From: Andrew Johnson
Date: 2009-01-02 12:21:31
The Long Arm of the Law is much shorter than realised Disclaimer: Nothing herein constitutes professional legal advice. I am not a Lawyer. Before embarking on anything you should seek professional legal advice. The hope is simply that, when seeking that advice, you know which questions to ask. Please note: This only applies to the United Kingdom, and specifically to England. Other nations/countries may have variances. Nevertheless everything stated herein can be verified, if necessary with reference to Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition. Veronica: Chapman December, 2008 Abstract The information contained herein is now established fact. Feel free to check with a competent Lawyer. There is law. Irrefutable and permanently applicable law which, as a peaceful individual is unlikely to ever affect you. It is called Common Law. Provided you keep the peace, do not cause injury, harm or loss to another individual, then you will remain within the terms of Common Law and will not break it. But Statutes, as passed by Parliament (any Parliament or Congress) are not, necessarily, “the law”. And, that being the case, there are circumstances where it is possible to ignore them – as if they did not exist. The circumstances and reasoning are fully explained herein. It is unlikely that you will have been told about this by your parents, friends, family and acquaintances because it is not the subject of any known school curriculum, and consequently they would not know themselves. And there are reasons for this. Simply put, if you were told, you would become empowered. You would become empowered to take full control of your own life, as a fully-responsible individual, and would remain outside the grasp of any ‘nannying’ governmental ‘Statutory’ control. To all intents and purposes you can freely ignore anything your Government may do. If you don’t like something your Government does, you can say “I don’t accept that rule, and will not abide by it. I, personally, see no valid reason to”. And a court can be made to uphold your right to say that, and your right to ignore the Statute created by your Government. In a sense this is the real, fundamental, law that no-one ever told you about. However, while you may whoop for joy at the possibility of freely ignoring Parking Tickets, etc., just remember you are never free to cause harm, injury, or loss to another individual. On the other hand if, by parking in a certain place, you caused no harm, injury, or loss to any other individual, you are freely able to do that and remain within the law. But how is it that people are ‘done’ for parking? Because they are deliberately deceived. They are deceived, by means of a Grand Deception, in which the Government, Police, and Judiciary (and Media) all collude to pull the wool over their eyes. These agencies combine forces, using ‘legal-speak’ to hide the truth from you. To be fair, this is really only collusion between the Government and Judiciary. The other agencies mentioned are deceived into doing the dirty work. To be absolutely fair, it is perfectly possible that MPs – certainly in the lower echelons – have no idea about the Grand Deception. This may even be true for most Solicitors and Lawyers, and so on. It is possible to envisage formal legal training that omits to mention this most fundamental aspect. But, the point is, Judges know. And, if you know as well, that’s all that matters because everything else will always fall into line. Judges know, but they won’t ‘tell you’. They assume you – like everyone else – have fallen for the Grand Deception. If, one the other hand, you are being prosecuted for violating a Statute and ‘you tell them’, their immediate response will invariably be “Case dismissed!”. Oh yes. Judges know. And, if they don’t, higher courts certainly do. What is Common Law? It’s the “law-of-the-land”. And the Grand Deception starts when you do not realise the implications of the apparently insignificant word “land”. And the very real difference between “the land” and “the sea”. There is “law-of-the-sea”. It’s sometimes called Maritime Law. Or Admiralty Law, and so on. Other terms, meaning the same thing, are Civil Law, Commerce Law, Fleet Law, etc. Statutes are the “law-of-the-sea” and, if you committed the (apparent) offence on dry land, then you are only subject to the law-of-the-land. And the only “law-of-the-land” is Common Law. Statutes, passed by any Parliament, are the “law-of-the-sea”. Statutes will be discussed in more detail later. Common Law derives from the mists of time. It comprises those customs and traditions that make a Nation or Country what it is. The following description applies to the United Kingdom, specifically England but – since all Common Law stems from this (world-wide), it is generally applicable to everyone on this planet. Back in the Celtic times the British Isles were populated by tribes. They had traditions and customs. Nothing was permanently written down, but they lived by rules that everyone knew. This entirely mirrors the situation world-wide. There was a time when everything was tribal, and each member knew the rules that governed their lives. If anyone broke these rules there would be some kind of Tribal Meeting, and the Chief or Holy Man would preside. A judgment was made on the basis of arguments put forward by both sides, and that judgment was executed. In the year 1100 the English Monarch Henry I took the first step towards rationalising the situation by actually writing it down. He issued what is known as the Charter of Liberties. It was a small-ish step to codify the customs and traditions at the time. This codification was felt necessary in order to provide some semblance of order and unification of justice, thereby preventing ‘wayward’ decisions/judgments resulting from various forms of corruption. The idea of ‘money’ – in place of pure bartering – had already taken root, and any Monetary System always provides golden opportunities for corruption. (And getting away with it!) But it was recognised that a living breathing human being had certain fundamental requirements. It is not necessary to go into those in any detail – food, water, shelter, and so on. And that, if these were not available in sufficient quantities, that individual would surely die. It was therefore recognised that a living breathing human being had, basically, fundamental rights to the “necessities for sustaining their life”. Please note (for the record) this may, or may not, have been a benevolent attitude. There was undoubtedly some benevolence in it, but the necessity to have personnel available to fight wars on behalf of the King was undoubtedly an important factor. And that means live men are needed. And that means live women are needed in order to bring these men into the world. And, furthermore, to bring other women into the world, in order to continue the supply of men. This reasoning, you can be sure, did not escape our ancestors. In fact the lack of benevolence next came to a head in 1215. This year, as many people know, is the year that the (original) Magna Carta was signed on 15th June at Runnymede. At that point the lack of benevolence had reached such proportions as to cause the English to say, fundamentally, “Listen: Enough is enough!”. And King John was forced to listen. (Once again this second important step was not entirely full of benevolence. The Nobility, who forced the King to sign, were mainly looking out for themselves but – once again – recognised that by ignoring the rights of the common individual they, themselves, would lack an army to defend their own piece of the pie) And so it goes. Nevertheless, the Magna Carta was a massive step forward in securing Common Law rights for everyone. Massive, as anyone who reads the original version can see for themselves. One major step was the introduction of the idea of a Jury to decide guilt or innocence. In other words a Prosecutor did not need to convince one single Judge, but needed to convince “13 normal people”. People who could put themselves in the place of the Accused, and look at it from their own point of view. They could use their own discretion, and that was very important step. Alternatively it can be said that the Accused had to convince these 13 of their innocence. A liar has more of a task when multiple individuals need to be convinced. And, furthermore, it was agreed that the verdict of this Jury was sacrosanct and should not be swayed by the Judge, nor could he overturn any verdict. It also said that if anyone was accused under – what was generally considered to be – an unfair or unjust law – then a Jury could find the law guilty, and totally acquit the Accused. Now that is some semblance of power to the people. And it provides the basis for all Constitutional Republics world-wide, and came in particularly handy when the Constitution of the united States of America was drafted and agreed. But that is only one aspect of the Magna Carta. Other essential and fundamental steps were agreed, the major ones being: 1) Trial by Jury as an essential right. 2) Everyone engaged in applying the law must know the law, and be minded to observe it well. 3) Property can only ever be seized on the basis of a verdict from a court of law. 4) Trivial offences can be dealt with based on “the oaths of good men in the neighbourhood”. 5) No-one can be placed on trial based solely on their own unsupported confession. 6) The right to justice can never be removed, cannot be sold, nor can it be delayed. In summary: You have the right to know what you are charged with, the right to defend yourself, and the right to your day in court. 7) The right to petition the Monarch and allow 40 days for any grievance to be settled. The right to enter into a state of lawful rebellion if that grievance still remains after this period. In the state of lawful rebellion to be able to seize the Monarch’s property and to throw every spanner in the works necessary to have the grievance resolved (apart from harm, injury, etc. In other words simple non-co-operation in every respect). And the right to encourage any others to help in this respect. To hand back any seized property once the dispute has been settled. There are others. And this was the kick-start to Common Law. It forms the bedrock of Common Law. Subsequently there were more distinct codifications, particularly in 1688/89 and 1701. The bulk of Common Law has subsequently been derived from precedents handed down as judgments and verdicts since that time. But it is important to remember that all (Case Law) judgments and verdicts have been based on, and do not deviate from, those fundamentals previously established by the Magna Carta, etc. Common Law, real law, the law-of-the-land, addresses the fundamental human condition, assuming equality of all before it. It has been said “Don’t use your head … use your heart. If your heart tells you it’s fair, right, and just, then Common Law will support and fully protect you. If you know, in your heart, it’s wrong or unfair, and you do it anyway, Common Law will come down on you like a ton of bricks“. And, fundamentally, that’s all you really need to know. You do not have to wade through Case Law because those concepts were employed in order to create that Case Law. What is a Statute? Put simply if you live peaceably, you will not violate Common Law. And you will not, therefore, end up in court charged with breaking Common Law. Consequently, if you end up in court, it will be because you violated a Statute. (And therefore you did not need to end up in court, as you will see if you read on. So, in essence, if a peaceful person ever actually ends up in court, it was because they simply did not know their rights) A Statute is the final result of a Bill placed before Parliament. If the Bill is passed by Parliament, it becomes an Act of Parliament. Upon receipt of the Royal Assent it becomes a Statute. Now, in a well-ordered society, we assume our elected representatives create our Parliament and make our laws. And this is where the Grand Deception starts. There is a long explanation and there is a short explanation. Which one do you want? “Oh … the short and uncomplicated one, please!” This is it: A Statute is a rule created by a representative governing body of a society designed to create common goals, which carries the force of law by the consent of the governed. Hold on to the thought “…by the consent of the governed” because that is a crucial thought. The long explanation (given below) can be crystallised into this definition. Are you the Government? No. Therefore you must be the “governed”. A Statute only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it. If you do not give your consent, a Statute cannot affect you in any way whatsoever. And the courts know this. You may not, but they certainly do. And the last thing they will do is tell you. In point of fact they will hide this from you at every opportunity. On the other hand, if you tell them, they will accept it because they know it is actually true. This is the Grand Deception. Does this mean that you can break the law with impunity? The careful answer to that is “No”, because that is a sloppy question. The “law” is Common Law, and you can’t break that. The question should have been “Does this mean you can violate a Statute with impunity?”. The answer to that is “Yes” because a Statute is not the law. It is, in reality, nothing more than Company Policy (as you will see). And, if you decide not to work for a particular company, its ‘policy’ does not in any way affect you. Think of it this way. You go to work for a Supermarket Chain. You will be given a handbook of company rules. While in their employ you must follow these rules or be sacked. For example, one such rule may be that – while working on Checkouts – you must not carry any of your own money about your person. This may be because it is impossible to tell money from money, and if you are caught in possession of money it might be the company’s money, out of the till. And the only way the truth could be determined is if you are barred from carrying your own money while operating the till. You either accept such rules, or don’t work for that company. But, if you don’t work for them, the rules don’t apply to you. You can carry your own money about your person at all times with impunity. You don’t expect to have to ask anyone if you can carry money, do you? During life, going about your peaceful business you don’t expect to be barred from carrying money. How else would you pay for anything? So how do you avoid such rules? Don’t work for the Supermarket Chain. Leave the company, “the society”. Work for some other company whose rules you can accept. OR BECOME “SELF-EMPLOYED”, and make your own “company rules”! And that, is actually “it”. That’s the nub, the kernel, the crux. You can choose to leave the “Statute Society”, the “Statute Company”, and become “self employed” as a Freeman-on-the-land. No, this is nothing to do with your job! That was just analogy! That’s why “self-employed” was written in quotes. You don’t need to become a self-employed builder, plumber, or carpenter, etc as your vocation in life. You can become “self employed” in terms of a “lawful, sovereign, peaceful human being entirely responsible for their own actions and not having to take any notice whatsoever of company policy issued as Statute by a nannying (and thoroughly, utterly corrupt) Board of Directors aka MPs, with one who calls himself Prime Minister aka Managing Director, or one who calls herself Queen aka Chairwoman”. Do I hear you say “That’s all very well, but we are talking about England, not a company!”? Well, here is some rather important news. The United Kingdom, like all other countries on the planet, is actually a Corporation. And you can check this out by obtaining a Credit Report on it via Dunn & Bradstreet. A number of these companies, such as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION and THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION are, in point of fact, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy – but being only Chapter 11 are still, therefore, allowed to trade. So this is a bit more of The Grand Deception. More of the Grand Deception is that the UK Ministry of Justice is a Corporation (yes, listed by D&B!), and that all courts are sub-franchises actively trading. Consequently a Summons (according to Black’s Law Dictionary synonymous with “an invitation”) is nothing more than “An invitation to go to the company’s place of business in order to be made a offer“. And you are perfectly entitled to say “No thanks, not interested in any offers you may make” The European Union is nothing more than a Corporate Merger. Who owns the UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION then? Like all companies, the shareowners of course! Who are the shareowners? Who do you think? No, it’s not the Government. No, it’s not the Queen. It’s you, if you were born in the United Kingdom. Your birth created a single share in your name. How much is your share worth? The total viable assets of the United Kingdom as a whole, divided by the number of shares. The maths have not (at this time) been done, but it is a fairly safe guess that the value of each share is in the millions of £s. Because you have never asked for it, your share is held in trust for you. It is held in trust by the Government of the day. This means that the quarterly dividends on the share are sent to the shareholder i.e. those who are actually holding the share (as opposed to those who actually own the share), together with the voting right it carries. When the Government votes to create a Corporate Merger with the other Corporations constituting the EU, it can use its Trustee Status to direct your vote to “Yes”. Claim your own share, become the holder of your share, and you enjoy the quarterly dividends and retain your own voting right to say “No”. Well, how are people prosecuted, fined and imprisoned, then???? Simply because they didn’t know the truth. They did not know their rights. The courts will not tell them. And, more to the point, if they did not realise that the initial Summons was simply the invitation defined above, then by attending that “place of business” tacit consent can be lawfully assumed. In other words – going back to “… by the consent of the governed” – attendance = consent to abide by Company Policy, and they plead guilty or not guilty to violating said policy. Putting it another way they agreed the Statute applied to them. They accepted that the Statute carried the force of law upon them. But what about Lawyers!? They must know, surely!? Maybe they do, and maybe they don’t. Who knows what Lawyers know (except other Lawyers)? However the facts are that, if someone realises they can simply ignore a Summons (knowing the situation, and what to actually say, of course!) then Lawyers would be reduced solely to Common Law cases. And that law has already been decided over hundreds of years. There is very little scope for adversarial argument. And, of course, it is the preparation for, and the time spent voicing, adversarial argument that Lawyers can charge for. Take away the adversarial part, and what is left? Consequently, even if Lawyers know, they have no incentive to tell anyone else. Lawyers thrive on adversary. Remember: Everything stated herein is capable of being verified with reference to Black’s Law Dictionary. Lawyers must have access to copies. So, what can I do about this? Put simply you can establish your own “self-employed-style” law. You can state your own terms for existence. Provided that your statements do not violate any aspect of Common Law, then this must be accepted by all other parties (by law!). This is achieved by means of a legal instrument called a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right. You state your understandings. You state your intent to live peacefully. You claim rights accordingly. You allow for objections during a reasonable period. You state that objections can be negotiated peacefully. You place the initial document in the hands of a Notary Public (and pay their fee). They will notify any relevant party with a copy of your Notice of Intent. After the time period has elapsed, and any objections resolved, the rights you claimed are yours until the day you die. You have created your own law, your own rules, and thereafter it is the law-of-the-land. It is the highest law possible. It trumps all other law. Oh, for heaven’s sake! No, you can’t just claim anything and everything! You can only claim your rights under Common Law. What’s the good of that? You become more powerful than the Monarch, plus any Government, plus the Police, plus the Military plus the European Union combined! What has that achieved? That you didn’t have before? Actually more than you can possibly imagine. I’ll give you one example. Do you mind if the police Taser you (for whatever reason)? You do? You mind? OK. Well, I certainly do. You can claim the right to compensation in the sum of, say, £500,000 per person involved in Tasering you. You can make that amount whatever you like. £5,000,000 per person if you wish. And the court will uphold this under your Claim of Right. You just wave it under their nose. So, explaining to a Police Officer that if he Tasers you, or tows your car away, or handcuffs you, or any non-peaceful action against you, is going to cost him his house, his job, etc. is likely to achieve … what? What do you think? He won’t believe you? Let him try it. He’ll soon find out! It’s pretty safe to say that, once he’s lost his house and his job, his remaining colleagues will think twice about the way they go about their business. How is this possible? Simply because the police are not doing their job. When becoming officers they swore to “… keep the peace and uphold the law of the land“. Common Law is the law-of-the-land. And “keeping the peace” is what Common Law is all about. And that is their job. And that is only their job. But, by and large, they don’t do that on a day-to-day basis. What they do instead is to “enforce Statutes” i.e. “enforce Company Policy” They are paid to be Peace Officers. They swear to be Peace Officers. In practice they operate as Policy Enforcement Officers and Tax Collectors for most of the time. Their job is not to enforce policy. Their job is not to collect taxes. Their job is to keep the peace. Tasering someone (or even shooting them in the head 7 times on Stockwell Station) is seriously disturbing that person’s peace. The police are the ones breaching the peace they solemnly swore to prevent. The police are the ones thoroughly breaking their own solemn Oaths of Service, and Common Law at the same time. Personally I think it is about time this was stopped. And possession of a Claim of Right can achieve that. The more people who do it, the better. Of course, there is nothing stopping any policeman from making his own Claim of Right. In doing so he will realise its full meaning, how it ensures peace all round, and he would fully realise what was meant by his Oath of Service. No! A policeman couldn’t make a Claim of Right to be able to Taser you!. A Claim of Right is only acceptable if it defines peace, no harm, no injury, no loss to anyone else. A Claim of Right cannot violate Common Law. It is Common Law. At the end of this document I append a template which is based on the one I claimed. You can personalise it by substituting your own name in place of mine. But I suggest you stick to the format of the name. There are legal reasons for this. If you have more than one Christian Name run them together, hyphenated. Make sure they terminate with a colon and leave a space immediately before your Surname, e.g. John-James-Arthur: Smith Orders If you go into a shop that sells curtains, and place an order for some curtains, do you expect to pay? The answer is “Yes”. If you place an order with a Mail Order firm, do you expect to pay commensurate with receiving the goods? The answer is “Yes”. An “order” is chargeable! The amount to charge is dependant on the one who carries out the order. The Mail Order firm, and the shop, set their rates. You decide whether or not you are prepared to pay that amount before you place any order. If someone gives you an order (e.g. a policeman, or a magistrate), you can say “Is that an order?”. The answer will be “Yes”. Therefore you can say “In that case, since an order is chargeable, I will charge you £50,000 for carrying it out. Are you prepared to pay?”. I leave you, the Reader, to guess what the answer will be. Remittances A remittance is legally equivalent to a sum of money. It is just paper and ink, of course, but then so is a cheque and more-or-less a banknote. In the united States a Dollar Bill is nothing more than paper and printing ink. Even in the UK a banknote is worth nothing like the sum printed on it. A Remittance Note is therefore equivalent to the sum of money printed on it. Consequently whenever you may receive a bill, which includes a pre-printed Remittance Advice, or Note, you can send it back to pay the bill. (If the amount of the bill is not pre-printed, then just write it in the box provided). Do not send an accompanying cheque. If you do the company will be being paid twice. They love that! More Grand Deception. They will probably write back saying “You forgot to enclose your cheque”. You can reply “No, I didn’t forget. I sent back the remittance to pay you the amount demanded”. Stick to your guns. A remittance represents the sum of money written on it (just as does a cheque), so the bill is discharged by sending back the Remittance Slip. The company’s Account Number will be on the slip. They can use their own account to pay themselves. Legal Fiction It is important to distinguish between words. “Legal”, for example, does not have the same meaning as “lawful”, and “lawful” is the only thing to worry about. Similarly “understand” can have the legal meaning “stand under”. Whenever a policeman cautions you, and adds “Do you understand?” s/he is asking you whether or not you “agree/consent to stand under … the Statute law”. (S/he doesn’t actually realise that, of course. But the courts do). You will have been told that ANYTHING you say WILL be given in evidence. Say nothing whatsoever. (It may be possible to reply “No, I do not stand under”, but this has not – at the time of writing – been tested) And this all adds to the Grand Deception. Another thing that adds to this melting pot is the word “person”. For example “Any person” is nothing like the same as “Any one”. Confused? No need to be. It is all very simple. There is a sleight-of-mind played to use the word “person” in a special, legal, context. Now, you may have been led to believe that you are a person and, in common parlance, of course you are – but legally speaking “a person” is not what you think it is. Legally “a person” is considered to be a “single-individual CORPORATION”. To whom Corporation (i.e. Admiralty) Law can be applied. (Check back, that’s the “law-of-the-sea”). The law-of-the-sea applies to SHIPs. That’s where ownerSHIP, citizenSHIP, LordSHIP, LadySHIP, etc. comes from. (Hey! courtSHIP, leading to a court-enforceable contract – marriage – between two people?) And, once a ship has docked, it can be pinned down (It’s hard to pin down a ship while it is sailing). The legal fiction called a PERSON associates a human being, for legal purposes, as a Corporation, a legal entity, visualised as a SHIP. That’s why, in court, they put you in the Dock. You are docked. You can be pinned down. Once pinned down, Statutes (Corporate Policy) can be brought to bear upon you. The important thing is to recognize that the Summons refers to a legal fiction. A straw PERSON. That’s why it will contain your name in CAPITALS or partially in all-capitals. If you respond normally, by tacit consent you become the legal fiction. Well, that’s the idea, anyway. But, if you’ve read this far, you might get the idea that you don’t want Company Policy Statutes to apply to you. So, you received a Summons because you didn’t pay a Parking Fine, what do you do? The invitation to go to their place of business to receive their offer (the Summons) will appear most draconian. What is necessary is to respond in a polite and peaceful manner which fully indicates that you know the score and that you have not fallen for the Grand Deception. At the time of writing I am not is possession of a Summons but, should I receive on in the future I would respond like the example below: To: The Clerk of the Court Brentford & Feltham Magistrates Court Hanworth Road Feltham TW13 5AF Dear Sir/Madam, The enclosed paperwork was delivered to the address at which I reside. It was addressed in the name VERONICA CHAPMAN. I have been led to believe that the usage of capital letters references a legal fiction known as a PERSON, which is, in point of fact, the name of some CORPORATION. I would be most grateful if you would kindly confirm or deny my understanding in this respect. Being a sovereign human being, a living soul, and consequently (as I understand it) under Common Law jurisdiction (i.e. the law of the land, as opposed to Corporate Law, namely the law of the sea), I’m not entirely sure why I have received this paperwork, and I would be grateful for any clarification in this matter, because I have no wish to dishonour any valid and lawful obligation on my part. Article 45 of the Magna Carta 1215 states: “We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only those who know the law of the realm and who wish to observe it well”, and this cannot be repealed or voided in any way because it pre-dates all Parliaments, and furthermore the document itself says so in other Articles. And said document bears the Royal Seal. In consequence of this I assume you can clarify, in lay terms, the points I have raised. According to Dunn & Bradstreet there is a registered company known as FELTHAM MAGISTRATES COURT. Since I am able to obtain a D&B Credit Report on said company, it seems reasonable to assume that it is actively trading. Please confirm that your good selves have no connection with said Trading Company, and that said paperwork was not an issuance from it. Yours faithfully, Veronica: Chapman (Please use this name, exactly as printed above, in any subsequent communications to my direct self the human being and living soul) Enc: Original paperwork received. I would add: “In care of: ” prior to my address that the top of this letter. I would place the Postcode in square brackets and add the word “Near: ” prefix to my Postcode, viz [Near: MY POSTCODE]. (And let them wonder why I had done that, if they did not already know) However, if you had already established a Claim of Right similar to mine (see below), you could simply respond with your Claim Reference and say “I have the established right to ignore this paperwork. Yours faithfully …” Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right This is my version. It is lengthy because it needs to set the scene. I can only suggest you study it carefully but – if you do – I’m sure it will all become clear to you. The long explanation of a Statute is embodied within it, leading up to how I can claim a right to ignore all Statutes. Fundamentally it is in two parts. I set out my understandings (they can be objected to, but provided they all remain within Common Law, objections fail), and then I set out my claims based on my understandings. Again my claims can be objected to. Within my claims I set my terms for peaceful co-existence with all others in my Country, including the police. I make provision for being able to shoot any foreign troops on sight. I also make provision for creating a court of justice to try ‘people in high office’ for treasonous acts against my Country. I consider all this to be my indisputable patriotic duty. Other countries? Remove the bits about the Queen and ECA1972 if they do not apply. Change the “United Kingdom”, “England”, “British Constitution”, POUNDS STERLING” etc appropriately. You can up or down the amounts of compensation you will accept to suit yourself. Nothing other than Common Law is quoted. You don’t know your laws? No need to. Just go for it. They will tell you (by objections) what you can’t claim.. If they don’t do that, your claim stands. (Note: “de facto” means “of fact i.e. simply established, and nothing more”. “de jure” means “of justice, and applying the law-of-the-land, i.e. the law”) (Note: This may or may not have been established at your time of reading. It may still be in progress, possibly with modifications subject to objections. Nevertheless something very much along these lines will be established) Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right I, Veronica: Chapman, a flesh and blood human being in possession of a sovereign and individual spirit, a living soul, do hereby make Oath and state the following is My Truth and My Law: Whereas it is my understanding the United Kingdom is a common law jurisdiction enjoying the protection of common law, and,Whereas it is my understanding equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and,Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law, and,Whereas it is my understanding a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and,Whereas it is my understanding that for something to exist legally it must have a name, and,Whereas it is my understanding the only form of government recognized as lawful in the United Kingdom is a representative one, and,Whereas it is my understanding representation requires mutual consent, and,Whereas it is my understanding that in the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor governance can exist, and,Whereas it is my understanding all Acts are statutes restricted in scope and applicability by the British Constitution and common law, and,Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a rule of a corporation, and, Whereas it is my understanding rules of a corporation are limited in applicability to those who are agents of said corporation, and,Whereas it is my understanding those who have a National Insurance Number are in fact employees of the government and thus are bound by the statutes created by the said government, and,Whereas it is my understanding that it is lawful to abandon ones National Insurance Number while at the same time not affecting the right to any pension claim based on National Insurance Contributions previously paid, and, Whereas it is my understanding people in the United Kingdom have a right to revoke or deny consent to be represented and thus governed, and,Whereas it is my understanding if anyone does revoke or deny consent they exist free of government control and statutory restraints, and,Whereas it is my understanding that a claim of right establishes a lawful excuse, and,Whereas it is my understanding that if one has lawful excuse one may choose to not obey a court, tribunal, statute, Act or order, and,Whereas it is my understanding that all existing courts and governments are de facto only and not de jure, and,Whereas it is my understanding that a woman acting as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor did take the throne of England on the Second day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty Three, and, Whereas it is my understanding that during a Coronation ceremony said woman acting as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor was asked by a man acting in the role of the then Archbishop of Canterbury “Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?” and she responded “I solemnly promise so to do”, and, Whereas it is my understanding that this ceremony did install said woman as Queen of England and the United Kingdom, and, Whereas it is my understanding that on or after the Seventeenth Day of October Nineteen Hundred and Seventy Two said woman did sign into statute an Act of Parliament known as the European Communities Act of Nineteen Hundred and Seventy Two (ECA1972) which accepted without my consent a treaty known as the Treaty of Rome, and, Whereas it is my understanding that the terms of the Treaty of Rome are counter in many respects to the respective laws and customs of those nations of which said woman is Queen including England which is my Country of birth, and, Whereas it is my understanding that anyone who participates in allowing or by culpable neglect enabling my Country to be governed in any way by any foreign power is an act of treason as defined by the British Constitution, and, Whereas it is my understanding, therefore, that by signing of the ECA1972 as opposed to dissolving by Royal Prerogative the Parliament that created the treacherous Act was in itself by collusion an attempted act of treason against my Country, and, Whereas it is my understanding that as a Freeman-on-the-Land in this common law jurisdiction that I have the duty to stand in defence of the United Kingdom and its people against foreign armed troops who attempt to invade, govern or police me or my Country, and,Whereas it is my understanding that this duty is not affected by agreements made by treasonous and de facto government agents, and,Whereas it is my understanding that agreements made on behalf of the United Kingdom by traitors to the United Kingdom do not bind the people of United Kingdom, and,Whereas I do firmly and truly believe the aforementioned agreement is an overt act of treason, and,Whereas I honourably refuse to be bound by agreements made by traitors such as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor in collusion with the then Prime Minister Edward Heath, and, Whereas it is my understanding that any peace officer who co-operates with foreign armed troops to govern or regulate the population is also committing treason, and,Whereas it is my understanding that historically the purpose of a national armed force was to ensure that foreign powers never invaded and governed under a gun, and,Whereas it is my understanding that the existence of armed foreign troops patrolling and policing our streets would be evidence of a war fought unsuccessfully, and,Whereas it is my understanding that agreeing or conspiring to agree to allow armed foreign troops to patrol and police our streets is an act of treason, and,Whereas a Freeman-on-the-Land has lawfully revoked consent and does exist free of statutory restrictions, obligations, and limitations, and,Whereas I, Veronica: Chapman am a Freeman-on-the-Land, and, Whereas it is my understanding that acting peacefully within community standards does not breach the peace, and,Whereas it is my understanding that any action for which one can apply for and receive a licence must itself be a fundamentally lawful action, and,Whereas as I not a child and I am a Freeman-on-the-Land who operates with full responsibility and I do not see the need to ask permission to engage in lawful and peaceful activities, especially from those who claim limited liability, and,Whereas it is my understanding a by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation, and,Whereas it is my understanding corporations are legal fictions and require contracts in order to claim authority or control over other parties, and,Whereas it is my understanding legal fictions lack a soul and cannot exert any control over those who are thus blessed and operate with respect to that knowledge as only a fool would allow soulless fictions to dictate ones actions, and,Whereas it is my understanding that the UNITED KINGDOM is in reality a corporation in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and thus still allowed to trade, and, Whereas it is my understanding that by virtue of my birth within the boundaries of my Country England I am a single share owner in said UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, and, Whereas it is my understanding that I can use a Notary Public to perform duties found under any Act including thus they have the power to hold court and hear evidence and issue binding lawful judgments, and,Whereas it is my understanding that a Notary Public can also be used to bring criminal charges to bear against traitors, even if they hold the highest office, and,Whereas it is my understanding that I have a right to use my property without having to pay for the use or enjoyment of it, and,Whereas it is my understanding that all public transportation’ is in fact and actuality public property to which I have the right of use and access without having to pay, and,Whereas it is my understanding that a summons is merely an invitation to attend and those issued by the Ministry of Justice or its franchises which are de facto corporations create no obligation or dishonour if ignored, and,Whereas it is my understanding peace officers have a duty to distinguish between statutes and law and those who attempt to enforce statutes against a Freeman-on-the-Land are in fact breaking the law, and,Whereas it is my understanding that I have the power to refuse intercourse or interaction with peace officers who have not observed me breach the peace, and,Whereas it is my understanding that permanent estoppel by acquiescence barring any peace officer or prosecutor from bringing charges against a Freeman-on-the-Land under any Act is created if this claim is not responded to in the stated fashion and time, andWhereas it is my understanding that the common law right to travel on the highways without license provided one is not engaging in commerce thereupon is lawful and still exists although it does appear to have been deceptively hidden, and,Whereas the Road Traffic Acts of the United Kingdom do make it possible for peace officers in the role of policy enforcement officers to stop an automobile in order to provide services and demand something of value, and,Whereas it is my understanding that if they are not providing a service they have no reason to stop any one and if proof of registration, insurance and licence is not valuable they have no need to ask for it, and,Whereas it is my understanding that I have the right to refuse to interact or co-operate with criminals, de facto government agents or grossly negligent peace officers, and,Whereas it is my understanding that if I have the power to elect a representative and empower them to appoint peace officers then I also have the power to appoint directly, and,Whereas it is my understanding that if I have the power to appoint directly or by proxy I must have the power to fulfill those duties my self, and,Whereas it is my understanding that the United Kingdom Police Force although having an illustrious history has had members recently acting in a grossly criminal manner which does tarnish the previous history and record, and,Whereas it is my understanding that the Law provides remedy at all times, even against rogue or negligent peace officers and de facto governments apparently hijacked by soulless corporate interests, and,Whereas it is my understanding that in order to be a peace maker and deal with rogue and possibly armed police officers who fail to act with respect to the code of common law I will need use of and access to firearms of equal or greater power then those people who act criminally have access to, and,Whereas it is my understanding that the act of registering the birth of a baby creates a legal entity called a person that exists in association with that baby and that the manner in which offspring are registered transfers superior guardianship rights over that offspring to the government, and,Whereas it is my understanding that this creation of a person and transfer of authority is not fully disclosed to the parents and if it was all good parents would refuse to register their offspring, and,Whereas it is my understanding that the person and the human being to which it is associated are two very separate and different things and that the people playing roles in government only have the right to act upon the person, and,Whereas it is my understanding that if I do not exist in association with a person I cannot be lawfully governed by the people playing roles in government, and,Whereas it is my understanding that I am not obliged to obey the orders of any one claiming to be a Queen or King or those acting on behalf of such an insane entity, as no one who does make preposterous claims that abandon and erode the concept of equality has any authority over me, and,Whereas it is my understanding that the people in the government are merely playing roles, and,Whereas I AM NOT PLAYING, and,Whereas it is my understanding that there may be more of this to followTherefore be it now known to any and all interested, concerned or affected parties, that I, Veronica: Chapman am a Freeman-on-the-Land and do hereby serve notice and state clearly specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations, restrictions and that I maintain all rights at law to trade, exchange or barter and exist without deceptive governance and to do so without limitations, restrictions or regulations created by others and without my consent.Furthermore, I claim that these actions are not outside my communities standards and will in fact support said community in our desire for truth and maximum freedom.Furthermore, I claim the right to engage in these actions and further claim that all property held by me is held under a claim of right.Furthermore, I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this claim and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or colour of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure. Furthermore, I claim it is my right and solemn duty not only to keep the peace My Self but also to intervene wherever may be necessary to ensure that the peace is kept in a situation where peace officers are not present or are unwilling for whatever reason to uphold their sworn and solemn duty so to do. Furthermore, I claim that the identity of My Self is forever possible to establish correctly by my Presence as a living, breathing, human being with a soul together as may be necessary sworn attestations from friends, family, and other associates. Furthermore I claim that this supercedes any necessity to obtain or carry any form of external token such as an Identity Card for any lawful purpose of establishing my true identity for the simple reason that no such token can ever represent the sovereign soul with which I am blessed. Furthermore, I claim that the courts in The United Kingdom are de-facto and bound by the Law and Equity Acts and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I further claim they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.Furthermore, I claim all transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties and I do(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
