I'm the legal fiction, baby ... now here's the twist ... I ... don't ... exist!

(with apologies to the Bonzo Dogs, feat. the late Viv Stanshall)


Back to basics


Before going anywhere in this morass, we need a few basics.


There are two fundamental kinds of ‘Law’: Natural and Man-made. 


Natural Law or the Laws of Nature, Science, etc.


Let’s characterise them. I think you might agree there are three main characteristics:


1)      Mankind does not make them. Mankind observes them & their effects, then enumerates and evaluates them; in most cases being able to devise mathematical formulae to express them, utilise them and inter-utilise i.e. apply them. Examples: The Law of Gravity (Newton’s Laws), Boyle’s Law, Maxwell’s Laws, Charles’ Law, Ohm’s Law, etc.


2)      They apply universally and unilaterally without fear or favour.


3)      There is no penalty for breaking them because they cannot be broken.


Man-made Laws, Acts, Statutes, etc.


Here are the same three characteristics:


1)      Mankind does make them. Mankind changes them in accordance with its own desires, wishes, needs, etc. Mankind can wipe them away (repeal them) at the stroke of a pen.


2)      They are applied by Courts of Law. They are not applied equally because they always depend on 'judgment'. It is often said “There is one law for the rich and one law for the poor”.


3)     There is always a penalty for breaking them because they can be broken if one is prepared to accept the consequences.


Stated that way I submit it is possible see that the two kinds are exact opposites. Each characteristic is the exact inverse of the other.


And yet we use the same word – 'Law' – to describe them both!


So what happens? The latter become psychologically morphed with the characteristics of the former.


So “I’ve got to pay it …because it’s the law” takes on the same characteristics as “If I jump off this cliff I will fall downwards”.


Actually, in summary, the most important difference between the two is a simple word: 'consent'.


If you jump off the cliff you will fall downwards. The falling does not require your consent. It will happen. Your consent is whether or not you actually jump – or whether or not you are standing on the edge of the cliff at all.


In the second case (“I’ve got to pay …”) your consent is very much required. You have to consent to reach for your chequebook and fill in a cheque – and post it, etc.


However, the essential point being made here is that even if you do not consent to write that cheque, your consent is still needed in all stages of “What may happen if the bill is not paid”.


Your 'consent' is built-in as an essential to the system of Man-made Laws, Statues, etc. Your consent is irrelevant to the Laws of Nature.


The Law of Gravity is set in tablets of stone, and operates whether someone has written it down or not. You will have been led to believe, throughout your entire life, that Statutes are equally set in tablets of stone. They are NOT. They are nothing more than Company Policy written down using ink on paper.


The trick, The Grand Deception is this. For legal purposes only - they create a fiction for you. Then they trick you into agreeing that you have broken some 'law' - even when you haven't done any such thing! All you have actually done is to go against Company Policy, when you didn't even realise you were working for that company!


To do this they get you to pretend to be what you are not. But they call this 'thing' something you will naturally assume that you are. And they know that you will naturally make this assumption. And they utterly rely on it. Only a system that is utterly evil and thoroughly corrupt - without any possibility of redemption - could have dreamed up this dooley.


In order to create this pretence, they have hijacked the word 'PERSON'. And then they have created Statutes which regulate what a PERSON can do (and can't do). You assume you are a person - and in common parlance you are, of course - but in legal-speak a PERSON is considered to be a 'single-individual CORPORATION'. To which Company Law - not just Common Law - can be applied.



So what's the difference between 'me - being me' and 'me - being a legal-fiction PERSON'?




The word “person” is derived from the word “persona” and if you consider that carefully you will understand that your persona is not, actually ‘you’. It is merely what you present to the world.


If you are a normal human being, you have two arms, two legs, a torso, a head, a brain, flesh & blood, and so on. And a spirit – some call a soul. That’s you. What you do with all that, what you present to the world, is your persona.


The analogy is that a persona is like an overcoat that you can wear – or not – as the case may be. Your persona can be sweet toward your friends & family, and hateful, full of venom, toward your enemies. You can wear different overcoats, depending on circumstances.


But the flesh & blood - and spirit - is still you – the human being – underneath. You are the 'me' inside your overcoat. Take it off, hang it up, and you are still 'me'.


Statutes apply to the overcoat. Only Common Law applies to the 'me'.


And this leads to the idea of “sovereignty”.


We often hear that “All are created equal” – and, of course, we are. Any baby arrives (basically) the same way, and has the exact same needs. It doesn’t matter whether you are born in the Queen’s Hospital or in a Traveller’s Van.


But, what does “All are created equal” translate to, in practice? How can everyone be created equal? The only way is by some standardised mechanism. This is usually stated as “In the image of the Creator”, which implies that each created individual is a clone from the same model. Even if you don’t believe in a Creator (as I don’t – I believe in a Universal Life Force, Universal Consciousness – you can call it God if you like), it still amounts to the same thing – just using different rhetoric.


Of course “All are created equal”, thus no-one should be treated differently from anyone else. 


But I am not you, and you are not me. (That’s arguable, actually)


So that’s a big difference. But there is a big similarity: We are individually responsible for our individual actions. And that’s one of the basic tenets of life.


And the only way that I can be responsible for my own actions, and – at the same time – you be responsible for your own actions is if we are both SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUALS, and equal in all cases (“In the same image”).


I’m sorry if I lost you. Think of it this way. You say your country is “sovereign”. What does that mean? It means it is equal to all other countries. It means it has the right to govern itself, without external interference. Your country considers itself to be equal to all other countries.


The same applies to you. Why not? A “country” is only a collection of individuals who, together, make up the population.


You must be as sovereign as your country. And so must everyone else in your country. Otherwise how can your country be sovereign? Where does your country’s sovereignty come from, then?


FACT: You are a sovereign human being by birth because your spirit is sovereign. You are responsible for your own actions – certainly after the 'age of majority'.


You have two choices: You can take your sovereignty, and wield it. Or you can, by consent, give it away. So now we are back to 'consent'.  And we are also back to 'person' because – by wearing the legal fiction PERSON – you consent to give your sovereignty away, in law.


And that’s what it’s all about.


In summary, you are constantly being tricked into wearing the PERSON overcoat, thereby – in law – giving away your sovereignty.


This is done by sending you letters with your name (or a part of it) in CAPITAL LETTERS. Capital letters is addressing the letter to the legal fiction of PERSON. The letters are actually addressed to your overcoat. But you read the address as if it was to your 'me'. If you respond as normal, then you have – by tacit consent – taken to wearing the PERSON overcoat. By doing so you tacitly accept the jurisdiction of the Statute Law you are being accused of breaking (dishonouring, violating, actually).


Veronica: of the Chapman family

January, 2009