A STATEMENT. YOU DO NOT NEED TO SAY ANYTHING AT ALL. In point of fact, they will even tell you that, when they say: "You are not obliged to say anything ... but ... etc".

But they will insist. So, remembering who you are, what you are, what they are, etc., the conversation should go something like: "Have you arrested me?" ... the answer will be "Yes". "Have you cautioned me?" ... the answer will be "Yes". "Have you charged me?" ... the answer will be "Yes" or "Not at the moment". However, whatever they say, your answer should be "Well, you've done all you can. That's your job. It's NOT your job to interview me in a Pre-Trial-Trial. I'll say anything I need to say to the Jury. Now, since you've completed your job, am I free to go, or are you detaining me? And, if so, for what reason?". ANYTHING they say from then onwards should responded with: "No comment". The reason for this is simple. WHATEVER YOU SAY, in any Statement you may make, WILL BE TWISTED to CONDEMN YOU. You will 'hang yourself' at this stage. They are past masters at twisting your words. The most fatal mistake everyone makes is to know that they are innocent, and to believe that - if they can get enough points across - to the Policeman - then that can sort the matter out. That attitude is a FATAL MISTAKE. Do not sign anything. Do not even give them your signature. PRINT "PEACEFUL INHABITANT" on what they are offering you to sign, otherwise just stick (like glue) to: "I'm not signing anything". ["In that case we'll have to put you back in the cell, until you change your mind" "OK, do that then. I'll just be taking up one of your cells, how many have you got, such that you can afford to waste your spaces?" Give them 10 minutes and they'll kick you out. You called their bluff, and they will know it. Demand your personal effects back, without giving them your signature. Say: "You took them without my signature, you can give them back without my signature"] YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. That applies to ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. Even to the completion of Official Forms you may receive, from time to time. Send the form back, and say you have THE INDEFEASIBLE, NATURAL, HUMAN RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. PRINT "PEACEFUL INHABITANT" as the 'signature on the letter'. DO NOT MAKE ANY KIND OF WET-INK SIGNATURE! Given them ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, BUT SILENCE! Let them 'assume' what they like. 'Assumptions' are not FACTS. Always push everything towards a Jury Trial, on the basis that you will be quite happy to explain anything and everything to a Jury of your Peers. A Jury, sitting in a Jury Box is - in point of fact - engaging in the Role play of 'Juror'. BUT THEY WON'T KNOW THAT. They will see themselves, like yourself, as just another Human Being.

Carrots and Sticks

Chapter Version 1.1 [24MAR2013] In previous Chapters I've said that the Magna Carta 1215 was the Treaty that founded the British Constitution, according to Halsbury's Laws of England, reference: STATUTES (VOLUME 44(1) (REISSUE))/1. NATURE OF PRIMARY LEGISLATION/(2) DEFINITION AND CLASSIFICATION/(iii) Particular Types of Act/A. CONSTITUTIONAL, TREATY AND FINANCIAL ACTS/1221. Constitutional Acts. (Bear in mind that, here yet again, we have this curious and constant Double-Think, by mixing "Statutes/Non-Law" with The Common Law). However, even under the Halsbury's Double-think, the source of the British Constitution is agreed to be the Magna Carta 1215. (Notice: Halsbury's makes no reference whatsoever to any other 'Magna Cartas', such as the 1225 and 1297 attempts at 'variance'). Under the Magna Carta 1215, and thus the British Constitution, one always has the Indefeasible Right to be tried by "A Jury of one's Equals" - historically being accepted as "12 other impartial Human Beings". Which is all well and good but, because the Establishment is terrified of Juries (due to the power of a Jury to overturn ANY provision of ANY Statute), they will fight tooth and nail to prevent cases being heard by a Jury. Or, to put it another way, they will do their level best to ensure that 'plebs' DON'T REALISE their Right to a Jury Trial. They will certainly never offer one of their own accord (unless THEY decide to), and will do their level best to "blank" those who simply "demand" one as their Right in Law. What they (fundamentally) do is run a system to their own convenience. They will instigate a Jury Trial when they think it is safe to do so (i.e. when no Statutory Provision is at risk). They will publish the mechanism they use (they have to, in order to maintain what they consider to be 'integrity'), but that publication will be so disguised and embedded, such that the average 'pleb' has no idea where to find it. Only the 'initiates' (into their Legal World) are told where to find this information. 'Skulduggery' is the only word that can be used to describe the situation. However, the 'cat is out of the bag'. The mechanism is to take a prosecution case, in the form of Indictments, to a Magistrates Court aka Star Chamber, and to obtain a Signature of a Magistrate, Judge or Clerk. (Cases created by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) are generally waved through this process, by means of rubber-stamping). The Magistrates Court, being a Star Chamber, has no Common Law jurisdiction to actually 'hear' the case, but it does form the (current) mechanism to 'move the prosecution into the Common Law jurisdiction', which is the same thing as saying 'Commit the case to a Crown Court - which DOES have Common Law jurisdiction'. BUT - THEY DON'T LIKE DOING THAT (unless, the CPS is actually requesting it).

They certainly don't like admitting that they actually have no authority to try anyone, or to 'hear' any case - WITHOU T THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED INDIVIDUAL. So a deception was necessary. A carrot and a stick. The 'carrot' was (and still is): If the Magistrates are ALLOWED to decide the outcome, their powers to sentence WHEN (not 'IF', but WHEN) they find the Accused guilty, are severely limited - as compared to a sentence that could be received from a Crown Court Trial - for the exact same offence, and a guilty Verdict. The next 'phase' of that carrot/stick was that many individuals - especially if they knew they were guilty - would opt for the lighter sentencing powers of Magistrates, because the choice could easily have been between a 9-month jail sentence (from Magistrates), and a 4-year jail sentence from Crown Court (for the same offence and circumstances). So, eventually, they stopped bothering to offer the option. And, instead, Magistrates feel that they are entitled to assume that anyone, accused of anything, can be found guilty by them (no matter what the Accused may say). They utilise the charade of offering the Accused a plea, by saying: "How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?". As soon as a plea is made, it is the same thing as saying "I accept your carrot, because I am allowing you to decide my fate, to be beaten by your stick, as opposed to a bigger stick wielded by a Crown Court Judge". And, furthermore, they won't actually let on that 'making a plea' is nothing more than an 'offer'. They will actually insist that a plea is made. EVEN IF REFUSED, they will then say "In that case we will enter a plea of Not Guilty on your behalf"! I hope the last paragraph has given the Reader a flavour of how 'hog-tied' one is in such a Star Chamber? But, there are ways out. If YOU are innocent, and sufficiently knowledgeable and persistent. (Obviously, if you are guilty, it is best to accept the carrot). However, if one is innocent the chances of being found anything other than guilty, in a Star Chamber, are pretty remote. Certainly compared with one's chances of convincing a Jury of one's innocence. But how does one stop becoming 'hog-tied' in the Star Chamber? Well, the first thing is NOT to make a plea but, instead, to say: "There is no case to answer. If you think that there is, then I require an Old-Style Verbal committal to Crown Court". Eyebrows will raise, you'll quite possibly here grunting and gurgling sounds from the animals sitting behind the Bench. And, the Clerk of the Court may very well say: "In that case we will enter a plea on your behalf" in other words, will completely ignore you, and carry on with the hog-tying mechanism. The response to this is: "I do not recall giving you Power of Attorney. Please show me the document, signed by my hand, which transfers Power of Attorney to you. If you can't do that, then YOU must be accepting ALL LIABILITY for any plea you enter. Now, I repeat, there is

no case to answer. So, do we proceed with an Old-Style Verbal Committal procedure, or do we all just go home, having wasted everyone's time? ". You have (a) Not accepted their authority to make a 'finding' against you, because you have not entered a plea, and (b) Only left them with the option of deciding whether or not to commit you to Crown Court (and off their 'plate'). If they refuse to go though the Committal Procedure, then they are completely empty-handed, and would, therefore, only have the option to dismiss the case. BUT: THEY KNOW IT WOULD LOOK BAD FOR THEM, IF THEY COMMITTED YOU TO CROWN COURT FRIVOULOUSLY. (Crown Court time, and procedures, are 'expensive' - and they know that). Consequently, while they would like to get you 'off their plate' that way, THEY REALISE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO DO THAT 'LIGHTLY'. Consequently, you have - to some extent - now hog-tied THEM! And they will HATE it! Because they know that computer-generated so-called evidence that THEY would accept, would NOT be acceptable in a Crown Court! So now what are their options? The answer is: To retire and make a decision, and to return and GRUDGLINGLY dismiss the case, if (for example) the only so-called 'evidence' has been presented by a Local Council Prosecutor, standing there and reading from computer printouts. Or, as another example, a CPS Prosecutor (acting on behalf of the Police) reading from a crib-sheet. If they commit a case to Crown Court on the basis of that kind of evidence, a Judge would throw the case out at the first step. They may argue (or the Clerk of the Court may argue). All arguments can be batted for six by: "Halsbury's Laws of England states clearly and unequivocally that the Magna Carta 1215 Treaty was the founding document of the British Constitution. In that document it says very clearly that any subsequent attempt to supersede it, is null & void. Article 39 states that I ALWAYS have the Right to a Trial by Jury. To attempt to deny me that Right is, therefore, an attempt to subvert the British Constitution, which is defined elsewhere - actually R. v Thistlewood (1820) - as Treason. And, by the by, Article 45 says 'We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well', and I suggest that applies to yourselves. The law of the realm can only be the Common Law, because there was no Parliament, and therefore no Statutes, in the year 1215". DO NOT - UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES - READ THAT (or anything else) FROM A CRIB SHEET. That will be taken to assume that you don't really know what you are doing. LEARN IT BY HEART.

ENGRAVE IT INTO YOUR SOUL. THINK ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS. That's how you learn to save yourself, without relying on anyone else.

Use of force
Chapter Version 1.1 [28MAR2013] In this Chapter I want to concentrate on the evictions of Homeowners from their dwellings by Bailiffs. Now, most people will just give up the ghost, on the assumption that the game is al over for them, and 'go quietly'. But there are some who know more than that. There are some who know that the Bank/Building Society never lent them anything in the first place, and have no lawful Right to the dwelling. And these people are increasing in number, and standing up for their Rights. In these case, even if the Bailiffs eventually (after an argument) manage to barge their way in, and 'secure' the dwelling, these Homeowners break back in, and set up home again. This is getting more common. The usual result is the return of even 'heavier' (aka 'thuggier') Bailiffs, who barge their way in again. And this tends to go round and round - 'get back in' 'get slung out' 'get back in', etc. But the only way these Homeowners are removed from the premises is by the use of 'force'. So this entitlement to use 'force' was investigated. Here is the list of 'players', in the scenario of such an eviction, based on a Mortgage Repossession Eviction: 1. Those inside the house (i.e. the Homeowner, etc), being evicted, but not wishing to be. 2. The (possibly external) supporters of those inside the house, attempting to prevent eviction. 3. The Judge, sitting in the Star Chamber, who signed the 'Eviction Warrant'. 4. The Bailiffs attempting the eviction, based on a Star Chamber 'Warrant'. 5. The Locksmith engaged by the Bailiffs. 6. The Police standing by. 7. The Bank or Building Society's Agent (usually the representative of the firm of Solicitors, engaged by the Bank/Building Society), usually standing by with a clipboard. Who, in that scenario above, is entitled to authorise 'necessary force' (which could include breaking a window, or overpowering someone, etc)? Is it (1) or (2)? Well, you would think not, wouldn't you?

Is it (3), the Judge who signed the 'Eviction Warrant', or does the authority for the use of 'necessary force' come from the Star Chamber? Actually "No". Such 'Warrants' just say "Remove all occupants". But they don't say 'How'. Is it (4), the Bailiffs themselves? The (perhaps surprising) answer is "No". Unless instructed to do so, Bailiffs are NOT allowed to use 'force' - and that is stated very clearly in their Handbook. So it can't be (5) either, the Locksmith. Well, it must be (6), then, the Police? No, actually not. According to their Oaths of Office they are (theoretically) there to 'stop the use of force' - 'force' which would constitute a Breach of the Peace. So, it is (7), the Agent with the clipboard? Yes, that's the correct answer. The little weed, from and Estate Agent's or Solicitor's Office, is the one entitled to instruct the Bailiffs (who, in turn can instruct the Police), to use 'necessary force'. So, how is it that some weedy little 'suit' has the power to authorise 'necessary force' against a Homeowner? At the time of writing we are not, entirely, sure. We are not sure where some 'entitlement to use force against someone else' comes from. (Bearing in mind we are all supposed to be equal under the Law, and that the British Constitution declares that it takes a Jury of 12 to authorise such a thing). But - there is one other possibility: Namely, the Homeowner him- or her- self. Obviously one is entitled to authorise 'necessary force' against oneself. And the weedy little 'suit', the Agent, is simply relaying instructions originally issued by the Homeowner that is being evicted. So, if that's correct, then the question is, when & how does the Homeowner authorise the use of 'force' against themselves? And the answer is (possibly): When they signed the Title Deed in the first place, and didn't understand the ramifications of the Terms & Conditions to which they signed. As I said, at this time we are not sure. But that seems to be the only reasonable explanation. We do know, for sure, that the 'immediate' answer to the original question was No. (7). We know that there is a 'special form', known as EX96, which must be signed by a Bank/Building Society Representative, before 'force' can be used. (And, once again, this is in the Bailiff's Handbook). But our logic and rationale (if correct) would mean that the true (i.e. 'ultimate') answer is (1), in other words a Homeowner actually authorises force against him- or her- self. And that, by doing so, the Homeowner waives their Indefeasible, Natural, Right to Self-defence. However, you will note, that the Star Chamber completely exonerates itself, by issuing the Eviction Warrant - BUT NOT SPECIFYING ANY USE OF FORCE.

Civil Procedures

Chapter Version 1.1 [30MAR2013] To understand Civil Procedures, one has to start with a bit of history. In 1215 the Magna Carta was signed by King John. He didn't want to do it, but (at the time, and in the circumstances) he didn't have much choice. It formed a Treaty between The People and the Monarchs which - fundamentally - took the "Law" out of the hands of the English Monarchs and placed it firmly in the hands of the Common People - via Juries. The Juries were to use their Common Sense to decide on innocence or guilt, based on what 'they thought were the rights and wrongs of a situation'. It nullified the idea of "The Divine Right of Kings". (There were actually two kinds of Jury - the Grand Jury and the Petty Jury. The Grand Jury would decide who to Indict to Trial, and the Petty Jury or 12 would decide guilt/innocence at the Trial). Thus a method of catering for Criminal situations (i.e. where another Human Being is a victim), and applying Justice accordingly, was written down to form the foundation of the British Constitution. Now, this mechanism could also cover Civil situations. Because, when all is said and done, a Jury is capable of deciding 'right from wrong', even in the case of mere 'disputes' (i.e. "I say this you say that etc and you've gone too far this time, Sir Percy ."). And some form of compromise was very necessary because, historically, 'disputes were often settled by swords' - which could be considered to be Criminal Acts. And, it was decided that there may be a better way of settling disputes. Thus, there sprung up, all over the country, people who said they would be prepared to ARBITRATE disputes. For a fee. And they did. It became a 'Privately owned and run business', for some people. The problem was, of course, the things we call 'backhanders'. Which led to all kinds of ludicrous arbitrations. This led to the rage of the Northern Barons (especially over 'taxation'), who marched down south, and pinned John down, in Windsor Castle. And forced him to negotiate a once-and-for-all Treaty at Runnymede, in June 1215. But the fundamental idea of ARBITRATION was still possible, whether Jury did it, or whether an individual did it (assuming the individual did it honestly and impartially). Because there is nothing to stop 2 Parties in dispute, going to an impartial 3rd Party, and asking them to arbitrate. If that was the free will choice of both. It is nothing more than an extension of a natural social situation, where two friends ask a third friend for their point of view. Of course (and obviously), they would both need to: Trust the Arbitrator, and Consent to the Arbitration, and

Agree (beforehand) to abide by the Arbitration. Now, today, the same situation actually exists. Criminal matters are heard by Petty Juries, and Civil matters are heard by Arbitrators in Civil Courts aka Star Chambers. But there are a few serious dissimilarities in the way it is implemented today. These are what turns a Civil Court into a Star Chamber. It's the exact same situation as above, but: At least one Party (usually YOU) won't know the Arbitrator, and therefore will have no idea whether or not he or she can be trusted, and You are deceived into thinking you don't have to consent, so they have to collect your consent by devious means (primarily by assuming that- if you participate without objection - then your consent can be assumed), and They don't establish, beforehand, whether or not you are prepared to abide by the Arbitration, in fact they flex muscles (brainwashed) in order to enforce the Arbitration upon you. BUT, if you look at the Civil Procedure Rules, in fact the very first one, it's sort-of there, in black & white (my highlighting): Rule 1.1 The overriding objective (1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly. (2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing; and so on. And then you also look at the Oath of Office taken by all of today's Arbitrators (i.e. Judges & Magistrates) (my underlining): 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. " Couldn't ask for more than that, could we? But, we don't get that, do we? We might get something along those lines if Party 1 is a Human Being, and Party 2 is a Human Being. But that is very, very, rare! Usually it is Party 1 is a Human Being, and Party 2 is a CORPORATION (i.e. a 'group').

And, very often a possible (ultimate) penalty is 'a term of imprisonment' or an 'eviction into homelessness'. So, in that case, since one of the Parties can be jailed, or rendered homeless, but the other one can't, how can CPR 1.1 2(a), i.e. "parties on an equal footing"- ever be possible? It can't. So, isn't it about time we stood up for Human Beings, and pointed this out? I don't know anyone who has. How would we point this out? Well, here's what I would do. 1. At the outset I would ask the Judge if the proceedings will run under the Civil Procedure Rules. He or she would obviously answer: "Yes". 2. I would then ask the Judge if he or she was going to act impartially in accordance with their Oath of Office. They would probably get the wind up at that question, but they would have to seriously prevaricate, or answer "Yes". They may say: "I don't have to answer that", I would say: "As a Public Servant, you do, because - as a Member of the Public - and I'm requesting it. You can consider it a Freedom of Information request if you wish". 3. Daggers would be looked my way, but I wouldn't care. If the Judge says nothing (which is likely), then I'm entitled to assume the lack of objection constitutes a "Yes". Upon the response "Yes", or lack of objection (after, perhaps, some prompting), I would say: "I hear your Oath, and I acknowledge your Oath, and I accept your Oath, and now we have a binding Contract. What penalties are you able to impose against me, if you find against me?". 4. The judge will tell me. If a term of imprisonment is a possible penalty (which is highly likely), then I would say: "As a Human Being, quite obviously I could be imprisoned. However the other Party is a grouping, under a Legal Name, and thus impossible to imprison - should you find in my favour. Would you please look up CPR Rule 1.1, and explain how - in those circumstances myself and the other Party could possibly be 'on an equal footing' at the very outset?" Please Note: 'An eviction" would also fall into this category i.e. I could be evicted, but the Bank/Building Society could NOT be rendered 'homeless'. 5. I'm positive that this would cause a great kerfuffle. Very simply because, if there is any prevarication at all, it would give me the chance to say: "You are giving me reasons to think I can't trust you, even though we have established a lawfully-binding Contract. So I suggest you consider recusing yourself. The only other possibilities - I suggest - are to dismiss this case as 'impossible to place on an equal footing at the outset' OR to agree that only penalties that could be applied against the other Party are penalties that could be applied

against me. You do, after all, have discretion in that respect". 6. I firmly believe this would severely limit their claws. 7. I would also ask: "Does your Arbitration include looking at flaws in the procedures, and dismissing - where necessary - in accordance with Case Law, or do you plan to overlook those aspects?". He or she would have to agree not to overlook such aspects, otherwise it would give me the chance to say: "I don't believe I can trust your judgement, and I suggest you recuse yourself immediately". (I'd hopefully be looking around for nods of agreement from supporters in the Public Gallery. I'd possibly be pointing out that they are capable of writing sworn Affidavits of what has happened so far). 8. I would then ask: "Does your arbitration require the use of valid first-hand evidence in order to come to a finding? Or are you prepared to accept hearsay in the form of computer printouts, etc?". The Judge would say: "I will accept the prosecution's evidence". So I would say: "The prosecution? That's interesting! I understand them to simply be the 'other Party' in this matter. Will you insist that THE OTHER PARTY'S evidence is to Criminal Standards, in other words 'first-hand only', no hearsay, sworn under Oath and penalty of Perjury?". The Judge will say: "I do not need to apply that standard". So it's: "I can't trust you and your method of arbitration, you need to recuse yourself immediately, or face arrest for unlawfully administering your Oath contrary to Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835". If, on the other hand, the Judge agrees to assess to 'criminal standards', I would then say: "Which means that 'I believes' and 'I thinks', and so on, are to be rejected as evidence. That only 'I know, because I have seen or heard directly with my own eyes and/or ears' is acceptable as evidence. It means that, doesn't it? So every statement they make against me will be thoroughly scrutinised, to ensure that there is cast-iron proof of each claim, won't there? That is, after all, 'to criminal standards', is it not?" 9. At this point the likelihood is the Judge will be so pissed off, they would turn to (what they call) 'the prosecution', and ask them to start with their blurb. This would constitute "unlawfully administering their Oath". As soon as they did that, I would cut in and say: "Right, you are under Citizen's Arrest for unlawfully administering your Oath of Office. Stay where you are. We had an agreed and lawfully-binding Contract, witnessed by everyone in this room, and you just breached it. If you check any copy of Archbold you will see that THE VERY FACT YOU ARE SITTING - is prima facie evidence. Would someone call the Police immediately, please? Such that this individual can be transferred into their safe custody". 10. When the Police arrived I would tell then to arrest the Judge for "Unlawfully administering his or her Oath contrary to Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Acts 1835, and that ,I and those in the Public Gallery, will be happy to accompany them to the Police Station, or make their own way there, in order to swear out Affidavits to support the Charge". This is a link to a template of the Indictment. I would have a copy of this printed out, in readiness to be filled in.

Common Law fully explained

Chapter Version 1.1 [03APR2013] Let's go to a Law Dictionary, and look up a definition for The Common Law. It really doesn't matter which one, because they all say pretty much the same thing, such as: "That part of the law of England formulated, developed and administered by the old common law courts based originally on the common customs of the country, and unwritten. It is opposed to equity (the body of rules administered by the Court of Chancery); to statute law (the law laid down by Acts of Parliament); to special law (the law administered by special courts such as ecclesiastical law and the law merchant); and the civil law (the law of Rome). It is 'the commonsense of the community, crystalised and formulated by our forefathers'. It is not local law, nor the result of legislation". So, read that again ... and again ... until it sinks in. The important bits are (a) What The Common Law is NOT, and (b) That is it UNWRITTEN (because it's in our Common Sense), and that (c) It is 'the commonsense of the community, crystalised and formulated by our forefathers', and we are as capable of continuing that tradition as were our forefathers. Because they had Common Sense, and we have Common Sense. Assuming, of course, that we stick to the same ideas as they did! . Now let's look at what someone else says. From Kenn d'Oudney at Democracy Defined: People who want to restore the genuine ways of true justice must first learn the straightforward FACTs about what Common Law is, and then they will be able to recognise for themselves the modern mendacious ruse that deliberately mis-educates people into the despicable deceit that "the rulings of judges are 'Common Law'." Not so, indeed! Jurors must be randomly selected from the adult population local to the alleged crime; and then vetted (by plaintiff, defendant and decided by fellow jurors) to exclude partial individuals. "Volunteer jurors" are generally not disinterested, and are utterly excluded by Common Law. Such "volunteers" are comparable to a lynch-mob. (See full explanations in TRIAL BY JURY ISBN 9781902848723) REAL COMMON LAW... AND THE MALIGNANT RUSE. The genuine common law must be differentiated from that which modern government has corrupted by legislation; a counterfeit which is "common law" in name only. Common Law does not include any statutes made by government or decisions made by judges. Common Law is emphatically neither "government-made" nor "judge-made." Quite the contrary: it is exclusively the product of the sense of fairness, natural law and justice of the ordinary people. Modern usurpation notwithstanding, Common Law does not consist of case precedents (stare decisis), for juries decide the law, which includes the sentence, in each individual case. Nor is it comprised of judicial rulings, decisions or interpretations of statutes.

Common Law does not ever or in any way come from government judges. Indeed, Common Law is the antithesis (the opposite) of judge-made law [Veronica's Note: I would say: 'judge-made decisions'. Having declared it as the antithesis of Law, I wouldn't give it even the 'oxygen' of calling it 'judge-made law'], and it is supposed to free all the people equally from the shackles of arbitrary government and their bidden employees. Common Law is the law of all the people: it forms the Supreme Law which binds government and legally controls the personnel of governments modus operandi. In recognition of this latter fact, the Common Law Trial by Jury is inserted into the Constitution as the sole justice system for all crimes (infractions of laws and regulations), civil, criminal and fiscal. REFERENCES CONFIRMING WHAT COMMON LAW IS. Here are some references confirming the common law is legem terr and vice versa. Sir Matthew Hale: "The common law is sometimes called, by way of eminence, lex terr, as in the statute of Magna Carta, chap. 29, where certainly the common law is principally intended by those words, aut per legem terr; as appears by the exposition thereof in several subsequent statutes; and particularly in the statute of 28 Edward III, chap. 3, which is but an exposition and explanation of that statute. Sometimes it is called lex Angli, as in the statute of Merton, cap. 9, Nolumus leges Angli mutari,' etc. (We will that the laws of England be not changed.) Sometimes it is called lex et consuetudo regni (the law and custom of the kingdom); as in all commissions of oyer and terminer; and in the statutes of 18 Edward I, and de quo warranto, and divers others. But most commonly it is called the Common Law, or the Common Law of England; as in the statute Articuli super Chartas, chap. 15, in the statute 25 Edward III, chap. 5 (4) and infinite more records and statutes." (Hales History of the Common Law, p. 128) [Veronicas Note: Sir Matthew Hale didnt know what the Common Law ACTUALLY WAS he only knew what it had been called within Statutes! Quoting from Statutes, as Hale did, is total DOUBLE-THINK. It was after reading Hales shit, that John Harris originally threw up his arms in despair (I seem to recall)! Actually, theres a certain amount of DOUBLE-THINK going on in all of these quotes ... including those below they are generally making no distinction between the Magna Carta TREATY 1215, and the subsequent Magna Carta STATUTE 1297. The 1215 TREATY explicitly makes the 1297 STATUTE completely irrelevant] Crabbe: "It is admitted, on all hands, that it (Magna Carta) contains nothing but what was confirmatory of the common law, and the ancient usages of the realm, and is, properly speaking, only an enlargement of the charter of Henry I, and his successors." (Crabbes History of the English Law, p. 127) Blackstone: "It is agreed by all our historians that the Great Charter of King John was, for the most part, compiled from the ancient customs of the realm, or the laws of Edward the Confessor; by which they mean the old common law, which was established under our Saxon princes." (Blackstones Introduction to the (Great) Charters; Blackstones Law Tracts, p. 289)

Coke (a High Court judge): "The common law is the most general and ancient law of the realm. The common law appeareth in the statute of Magna Carta, and other ancient statutes (which for the most part are affirmations of the common law) in the original writs, in judicial records, and in our books of terms and years." (Cokes Institutes, p. 115) Coke: "It (Magna Carta) was for the most part declaratory of the principal grounds of the fundamental laws of England. They (Magna Carta and Carta de Foresta) were, for the most part, but declarations of the ancient common laws of England, to the observation and keeping whereof the king (the government) was bound and sworn." (Preface to Cokes Institutes, p. 3) Nota Bene: To judge the law, i.e., its fairness, validity, applicability, and legal meaning (interpretation), the Jurors are the sole legal judges prescribed by constitution and Common Law. For example, see the following from Gilbert: "This position" (that the matter of law was decided by the justices [judges], but the matter of fact by the pares [peers, i.e., jurors]) "is wholly incompatible with the common law, for the Jurata [jury] were the sole judges both of the law and the fact." (Gilberts History of the Common Pleas, note, p. 70) And "The Annotist says, that this [i.e., whether jurors reflect upon the question of law] is indeed a maxim in the Civil-Law Jurisprudence, but it does not bind an English jury, for by the common law of the land the jury are judges as well as the matter of law, as of the fact, with this difference only, that the judge on the bench is to give them no assistance in determining the matter of fact, but if they have any doubt among themselves relating to matter of law, they may then request him to explain it to them, which when he hath done, and they are thus become well informed, they, and they only, become competent judges of the matter of law. And this is the province of the judge on the bench, namely, to show, or teach the law, but not to take upon him the trial of the delinquent, either in matter of fact or in matter of law." (Gilberts History of the Common Pleas, p. 57) Having established what Common Law is, one must note the extent to which the term "Common Law" has been abused. It is an opprobrium to misinform people that "Common Law" is a product of judges, stare decisis, and government courts. Worse though: it is utterly wrong to allow government to rob the people of their true Common Law and its power of emancipation. It is unconstitutional to amend in effect The Constitutions installation of the Common Law Trial by Jury Justice System by co-opting the Common Law by legislation into a body of law legislated [Veronica's Note: I would say 'the body of Legislation' Having declared it as the antithesis of Law, I wouldn't give it even the 'oxygen' of calling it 'body of law legislated'] by Congress or Parliament, or made by judges. For this has been the illegal means of burying Common Law and the authentic Trial by Jury, to enable government to obliterate the Peoples ability (peacefully) to protect their liberties for themselves. It moreover supplants the model justice system of Trial by Jury with the flawed, one-sided, inherently illegal despotic system of trial-by-judge. Whereas statutes may express some of the Common Law, this latter itself contains no statutes of governments, nor rulings of judges. Legem terr Common Law became the pan-European, and subsequently pan-Occidental phenomenon which prescribes and defines Trial by Jury as

its central tenet and sole justice system. See TRIAL BY JURY: Its History, True Purpose and Modern Relevance, by dOudney & Spooner, ISBN 9781902848723. And the constitutional, historical and law texts of Blackstone, Crabbe, Palgrave, Kelham, Mackintosh, Millar, Coke, Gilbert, Hume, Turner, Hallam, Stewart, Hale, et al. THE MALIGNANT RUSE BY WHICH THE CORRUPT POLITICIAN, LAWYER AND JUDGE SEEK TO OBLITERATE THE TRUE COMMON LAW AND SUBJUGATE THE PEOPLE TO AUTHORITARIAN RULE. The authentic Common Law recognises and provides for the fact that the people have a perpetual obligation to enforce Common Law and protect themselves from lawlessness and injustices inflicted by criminals who acquire positions of power or government. Hence, Common Law (expressed as Articles 24, 39, 40 and 61 of Magna Carta [Veronicas Note: Thats the 1215 Treaty], etc.), installs the People as the legal force to police, indict, punish and otherwise obtain redress. [Veronicas Note: Thats exactly what it did, and it is gobsmacking that so few people actually "get it". The Magna Carta 1215 blocked, once and for all, the tyranny of any idea of "Divine Right to Rule", by any single individual (Monarch or Judge, etc) and said that - from then onwards - The People ruled themselves via Grand Juries and Petty Juries] It has been the perjurious ploy of dishonest statist politicians, lawyers and judiciaries to try to miseducate the Western people en masse into the wrong idea that law derived from judicial precedents is Common Law; and that their so-called Common Law is made by government judges. As explained, Common Law does not come from judges. To say it does, is a lie which the enemies of equal justice, rights and liberty repeat and want the people to believe, in order to give politicians arbitrary power to rule over the population; and to deprive the people of genuine Common Law Rights and Protections. Only feloniously-inclined (or in some cases ignorant) people deny that legem terr is the genuine constitutional Common Law which reigns supreme over written laws, governments, all men and women, including those who legislate. Such a denial by state personnel is itself a criminal contravention of the Common Law and the Constitutional Supreme Law, and must always be suspected of being a premeditated judicable act of mens rea [Veronica's Note 'Intent']. Definition: judicable, that which may be tried by jury in a court of law. Because the legislature can pass legislation which reverses or overrules those (non-Common Law) judge-made precedents and decisions which the governments perjuriously misname "Common Law", in a further act of criminal mendacity, by employing their premeditated abuse of the term Common Law the statists come up with the warped speciosity that as

government statutes can overrule their judges' counterfeit Common Law, that therefore, Parliament/Congress is sovereign! [Veronica's Note: It's The People who are sovereign, not Parliament or Congress] This criminal ruse and intended mind-manipulation (brain-washing) serves the purpose of those malicious villains in government who want to make people feel helpless and completely inundated by the tide of government regulation, insidious misinformation and arbitrary control. It is only effective amongst those people who, for career, pay and self-interested motives, judicably collude and participate in the Illegality of the Status Quo, and with those who are duped into ignorance of what Common Law actually is. Government does not grant or bestow the right and power to do justice: upholding justice is the inherent duty of every citizen. Government does not even have a right to do justice for that is exclusively the Trial by Jury power, right, duty and procedure of the randomly selected Jurors. The rle of government (executive, legislature, and judiciary) in the justice system is executive, not judicial: that is, government carries out the judgements, sentences and decisions of the Jury. [Veronicas Note: The role of the Government is also to PROTECT the true Common Law, the ensure that it stays pure to the fundamental principles. The fact that Politicians have done THE EXACT OPPOSITE of this for centuries is why we are in SO MUCH SHIT] Only that government is legitimate which upholds the authentic Common Law and its Constitutional Trial by Jury Justice System.

Well, that's what Kenn d'Oudney says, and I fully agree. Now. We get all this: "Judges said this ... Judges do that ... Oh ... they're bringing out thousands of new laws a year ... Oh ... Oh ...Oh ...Supreme Court ... County Court ... Oh ... Oh ...!!!!!???" rubbish. But it's all very simple. If Politicians can "make Law", then why do we employ Juries? If Judges can "make Law", then why do we employ Juries? All you have to do is to answer those two questions. Now. I'll tell you what answers you'll get You'll get: "Judges make Law for CIVIL matters, and Juries make Law for CRIMINAL matters". What you WON'T get is any answer to the first question, above (that question gets ignored) So, you can ask: "You didn't mention Politicians, you didn't answer the first question" You'll get: "Politicians/Parliament/Congress make Law for BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL matters" So, you can say: "Thanks ... now go back to the first question: Why, then, do we employ Juries?" Silence. So you can add: "Oh, and btw, libel, slander and defamation are CIVIL matters ... but we employ Juries for them ... so have another go at all your answers ..." The reason for this is very, very, simple. Irrespective of what brainwashed ROBOTs say (and how many BILLIONS of them say it ...) ... the facts remain: POLITICIANS CANNOT MAKE LAW ... NEVER COULD ... NEVER WILL ... and JUDGES CANNOT MAKE LAW ... NEVER COULD ... NEVER WILL ... and so .. THAT'S WHY WE (ARE FORCED TO?) EMPLOY JURIES. (Thus, if Politicians cannot make Law, and what they make are Statutes ... then STATUTES CANNOT BE LAW) All it takes is Single-Think ... as opposed to the Double-Think we've all be schooled in, since birth. And that fits perfectly with everything Kenn d'Oudney wrote, and all the references he quoted to all the historic Thinkers & Luminaries including Sir William Blackstone, Sir Edward Coke, Lysander Spooner ... etc. etc. (Oh ... one final point. Referring to the Magna Carta 1215 can - a times - be thrown back at

you as: "That's a very old thing" ... the implication being that "It's old, and thus not relevant to today". The re-joiner is: "It's age is it's STRENGTH ... the fact that it has stood, unchanged, for 700+ years is a measure of it's importance, eternal relevance, applicability, and strength") But that all begs two questions: 1. What are Politicians & Parliament/Congress for, then? 2. What are Judges for, then? Politicians & Parliament/Congress What are they for? You tell me. They've had since 1295 to 'get it right', and what have they ever achieved? Don't forget, the whole idea of a Parliament was conceived and implemented UNDER The Common Law ... and was (and always has been) SUBSERVIENT to The Common Law. So ... at the end of the day ... what COULD they ever achieve ... that wasn't already achieved in 1215? What do they do? Aaaah that's another matter! What they've done - since 1295 - is to relentlessly brainwash The Common Law away ... as much as possible. Originally this was very slow, and very much 'back burner' ... but in the 19th & 20th centuries it started to go 'exponential'. Culminating in 'today'. They have instituted THEMSELVES ... along with Lawyers and Solicitors ... and entities such as the IPCC, CPS, ACPO, etc into our psyche as "the way it is, an always was" ... but (a) That's not how it "always was", and (b) "The way it is", is totally unacceptable. It was an 'experiment in Human Relations' ... and (after 700+ years of it), I think we can safely say "The Great Experiment has completely failed"? Time to dump this miserably-failed experiment into the dustbin of history? (Along with all its 'trappings'?) A GOVERNMENT'S JOB IS TWO-FOLD: (A) TO PROTECT THE BORDERS OF OUR NATION FROM INTRUDERS & INFILTRATORS (e.g. EU?), and (B) TO ENSURE THAT OUR COMMON LAW RIGHTS ARE ALWAYS PRESERVED (and never trampled on by an EU, for example?) That's it. They have no other job ... unless we want a 'monetary system' within our nation (to ensure smooth-running) ... in which case there's the third job: (C) TO ISSUE DEBT- AND INTEREST-FREE MONETARY UNITS EQUALLY AND FAIRLY ... such that no-one is 'unhappy' about anything. (Taxation? No much point in issuing it, just to take it back, is there? Taxation becomes non-existent, in all forms) Judges Are there two do TWO (possible) jobs:

1. CRIMINAL: To run a Common Law Court, making sure that all the 'i's are dotted, and 't's crossed, in relation to evidence placed in front of the Jury. They are there to ensure that only FIRST-HAND evidence is placed before the Jury, such that it can come to a Verdict based on the maximum amount of Truth available. 2. CIVIL: To act as Arbitrators in Civil Disputes ... PROVIDED THAT BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO EMPLOY THE SAME ARBITRATOR ... ON THE BASIS OF BELIEVING THAT THEY CAN TRUST THE ARBITRATOR. That's it. What happens is that (a) They now no longer bother to ask you if you agree to an Arbitrator, and (b) Consider that "resolving a dispute between two Parties" is the same thing as "making Law". Which it isn't! If I see two friends arguing about something, and they ask my opinion, and I give it ... and they accept my opinion, as a resolution ... do I consider I've "made Law"? No ... of course not! It is VERY HARD to see much need for Civil Dispute Arbitration ... when The Government is issuing debt- and interest-free Treasury Notes equally and fairly, and without Taxation ... as in (C), above. On this subject, and at the time of the "haircuts" proposed in Cyprus, I sent the following email to the Cyprus Mail - to my way of thinking it expresses the situation in the most comprehensive terms possible: Dear Sirs, The situation in your country is all over the International News. What you are experiencing is simply a microcosm of what the entire planet is experiencing. My friends and I have been working (and thinking about) this problem for quite a while. Particularly in view of what the Icelanders discovered. It is our suggestion that, if you want to help to solve your country's problems, you should ask your Readership to consider the following fundamental questions: "Why are the Banks in the loop?" "Are their elected Servants, the Government of Cyprus, their Government, or not?" "If they are, then why do they need to rely on Banks?" "Are they men and woman as elected Servants, or are they mice?" The reason for asking these questions, and why they are so fundamental, is because of the very simple logic and rationale: "If a Government claims itself to be the supreme organiser of a country, then it cannot (by definition) be beholden to any other entity" If, however, a Government is beholden to Banking Institutions, then the Government cannot claim to be supreme, simply because the Banking Institutions must be supreme. And, if the Government's claim to supremacy is false, then why should anyone vote for it, or even take any notice of it? Why should people not say "Oh, I need the Right to vote for the Directors of the Banking Institutions, because they are the ones who are - ultimately - directing my life"?

The plain fact is that a Government SHOULD BE supreme. And that means it should create the country's Money Supply. And not, in any way, shape, form, be beholden to Banking Institutions. A Government must be beholden solely to its Electorate. Period. Both Abraham Lincoln and British Chancellor Lloyd George discovered that was the truth. Of course, IT WORKED SO WELL, that Lincoln was shot, and Lloyd George was told (in no uncertain terms) to swiftly revert to "Banks in the loop". However, if the entire planet was behind the idea, then those who implemented it would be considered 'saviours'. The link to the UK version of our efforts is here ... and we fully intend to pursue this matter through our Courts, via Private Criminal Prosecutions, if the scheme is not even openly discussed, leading to its realisation and implementation. I respectfully suggest that you seriously consider what I've written here, and consider enlightening your Readership accordingly. Yours sincerely, etc

Are You Ready?

Chapter Version 1.2 [17APR2013] Are you ready for a completely New Paradigm? Do you believe: In "Governments" as the way to hold your Nation together in peace? That, without "Governments", everything would fall apart at the seams? In "democracy" as the way to create "Governments"? That you must choose between Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green, Independent, Democrat, Republican etc.? That "There's a lot wrong, but keep going the way we've all been going and with sufficient adjustment (in the form of 'Laws'), we can work it out - if we can just achieve the right balance of 'Laws'"? That people who, for example, try to avoid paying taxes, are Tax Cheats? That whistleblowers who, for example, expose bad things going on within the Social Services, or the Department of Work & Pensions, or the National Health Service, etc., or the Police, or the Military, could be jeopardising 'National

Security" - or 'rocking the boat' - by spilling the beans? That we should all trust whoever we vote into power (national or local) to do their best for us, and that - by and large - they are actually doing that although they may get it wrong on occasion. But we have "democracy", and that makes us free, and although it isn't prefect (nothing ever could be) it's the best we can do? That anyone who opposes, or gainsays, any of the above are wrong, or weirdoes, or extremists, (terrorists) etc? Or do you think that - as long as you have lived your life under the above Paradigm, "Things never seem to get any better, whoever is 'in Power'"? (Either expressed to others, possibly on a number of occasions, or even - maybe - only in the back of your mind?) If the latter rings any bells, would you be ready for a complete change of Paradigm? Or, to put it another way: Are you sick and tired of all the endless bullshit promulgated by the prancing, narcissistic, clowns who consider they have the ability to be 'in authority'? If you answered "No" to that last question, then read no further. You are hopelessly enslaved, and (almost certainly) NOTHING will unchain you. If you answered "Yes" to that last question, then carry on reading - but please be prepared to have your world turned upside down, and re-explained to you in a very different manner. A Potential New Paradigm. Do you believe in "aggression"? Or would you consider "aggression" to be something you would NEVER advocate? Do you consider that, provided you make no aggressive acts against another, you should be safe from aggressive acts against yourself? There is a "Non-aggression Principle". It's actually the one that the vast majority of us operate on a day-to-day basis. It says, fundamentally, that it is wrong to attack or rob other people, or (as far as is reasonably possible) wrong to breach their peace. And that, furthermore, it is also wrong to be devious in one's promises, agreements and arrangements - in other words to 'Say what you mean, and mean what you say' - and to avoid upsetting others, as far as is reasonable. Very simply because upsetting others leads to rancour. And that could, conceivably, provoke aggression against you. Do you believe in that Principle? Really believe in it? Really, really, believe in it? I ask because - if you really, really, believe in "Non-aggression" - then why are you almost always prepared to put up with it - if it has been "legalised" by your Government? Thereby "sanctioned" by your Government?

What am I talking about? Well, there is ALWAYS some kind of penalty for disobeying Acts of Parliament or Acts of Congress. Which can ultimately lead to aggressive acts taken against anyone who disobeys. Isn't there? This could be confiscation of property, or even lead to imprisonment - and utilising as much force as they decide (on the spot), if you try to resist. Well, that's the case, is it not? And that's "aggression", is it not? So, the question is: Are you prepared to say that, while individual acts of aggression are BAD, "Government-sponsored" acts of aggression, being "legitimate", or "sanctioned", are OK? Well? Isn't "aggression" - IN ANY FORM - bad? From whatever source? What, for example, about "Morality"? Yes you know "Morality". It's the thing that makes you a non-aggressive individual, in the first place. And isn't one of the things YOU MOST POSTIVELY HATE - THAT YOU ARE FORCED TO DO THINGS AGAINST YOUR BETTER JUDGEMENT - because "Your Government" says so, and tells you that it can use force (i.e. aggression) against you, if you don't comply? For example (say) "Taxation". You know - when you are FORCED to pay taxes, AGAINST YOUR WILL, so as to pay for wars in foreign countries, that "Your Government" has decided upon, which maims and murders men, women, children and even babies, who have never lifted a finger against you, or your country? Or, for example, "Taxation" to pay for "welfare projects" that you disagree with? When you see much better things on which the money could be spent? But you don't have any choice in the matter, because "Your Government" says that it is entitled to use some kind of coercion or extortion against you, should you try to resist? Is this all OK with you? All that sort of thing? Do you say: "Ahhh yes it's true I don't like that but if we can get 'the other lot in' then we can stop all that. That's the solution!" And then, when 'your lot get in', you still find you are paying taxes for (some) things you would rather not fund, and still fighting the same wars overseas (maybe on a reduced scale but a lot of damage has already been done!), and there's still that (for example) "European Union" situation, which just seems to march inexorably on, and you see no real change or improvement - by and large? Even with 'your lot' in power? Well? What do you think? Isn't this all about 'a clash of Moralities' - between your own, and that of "Your Government"? Could it be that - at the end of the day - this ALL comes down to "Government"? And that maybe - just maybe - the idea of "Government" is FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG?

That it's FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG when you, yourself, are perfectly peaceful - why should it be that unprovoked ACTS OF AGGRESSION against you are possible, when you feel - by virtue of your conscience - that you ought to be able to politely disagree, not pay for things you consider to be wrong, and that you should be left alone in your disagreement? That no "Government" ever seems to be capable of 'agreeing to disagree', as regular private individuals are perfectly capable of doing, for example, when compromising? What, exactly, has "Government" got that you haven't, in the arena of "Morality"? If you understand, that it is MORALLY WRONG to involve yourself in WARS OF AGGRESSION, in foreign countries, how come "Government" gets a 'Free Pass'- on "Morality" - to enable it to "be OK" to do that? I mean a 'Free Pass' such that you can bitch about it (endlessly) - but have no real means of stopping it from happening? In point of fact, the answer is: "GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE NO 'FREE PASS', AND IT HAS NO RIGHT TO EXPECT ONE" In fact, "Government" can be shown to be 'self-contradictory', insane, and utterly absurd. "Government" has absolutely no validity, if one really thinks hard about it. Thus the New Paradigm means: "Do without the absurdity of State/National Government", and rely entirely on "Self-government", by taking personal responsibility for your life, under the Non-aggression Principle which is, in point of fact, just another way of saying "The Common Law". And such a paradigm would reduce corruption to manageable means. Of course, another word for this is: Anarchy. But the New Paradigm is "anarchy actually explained in full", as opposed to the usual idea of "Terrorists running around in black cloaks, with bombs in their hands". Origin: 153040; (< Middle French anarchie or Medieval Latin anarchia) < Greek, anarcha lawlessness, literally, lack of a leader, equivalent to narch ( os ) leaderless ( anan-1 + arch ( s ) leader + -os adj. suffix) + -ia -y Forget all the other definitions, for example "lawlessness", etc. They are rubbish, and simply interpretations designed to create 'bad Public Relations'. It has never meant "lawlessness", or anything of the kind. "Anarchy" means, simply, "lack of leader". As the definition above has the decency (when pushed) to point out, by means of the preface "literally". Can we afford to take a literal meaning of a word? Or are we completely brainwashed, beyond redemption? It means 'leaderless', and doesn't mean anything else, and never has. (And there's no reason why it ever should). Fundamentally, what has happened is that "Governments" are so frightened of the word, that they have always done their best to blacken it, and have consistently attached all kinds of nefarious connotations - which have never existed in reality. It just means "No King", "No Government", "No Leader". But it doesn't mean "No Law". Because, to say that, would be the same thing as saying "No Common Sense". Because The

Common Law is nothing other than Common Sense. The Common Sense on how to live in peace, under the Non-aggression Principle. Thus The Common Law is perfectly capable of providing all of the necessary "Law", within a Paradigm of "Anarchy". Larken Rose Larken sums it all up, in 2 minutes, in this video. Let's examine it, detail. He asks 3 fundamental questions. [1] Can a Right be delegated to anyone, or any group, that is not possessed - by the Grantor - in the first place? Do you think you can give ANYTHING to anyone else (ever!), that you do not possess yourself? Something that isn't yours to give away? Something that doesn't belong to you? If the answer is "No" (which it is, of course), then any Right you delegate to a Parliament or a Congress (via your Electoral Vote), can only ever be a Right you possess yourself. Consequently no Parliament or Congress ever has any Rights that exceed your own. Or, putting that another way, YOU ARE PERFECTLY ENTITLED TO DO ANYTHING THAT YOUR PARLIAMENT OR CONGRESS HAS BEEN DELEGATED TO DO. (Think hard about that, if you need to). [2] Can one have a MORAL OBLIGATION to do what they think (by their conscience) to be WRONG? Again, the answer is (obviously) "No". No-one has the Right to tell you to assault someone else, and to put you under any obligation to do that. In point of fact "in Law" (The Common Law) if you do something that is morally wrong, at the behest of someone else, then THEY ARE CONSIDERED TO BE AN ACCOMPLICE, and (in Law) would be awarded an equal sentence or punishment, if you are found guilty. Consequently if "Your Government" tells you to apply aggression against someone else - which your conscience tells you is wrong - then you have every Right to disobey any such commands. And, if you can disobey "Your Government", because of the 'higher authority' of "Your Conscience", then "Your Government" is toothless - is it not? And a "toothless Government" is no "Government" at all. Is it? [3] Can any "Legislation" change "morality"? Once again, the answer is obviously "No". "Morality" is derived entirely from "Common Sense". YOUR Common Sense. Which determines YOUR MORALITY. No "Legislation" can change your Common Sense. Consequently "Legislation" that matches your Common Sense and Morality, and is (therefore) in harmony with The Common Law, is redundant - because the "Legislation" already exists within The Common Law. On the other hand, any "Legislation" that CONTRAVENES your Common Sense and Morality, can be freely disobeyed (by virtue of [2], above), and thus is also redundant. Consequently ALL "Legislation" is redundant. Consequently the "Makers of Legislation" are redundant. Thus "Parliament" or "Congress" is redundant, and the only thing of importance is the Common Sense and the Morality of individuals. Larken employs the exact same methods as "Governments" do, in order to explain how he has the Right to rob you.

And here, in this video, Larken lays it on the line, fully explaining what happens when people ignore [1], [2] and [3], above. Explaining 'Money', including an Alternative Suppose you could write a cheque, for any amount, and it made not the slightest difference to what you had in the Bank? It made not the slightest difference, because the amount on the cheque WOULD NOT BE DEDUCTED from your Account, but WOULD STILL BE CREDITED to the Account of the Recipient? Daft, you say? Unworkable you say? Well, actually, in point of FACT, that's VERY CLOSE to certain situations that we accept, as normal, today. In point of fact, if you understand today's Monetary System, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS TODAY, when you start (what is called) a 'Mortgage', or take out (what is called) a 'Loan'. It's also very close to the reception of so-called 'benefits', in the form of Grants, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Job Seeker's Allowance, and Old Age Pensions. Furthermore, it also accounts for the fact that you can get treatment from your GP (without paying your GP), hospital treatment (and dental treatment) without paying the hospital (or the dentist). (Yes, I know that there are 'paying-for-it-privately' methods, but there's also the 'under-the-NHS' method which is free). Because the plain fact is that, even today, ALL MONEY IS CREATED OUT OF THIN AIR, BY MEANS OF YOUR SIGNATURE. And the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, and the Bank of International Settlements, etc. have all said so in their 'literature-that-you-never-read'. So, the idea is not so 'daft' or 'unworkable', as you may imagine. In point of fact, all that's really different is - today - YOU ARE UNDER THE MASSIVE DECEPTION THAT - IN THE CASE OF MORTGAGES AND LOANS - there is something you must pay back. BUT THAT IS A FRAUD AND A DECEPTION, SIMPLY DESIGNED TO ENRICH THE 'FEW' WHO UNDERSTAND THE SCAM - at the expense of the vast majority, who do not. In point of fact, there is never anything to 'pay back'. (And never has been). Which means that the original proposal, in the first paragraph under this heading, is perfectly viable. And would be seen to be so, if the wool was not continually pulled over the eyes of the majority by everything you see, hear, or read in the media. Quite obviously, if that proposal were implemented, it would very soon be realised that the idea of 'money' was utterly superfluous. Since everyone could get anything they wanted effectively for free. But, it must be repeated that - although it doesn't look like it on the surface - 'behind the curtain' that's exactly what's happening already. 'Pulling away the curtain' would reveal that obstacles, such as "a Credit Rating", are merely designed to apply 'covertly-operated

controls', and to force you into 'work' (including at a job you HATE, but are forced into, in order 'generate income'), and thereby reduce your freedom as much as possible, and limit your ability to raise your vision above the ground. Simply because, if you had time to raise your vision to the horizon, you would be able to see through the SCAMS, and realise the ultimate truth. Thus the alternative, is perfectly viable and feasible: If you want to use a Monetary System for your Anarchy, use today's mechanisms, but remove all the DECEPTIONS. Use just what's left, after all the deception has been removed. Explaining Anarchy, under the Alternative Monetary Mechanism Obviously under a Monetary System whereby anything wanted could be obtained simply by writing a cheque, then 'stealing' and 'hoarding' would no longer exist as possibilities for obtaining 'money'. That would wipe away probably 99% of all corruption and dishonesty. No need for 'insurance', either, of course. And, quite obviously not the slightest need for any form of Taxation, be it Income, Capital Gains, Council Tax, Road Tax, Value-added Tax, TV Licence, etc. etc. etc. Just about the only thing left (in the form of 'crime') would be "I don't like the look of his face" or "He said something really nasty to me" "So I'll hit him, or kill him". And this would define 'the nasty people'. So, sure, we would still need a very small Peace Force, in order to bring such perpetrators into a Common Law Court, to face a Jury, and to apply Justice rationally (using Common Sense). But - apart from that - what else is there in the way of 'crime'? We would still need a Treasury, in order to issue 'money' on demand, but absolutely no need whatsoever for any kind of 'Fiscal' or 'Economic' Policy. For everything else, we simply educate everyone to utilise the Non-aggression Principle i.e. don't provoke trouble, learn to 'agree to disagree' like grown-up adults, and take full responsibility (like adults should). Mavericks would be rounded up (by the Peace Force) and given due process in a Common Law Court. Indictments would be raised by Grand Juries, and Trials deciding "guilt or innocence" would be based on the Verdicts of Petty Juries of 12. And that is a perfectly feasible and viable New Paradigm. In fact, all it is is 'today' minus the absurdity and insanity of "Government constantly butting into everyone's life". It also means the end of the corruptions called "Politics" and "Politicians", of course. Let's look at things another way Imagine I am person "A". And I know someone, who we can call person "B" who doesn't have a car, but needs one. And I also know someone, who we can call person "C", who has a car.

Now, can I give C's car to B? Am I entitled to do that? Of course, the answer is "No!" But hold on! I also know lots of other people let's call them D, E, F all the way through to Z. Now, they all agree with me that B should have C's car. Can WE, that's me, B together with D Z all 25 of us override the fact that C's car doesn't belong to any of us, but nevertheless because of our 'numerical advantage' in the matter give C's car to B? Well, the answer is still "No!", isn't it? It doesn't matter how many I have on my side it's NOT my car it's not OUR car ... it belongs to C and I (or We) have no Right to give it to B! (Sorry, B, no can do! You'll just have to walk!) D Z is an "Electorate". And I'm a "Politician". And D .. Z (and possibly B, as well) voted for me. And C is someone who may - or may NOT have - voted for me (it doesn't matter!) Does that change anything? Does that somehow give me any superior Right - to override the wishes of C - just because I have an Electoral Vote behind me? Even if I had C's vote behind me? Errr nope! Thus ANY CLAIM I MAY HAVE TO ANY 'SUPERIOR' RIGHTS just because I was "democratically elected" IS BOGUS ILLEGITIMATE. As an Elected Politician, I have no more Rights to ANYTHING than anyone else. My Rights are: 1. Exactly the same, and 2. Exactly the same size. as any other individual. So if that's the case what is the point of me being a Politician? What is the point of ANY Politician? What is the point of "Politics"? Oh you tell me because all I can see is ILLEGITIMACY (however "democratically" I was elected!) NOTHING ANY POLITICIAN DOES, HAS -ANY- LEGITIMACY.

And when a Politician - or group - write something down on a piece of paper - as a result of any ritual they may go through via the Houses of Parliament THE RESULT IS STILL ENTIRELY ***ILLEGITIMATE***. They have NO RIGHT WHATSOVER to take anything from you ("Taxes"), and give it to someone else. They HAVE NO RIGHT to place you under ANY OBLIGATION they YOU DID NOT CONSENT TO, YOURSELF (as an Individual). "For the Common Good", cuts no ice. It never has, and it never can. Simply because The Common Law already does that job. We already have "The Common Good", via our Common Sense and ancient Customs & Traditions (which were all derived from Common Sense, in the first place). "Politics" and "Parliament" have been around (as an 'experiment in Human Relations') since 1295. AND THAT EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN AN UTTER FAILURE. It's had over 700 years to "get it right", and is no further forward than it ever was. And the reason is simply: THE IDEA, THE CONCEPT, WAS ***ILLEGITIMATE*** in the first place. And no amount of time can possibly make it 'Legitimate'. Isn't it about time we all realised this? What's going to happen? In a 100 years time, our descendants will be shaking their heads, in wonderment, at their history. They will be looking back through their history, and wondering how their ancestors could ever have been so absurd. In exactly the same way that we now look back, and wonder how anyone could ever think that "The Earth is flat, and that the Sun orbits around it". That is as certain as the fact that the Earth is a roughly spherical planet, and orbits around the Sun, taking (what we call) 'a year' to perform that orbit.