Back to the beginning

[squark]

I met the freeman concept by watching John Harris talking about the person. I still don't have a definition of what it means in statute. I suspect it means ALL the definitions of PERSON.

The thing is........ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION of the UK. So my person is not the problem. If I take hold of it as MINE and steer it ,(like a boat) away from the UK. So getting rid of the trappings of Citizenship (notice the drivers licence form )(you must be a UK citizen to apply!!!!!) You can sail away, the UK is the FICTIONAL PERSON we should take a good look at. Not Mr Smith, we already looked at that.

Its claiming the benefits of citizenship that's the problem. But some benefits are National not Societal!
Its a subtle but important distinction.

The PERSON within the UK is like a two handled drinking cup. YOUR drinking cup, but the Govt have a hand on the second handle. They will fill it full of something, according to the rules, but you will pay sooner or later, according to the rules.

You may take your cup out of the UK. They should let go of their handle, you can contract with anyone, they take hold of the second handle instead of the UK. Or it can be just you , your beer, your rules.!! I could have explained that better, maybe you get the drift of it. Its hard because the government and its agencies are playing more than one part. They are the National Enforcement team, enforcing the law in accord with a courts decision. They are also a voluntary club, with lots of rules, for those in the club, which they also enforce in accordance with a different kind of courts decision. Two roles, two Jurisdictions, very confusing , very convenient if you want to tax and control a huge group but have no real right to. Rule by confusion.

[Freeman Stephen]

I think what rob menard refers to as "the person" is in fact "the government created and owned identity".

Hes right in that a human being is not a person, a human being has a person and a person is a person because rights and duties have been ascribed to that person.

The thing is though, a human being still has rights (and therefor a person) regardless of the revocation of government rights which are really ascribed to the identity and not the human.

The human has a person and the person may or may not have the right to use the identity ascribed to it by government.

[squark]

Stephen you said;
Hes right in that a human being is not a person, a human being has a person and a person is a person because rights and duties have been ascribed to that person.


I am thinking a Person MAY HAVE rights and duties ascribed to it.

So if your Person is WITHIN the UK (a citizen surely is and I just started noticing citizen on forms (DVLC)) it will have the rights and duties ascribed to PERSONS WITHIN THE UK (all the Statute crap)
If your Person is WITHOUT the UK it doesn't have all that Statute crap attached. If you go into Currys to buy a TV on credit, you will sign up and your Person will have tERMS AND cONDITIONS relating to credit facilities within the Currys set up. If credit is possible without the UK. You would have to ask Currys!
"Can anyone sign up or do you have to be a UK Citizen?"
I asked very carefully when I signed on the dole for terms and conditions. Being a UK citizen was not mentioned. That matches up to "Everyone is entitled to..." in the UN docs. There was talk of a basic income for all, regardless of employment or looking for it, that is UN stuff making its way into reality I think. I we get robots doing everything should everyone just die. Not at all, and that income I think will arrive one day. For Everyone.

Meanwhile, non citizen national status? They are pretty rare, so maybe cultural minority status too. Heck I was born on earth, naturally, I may push for Indigenous so as to get the medicinal plants they stole!!!!

[Freeman Stephen]

The first thing the dole asks for is the identification number they associate wirh the government identity. "Your" national insurance number doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the state - when you die, they recycle it and give it to someone new - you cant give it to someone else because its not actually "yours". Without it, the dole will make you apply for one before they give you anything - your only holding what they give you as trustee of the things that the identity is entitled to.

On the other hand, suppose I sell you some eggs. Do you need the government identity to have the rights and duties ascribed to you inherent in the contract for sale? You have a person to which these rights and duties are ascribed - I didn't steal the eggs from the chicken because it doesn't have a person. You do, not because your government identity but because your a man. Its your person that is ascribed with the rights and duties inherent in having a government identity.

Slightly different and a little more complex than what rob menard says but its along the same lines and more consistant from what I perceive.

[squark]

That number, the NI number, is National, that's Britain (maybe)
In the US or Canada I believe its a Social Security Number or SIN. Here its a National Insurance.
That's my point, look at the UN Rights, "everyone has a right to protection from periods of unemployment."
Separately....."as a member of society...social security" The Society is the UK (maybe) So the Royals are now of the UK, you are subject to them if you consent.
Society and Nationality are not the same thing.
Everyone is not the same as all persons as we know.
Statutory (UK) rule is not the same as the common law of the land (Britain).
I don't know if this is right but its starting to make sense to me.

[Freeman Stephen]

Regardless of what they call it, the nino /ssn/sin is theirs. They create it, they grant use of it and they take it back at the end.

IfI call gartbeth the galactic empire of earth, does it make me emperor. It doesn't matter what they call it, its how it works that's important.

Someone born in britain who has lived there all their life will not get anything from goveenment without a nino.

[squark]

That may be true, but we know a police man wears two hats, Policy Enforcement Officer and Cuntstubble. Maybe the Gov't do the same, Nation and Society.

I'm hoping that the local council, who promise, no, they aim, (they should never be given a gun, because they miss the intended target by miles) to answer my questions. Anyway I am hoping that my right to know, will inspire them to tell me what the F*** is going on.
Then we can all know.
Who's betting they just quote the Act/Statute and assume I have the interpretation skills of a Judge.

I did think if we use Hansards and the Acts and Statutes in combination, we get the discussion from Parliament about what they aim to achieve along with the Act after the Dissemblers have had their hands on it, allowing twisting and perverting the meaning. That's gotta be an aid to interpretation. Not that I read that cack anymore but it could help.

[wanabfree]

@ squark, you have already mentioned Marc Stevens in a previous post, so you must be aware of how he best describes and explains many of these issues, if you haven'talready i would recommend reading his first book "Adventures in Legal Land", ithin k you'll find this line of questioning regarding what a "person" realy is, is a moot issue,and dosen't matter.

regardless of what the bureaucrats want to believe a "person" is or isn't, laymans language or code, is what should be accepted as identifying what it is, so don't get mixed up in legal arguments about an issue that in practise is adad horse being flogged, the bureaucrats lie and hide many more things from you that are farmore important to concetrate on.

as for "legal rights", these in la la land are positive concepts, but in reality,and practise, they are a negative, in other words they don't exist, and therefore cannot justify acting upon them.

watch Deleusions by Marc Stevens he explans why perfectly well from 55 mins in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qsdXlXUocc

Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb - Dec. 9, 2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5rdoHQCIhU

[squark]

Oooh imagine that. Miles and miles and miles from home having a whale of a time when a ship arrives.
Men with Guns.

Bill of Lading is putting goods on a ship.
You are cargo on the citizenship. Mr Smith, second to the Captain. He's a 1760 traveller on the Navy Ship, being borrowed, he's a Smith.. Maritime law. English Law. Duty, obligations, guns. That court was transfigured into the civil court, they had the infrastructure and force all ready. It never changed.

They protected ?British interest. Protected ?Trade Routes. Traders (not Raiders) cargo, Opium to China, Slaves to the Colonies, Guns, shit ones, Everywhere. Sales men, with guns. See the development to todays situation?