Mark, it is my understanding that our family names are an aberration imposed upon us by the clergy, in times past. Think of the names - Carpenter, Thatcher, Potter, etc - they are merely the TRADES of the people, allied to their given names. So, John - who happens to stick feathers on arrows, becomes John Fletcher.
I do not intend to use my family name, merely the names I was given, as a gift, from my parents. I am, therefore Ian-Peter - nothing more, nothing less. The other name is what? The fact that one name is used, rather than another - not my mothers maiden name, for example, merely adds to the idiocy of names. My father actually cocked my BC up! Our name is Simpson, but my father is actually a Malcom-Simpson, but didn't like the idea of a hyphenated name, as it smacks of THEM, so he registered me as a plain Simpson. I would imagine this to be illegal in some way, so does that make my registration illegal? I don't know and I don't care - it was illegal from the standpoint that neither of my parents, nor I were suitably informed as to the repercussions of registration. So, void contract.
I am not now, nor have I ever been a person in their legal sense. This is by their rules. I have tried to act honorably my whole life, they have not. They have consistently and thouroughly lied to all of us, every day and in every governmental interaction. This can be proven simply by the need to consent. They know we must consent to give them any hope of applying their nonesense legal system, so they lie to us, because they KNOW we would ALWAYS refuse consent, should we become aware of this Achilles Heel the law has.
The plain fact is they are neither honourable or honest and this, I think, is my way of fighting them. Expose the deceit, expose the lies and the BS. Do it in a court setting - with a jury. Tell the jury their duty to judge me AND the law and that if they find I am guilty, but the law is unfair, then they are obliged to find for me and AGAINST the law. They are allowed to ask questions, so - get the opposition barrister on the stand, get him to answer a few questions like:
"What is a statute?" (if they mess around, give them the old "Is it not a fact that, according to ......a statute is............, consent of the governed?"
SHOW them to be the lying, cheating, oily bastards they really are - in their own court!
Subpoena people involved, who are hardly EVER called - shake them up! SHOW them, NONE of them is immune to the hassle of being dragged to answer questions on front of a jury!
Obviously, they will have ways and means to stop it, but that fact that we TRY is the most important - expose their myriad lies and deceit - it is the only way.
Should the worst happen, I wish you good luck and will be there, if at all possible, Mark - ya know it.
Thanks for the post, m8 - excellent stuff, up to the usual Huntingross standard, I'm glad to report
Oh! - nearly forgot - you say 'fear of reprisal' - is this not 'under protest and duress' then? Fear of reprisal is duress in my book, pure and simple.
Peace and love,
Baldy Pete
