visitors, 1st READ the synopsis of a 5 page overview then take me to the NUTS & BOLTS OF THE EVIDENCE Or here you can listen to the LINK of 1 hour radio interview 11/4/2014
Welcome to the website that is working to expose the property/financial rape/cleansing of the elderly/vulnerable"whom hold capacity" and whom are being "forced" into care homes against their will by government/judiciary agents whom want to steal & plunder their assets/cash! These Websites published under the protection of the Human Rights Act 1998 Article10(1) READ+ THE BILL OF RIGHTS/1ST AMENDMENT Sui juris, in propria persona www.opposepredatoryguardians.com
DEC 27 2016 Visiter No.640123 to mike/ann's www.opg.me FACEBOOK EXCHANGE Mike Clarke to Rob: REAL LAW has been usurped by JEWdicial statute maritime admiralty acts that are NOT LAW without the consent of the governed, BUT, using force and coercion the JEWdicial masonic racketeering powers that be, have been able over time, by fraud to make the public believe they have YOUR joinder over your ALL CAPS LEGAL NAME DEAD ENTITY, to attach to you the living sentient being any foul play THEY deem is a LAW that 'YOU' the dead legal fiction entity corporation & you the sentient living soul must abide by the same... committing, a FRAUD from the very beginning of BARRATRY by PERSONAGE...educate yourself PAL... Rob.. look them UP!!
So to paint the picture by numbers because 'YOU' the dead legal fiction entity corporation & you the living sentient being having been BRAINWASHED successfully by the JEWish media USARY of mind control, into thinking like a citizen SLAVE of the UNITED Kingdom, to perform to their FRAUDS as they see fit.......PIECING it together by NUMBERS here we go ...
1/. In the 1st 6 years of care mum had no interference in her life we were left to get on with routine 1996-2001...... NO MONEY!!
2/. When the money arrived in 2001... £775,000 so did the court of protection on the basis that under the mental capacity act she needed their protection as she in their eyes lacked capacity...
3/. Mum had 2 seperate independant clinical neuro specialist doctors that after 4 hours of exams seperately and independant examinations, deemed SHE had capacity and so the court of protection filed their own doctor in whom only examined mum for 40 minutes and unbeknown to him was recorded his name was Dr Khan his recorded exmination can be found on our website to listen to that within his 40 minutes you can clearly understand that it was NOT clinical like ours of 4 hours each and represents FRAUD No1.....
4/ The benefitting Senior Judge LUSH decided to fall on the side of his doctor stating 'we air on the side of caution' when all other courts operate on, BEYOND reasonable doubt.... which we believe he received a brown envelope of £20,000
5/ In this hearing he declared to the family they need rest assured about worries on charges as they do not fall directly on the care funds and that they do not really exceed £2000 yearly BUT they started at £26,377!!!!! hello.... have alarm bells started to ring and this has never been accounted for to the family or me in DETAIL!
6/ Overcharging amounted to near £150,000 that was never ever accounted for in detail by a secret court...
7/ EMIGRATION 2008 was not a problem.... but over time IT WAS shown to BE where mum could not exchange HER uk property for a SPANISH villa and where the Court of Protections jurisdiction of ENGLAND & WALES had obviously, invisably extended to worldwide!!! FRAUD!!!
Mum demanded release of her money which was denied... not only denied but even after exchange rate losses reported they failed to provide a EURO account to the country of residence preventing exchange rate LOSS which amounted to over £100,000 - MAL ADMINISTRATION resulting from the international THEFT of a clients control of her own money, outside the jusrisdiction of the JEWdicial frauds of UK racketeering Court of Protection..... IS THE PICTURE OF FRAUD beginning to build Rob?? IT SHOULD BE!
8/ Filing to ALL KNOWN bodies of so called UK citizens protection, complaining about this court resulted in a SHUT DOOR!!
9/ The Judge, JACKSON whom after an application to release ann from the FRAUD agreed with his own doctor after we presented 2 more clinical doctors reports in 2010 / 2011 that ann still had capacity 10 years later thats NOW 4 in agreement where even his own doctor said she had capacity to make a will... & he agreed !!
10/ ANN & ann made a LIVING WILL with a contrary to part 24 assignment in it that there will be no further public body interference in her life without invoking the living will executor ME & me if your further going to claim anymore incapacity in the future WHICH THEY DID and then immdeiately ring fenced my mothers house by placing upon it a RESTRICTION of SALE!! FRAUD by MIS-REPRESENTATION
11/ After filing upon them a COMMON LAW COMMERCIAL LIEN which is an affidavit statement of truth with financial remedy without rebuttal circumventing statute court FRAUD in which NO REMEDY could be found they then proceeded with an unlawful harassment case of committal using their own JUDGE, JUDGING in his own cause FRAUD??? Against a claimed sentient living being WHO had by education, seperated himself from the FRAUDS of BARRATRY & PERSONAGE claiming man status that demanded the true court of REAL LAW that THEY denied due course of.... FRAUD!!!!!
AGAIN. I have alot more to add of course but for NOW lets see how your BRAIN digests the above before we proceed further or do you just THINK this is another man and I emphasis MAN and his RAMBLINGS.
ALL TOLD you should, even YOU & you begin to grasp the fuller picture of what they are trying to do? Lets see!
in 2013 The LORDS select committee-
The Right Honourable The Lord Hardie, PC, QC
Former Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Supreme Courts of Scotland, and a former Lord Advocate
"Our other key finding concerns the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The intention of the safeguards is to provide legal protection for people who are being deprived of their liberty for their own safety.
The evidence suggests that tens of thousands of people are
being deprived of their liberty without the protection of the law, and without the protection that Parliament intended.
The Government needs to go back to the drawing board to draft replacement provisions that are easy to understand and implement,
and in keeping with the style and ethos of the Mental Capacity Act."
HAS ANYTHING HAPPENED by 2016 in a word.... NO!! MORE FRAUD!!
The MARK of THE BEAST ...[trademarked NAME]...and the attached is exactly how the commingled the living woman in this case to the all caps in preparation for all the deregulation and rehypothecation of the avatar YOU with the 2001 revisions to UCC 9 the global coup that 98% of the population is clueless took place between 1998-2008
Say hello to the trademarked representation of you and YOU!
Are you beginning to get a grasp on what has taken place and the need that we pull our heads from our asses, focus and educate ourselves to the facts, and educate others and speak out.... In law, commingling is a breach of trust in which a fiduciary mixes funds held in care for a client with their own funds, making it difficult to determine which funds ...
Wanda Maddocks a daughter who took her father out of a care home & was sent to prison for contempt for 6 months!!!! Without remedy! Kathy Danby the grandmother was seen hugging her own grandaughter against a court order so was sent to prison for months!!!! Without remedy! Theresa Kirk a great grandmother refused bring a Portugese national, pensioner back from his native country to UK care home by order, and for contempt 6 months prison!!! Without remedy! Leonard Lawrence a pilot, awoke from an induced coma to find his bank account empty and his house sold from under his feet by this court leaving him penniless and homeless Without remedy! Gary & Adrian Hollis businessmen, had their mothers assets stripped by this court running into millions of pounds!!! Without remedy! Peter Hofschroer an historian and writer, & Grandma Barbara whose home was sold from under her in an horrendous story of harassment and persecution internationally not dissimilar to ours!!! Without remedy! These are just a snippet of the huge, national, billion pound frauds being conducted by this JEWdicial masonic racketeering legalised scam by parliament. Without remedy!
Fri DEC 23 2016 Visiter No.639995 to mike/ann's www.opg.me MESSAGE DELIVERED@7am to a SISTER/DAUGHTER DEMANDING ANSWERS
Today[21.12.2016] we also are documenting further harassment by an anonymous female caller to our house rental agent whom refused to give her name that claimed this house cannot be rented when clearly it can. From the rental agent
"As for the call, it was on Monday[19.12.2016] just gone, at around 12.30, on our landline, it was a female and all she would tell me was that she was an “interested party” she was asking who gave me authority and I replied I cannot give her this information especially as she would not give me her name.
She went onto say that there was no “authority to rent out the property” and if this was granted then monies would have to be paid to a firm of solicitors as “the owner [ann] did not control her own finances” I said I couldn’t take any of the information she was giving with merit as she wouldn’t tell me who she was or who she was acting for.
Her reply to this was “well a solicitor will be calling you to confirm” with this I said bye and put phone down.
No solicitor has yet called us.[23.12.2016]
So as you say I presume it’s just someone trying to cause a problem." = [further harassment from angela wild - sister/daughter] Yesterday Thurs 22.12.2016 Our agent could not access the front door lock as it appears the lock had been changed!! The lock had to be replaced as a tenant was arriving at night to move in. It's beginning to look like the harassment of mum is extending further where not only she cannot sell her own house and live in peace abroad and now neither can she rent her house to gain the income from it without it being subject to solicitor charges, when in reality this is what mum was doing 4 years ago before it was invaded by corporate police!
FRI DEC 23 2016 Visiter No.639988 to mike/ann's www.opg.me 2nd REQUEST for CONFIRMATION of DELIVERY of 2 PAGES of 1st FILINGS
WEDDAY:DEC 21 2016 Visiter No.639910 to mike/ann's www.opg.me REVOLVING DOORS OF JUDICIAL FRAUD COMPLETE AND UTTER SCAM
Dear National Fraud Authority,
I made a complaint to the Police and Action Fraud with regards to fraud and corruption within the judiciary and authorities (institutionally). The complaint also related to perjury.
Initially, complaint wa smade to Office for Judicial complaints (OJC), they advised that matters related to perjury and fraud is the police responsibility. I contacted police and it should be referred to OJC. OJC confirmed that police must investigate. I made a complaint and a reference number was provided. No update or investigation has taken place and police has never ocntacted me. Because of the serious nature of the fraud, I have been targetted by the HOme office and other authoritities.
The complaint is as follows:
"I am a professional SEN TA in UK including my wife a teacher but currently an asylum seeker. I have regular court cases and I am not legally represented. I have been victimised, bullied, harassed by the court for a long time. But the fraud incident happened when the Newham's children and Young people services' social workers made false witness statements under oath to submit to the court. The statements are false and bear information which is damaging to my character and my life. The court relied upon the false witness statements to make a negative decision on my case without taking any action towards the act of perjury. I complained to OJC about the judges who covered up the perjury matters and was informed: "if the defendants submitted false statements and the judges knowingly acted in the way described and there is evidence of corruption in allowing false evidence and perjury these are criminal offences and the correct way to pursue this is to report these concerns to the police". The judges concerned in the acts of perjury are:
1. Lord Justice Aikens
2. Stuart Isaacs QC
3. Master Yoxall QBD
4. Justice MacDuff
5. Master Kay
6. QBD Operations manager Stuart Pycock and other staffs
7. Bow County Court (DJ Stone and HHJ Redgrave)
Master Kay sold our case bundles to media - to John Kay - THE SUN NEWSPAPER and later files of over 400 pages disappeared from the court's premises. To cover up,
Justice Rabinder Singh QC who bullied us as he was involved in conspiracy. He concealed evidences. He abused his position by working for Attorney general as a counsel and make decision on cases defending the Treasury solicitors. Conspiracies were also carried out by other organisations. We have also been threatened by some police officers. Files disappeared form Bow county court, DJ Stone was replaced by some one else who used his name to hear cases, HHJ Redgrave tried to throw the White book on us. Bailiffs were sent to our home assisted by multiagency operations along with the judiciary. Our possessions and CCTV were confiscated by the police, but we still have some footages in our portable device. Police assisted to conduct the operation. This complaint comprise of
1. conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
2. Providing false information for the suspect's own advantage
3. It covers various criminal acts such as Perjury Act 1911,
4. False statements under oath Criminal justice Act 1948
5. Serious crime act 2007 6. Theft Act 1968
7. Misrepresentation of material facts 8. Fraud act 2006 Section 2
9. Misconduct in public office
10. Institutional racism within the judiciary and other organisations. This matter is very serious and we have been victim of such crimes. We understand that the people whom we are complaining of are highly influential but we still believe that the police will assist us and investigate the matter further and bring those responsible accountable for their actions. We have all evidences needed. This complaint is today being made after the advice of the Office for judicial complaints currently known as Judicial Conduct Investigation office. We will be grateful for your cooperation in this matter and we believe that the police will act independently as our previous complaints have not been dealt appropriately and have led to IPCC..."
My FOI request is:
1. In such case, which department deals with this type of fraud?
2. how is the fraud investigated?
3. What is the role of the police?
4. what policy and procedure in place to investigate such complaints?
[report 2011] A total of 29 members of the judiciary were sacked, including one coroner and six tribunal panel members.
Offences ranged from “inappropriate behaviour or comments” to professional misconduct or getting into trouble with the law themselves. Another 25 resigned while under investigation, including two judges, and 18 magistrates.
Judges were in trouble for criticising foreign governments, attacking the UK’s immigration system – and one was accused of having an affair with a male prostitute.
Magistrates were sacked for being at the centre of fraud investigations, getting embroiled in assault cases and cheating on benefit claims.
The total of 54 who left under a cloud is up from 46 in 2009-10 and 43 in 2008-09.
There were almost 500 complaints to the Office of Judicial Complaints about inappropriate behaviour or comments, a rise of 40 per cent in two years. here http://www.justiceraped.com/
TUESDAY:DEC 20 2016 Visiter No.639896 to mike/ann's www.opg.me THE EQUAL TREATMENT BENCHBOOK 2013 FOR THE JUDICIARY
BOTH here sent recorded delivery This is to confirm that your letter with the id 96806 being sent to the address below has a tracking number of: KX535995575GB.
Queen's Bench Division Action Department The Royal Courts of Justice Strand London
You can track the progress of your letter here: http://track.royalmail.com.
Please note that you will only be able to track your letter after at least 24hr-48hrs.
MONDAY:DEC 19 2016 Visiter No.639860 to mike/ann's www.opg.me FAKE COURTS sign petition watch the video
The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Administrative Law Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.
Administrative Law: Bias, Impartiality and Independence 1
Scope and rationale of the rule
Why is procedural fairness important?
Instrumental importance: see, eg, Raji v. General Medical Council  UKPC 24  1 WLR 1052 at , per Lord Steyn. Promotes good decision-making.
Normative importance: for discussion, see Galligan, "Procedural Fairness" in Birks (ed), The Frontiers of Liability (volume one) (Oxford 1994); Galligan, Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures (Oxford 1996); Allan, "Procedural Fairness and the Duty of Respect" (1998) 18 OJLS 497. Recognises the dignity of individuals. It doesn't 'characterise them as objects of an arbitrary and authoritarian government process.
But does the distinction matter? E.g. what if a fair hearing 'would make no difference'. Sometimes the rationales can point in different directions - the instrumental view in this situation suggest that we can safely dispense with procedural fairness. A normative view would insist on it anyway. There are three dimensions to procedural fairness: the rule against bias, hearings (better thought of as a 'right to participate'), and reasons (the newest limb - fairness requires the person whom a decision impacts to know why the DM made that decision). Importance of a rule against bias to the notion of 'fairness':
See, eg, Galligan, Due Process and Fair Procedures: A Study of Administrative Procedures (Oxford 1996).
There is a difference between bias and fairness - can a decision be fair if taken by a biased decision maker? No. 'Whatever reasons are good reasons, those displaying bias will never be among their number.' Further, being an attack on the idea that in any legal context, there are authoritative standards to apply, the absence of impartiality is a fundamental flaw which renders the process illegitimate. [Refers to real bias, and not the appearance of bias.]
What are the objectives of the rule against bias?
Actual fairness (actual absence of bias)
Appearance of fairness: R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy  1 KB 256
- 'it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done' (per Lord Hewart CJ) (absence of perceived bias)
Whitworth was a motorcyclist who had a traffic collision with McCarthy, also on a motorbike. He made a claim through his solicitors for damages from McCarthy. In addition, a criminal prosecution for dangerous driving was brought, and McCarthy was convicted by a magistrates' court. Clerk to justices happens to be a partner in the law firm representing C in the civil proceedings.
The clerk wasn't actually consulted by the magistrates - he had no impact. However, it was held that the conviction should be quashed, as "justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done" (Lord Hewart CJ). The rationale behind this is that if people are to rely on the system, and put their trust on it, it should not only be fair - but should also seem to be fair. In order to achieve this aim we have an over-inclusive rule. The European jurisprudence is very clear - it seeks to preserve confidence in the administration of justice. WE use the FMIO, because after all it is him that we need to ensure confidence in. There are three aspects to the rule against bias:
Actual bias (very little case law) Automatic disqualification rule (certain factual matrices exist, which if met result in bias being irrebutably presumed). In the absence of automatic disqualification, there may be circumstances where upon more thorough examination there is a perceived risk or appearance of bias sufficient to disqualify the decision maker.
Financial interests generally
It is a well established rule that, if a decision maker has a
'Disclosure' and 'disqualification': Jones  PL 391 at 399
We ought to refer to the rule as one of automatic disclosure not automatic disqualification. In practice what should happen is that judges disclose interests to the parties, and then the parties can object, or waive their right to object - it is an irrevocable decision of the parties (Locabail). In an ideal word this would always be the case - but in the real world judges forget, interests aren't noticed etc. - this is where the case law arises.
Note possibility of waiver: Locabail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd  QB 451 at 475
[See facts below: Herbert Smith case.] If there is an appearance of bias which arises on the facts, a party can other object, or must waive their right to object. The waiver must be clear, equivocal and informed. On the facts, after the Judge's disclosure of his (albeit de minimis, see below) financial interest, by not doing anything Mrs Emmanuel was treating the disclosure as being of no importance. By her inaction she had impliedly waived any right to object. (The objection only arose after Mrs E lost - she 'wanted the best of both worlds, and the law will not allow her to do so'.
Note Dimes v. The Proprietors of the Grand Junction Canal (1852) 3 HLC 759
Lord Chancellor (sitting as a judge) granted a remedy to a company, and it turned out that he was a shareholder in that company, a fact that he had not disclosed. His decision was quashed in Dimes. Lord Campbell had said that 'no one can suppose [he]
was influenced', yet there must be a rule that no one is to be a 'judge in his own cause'. It often aids judges to apply the automatic disqualification rule against other members of the judiciary, as it avoids having to cast judgement on whether they might actually have been, or be perceived to have been influenced. There was automatic disqualification which was applied (as Jones notes) retrospectively.
Can the automatic disqualification principle be justified?
Per Lord Campbell in Dimes: '[n]o one can suppose that Lord Cottenham could be, in the remotest degree, influenced by the interests that he had in this concern'
Which (if any) part of the rationale underlying the rule against bias is furthered by the decision in Dimes, and the principle for which it now stands?
Potency of financial interest - appearance of bias is inevitable. It also aids the courts to have a 'bright-line' rule. A financial interest test is an easily applicable standard, there is no ambiguity. There is a difficulty though - if no one could suppose the Lord Chancellor to be influenced, does the decision serve any instrumental or normative aim at all?
If there is no conceivable possibility of anything untoward having happened, surely the financial interest test doesn't actually help the rule against bias serve its function of ensuring public perception of fairness.
Is automatic disqualification on grounds of financial interest unduly insensitive to contextual factors?
The very essence of the rule holds that a direct financial interst should disqualify the decision maker irrespective of the context, abd wthout the need for detailed evaluation of the facts. Olowofoyeku argues that such an approcach risks elevating expediency above a range of competing - and arguably more compelling - policy factors.
Note the criticism made by Olowofoyeku, 'The Nemo Judex Rule: The Case Against Automatic Disqualification'  PL 456: 'automatic disqualification is draconian, disproportionate and unnecessary. There is nothing that can be achieved by automatic disqualification that cannot be achieved by an application of the real danger/reasonable apprehension test. On the other hand, application of the automatic disqualification rule may well lead to the disqualification of judges in situations wherein a closer inspection of the circumstances would reveal that there was never any realistic possibility of bias.'
Not only is the rule unnecessary, it has been argued that it is also damaging. Dimes could also have been decided on the basis of the real likelihood or danger, or reasonable apprehension of bias test. Lord Cottenham's 'several thousand pound interest' back in 1852 would translate to several hundreds of thousands of pounds today. It is not fanciful to suppose that such a large amount of money might have had an impact on the his judgement, notwithstanding his eminence. Dimes was an example of a case where the case should not have been allowed to stand, but there have been
examples where the decision should have swung the other way, and the AD rule is 'draconian'.
For recent discussion of the relationship between automatic disqualification and the fair-minded and informed observer test, see R (Berky) v Newport City Council
 EWCA Civ 378,  2 CMLR 44.
The scope of automatic financial disqualification
R v. Rand (1866) LR 1 QB 230 at 232, per Blackburn J: 'any direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject of inquiry, does disqualify a person from acting as a judge in the matter'
See also R v. Camborne Justices, ex parte Pearce  1 QB 41 at 47, per Slade J
Similarly exacting formulation of 'any direct pecuniary interest, however small' applied here. N.B the financial interest rule applies to administrative decisions as much as judges. The primary criticism of AD lies in it's undiscriminating nature. It is ostensibly very rigid, with scant regard for the broader context within which issues arise. However, there are some financial interests which are recognised as being so remote or indirect that they fall outside of the scope of automatic disqualification. This more subtle approach was adopted in Locabail:
Cf the view of the Court of Appeal, refusing to apply the Dimes principle on thee facts, in Locabail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd  QB 451 at : 'there has in more recent authorities been acceptance of a de minimis exception'.
Locabail was a secured creditor, who had given a loan to Mr Emmanuel secured on his property. Mrs Emmanuel claimed that she had a right in the property. Sudoexport was an unsecured creditor who had given an unsecured loan to Mr Emmanuel. It would help them if she lost her case. The Judge deciding Mrs Emmanuel's case was a partner in Herbert Smith - and Sudoexport was one of their clients, so he had an indirect financial interest in their success. This was a fact which the judge disclosed at the start of the proceedings. Mrs Emmanuel's case to get the decision against her quashed was rejected on de minimis grounds - it isn't any possibility of financial gain that triggers automatic disqualification. Locabail is an exceptionally useful decision. But Forsyth thinks that what the case is about is not automatic disqualification, but the FMIO.
See also R v. Bristol Betting and Gaming Licensing Committee, ex parte O'Callaghan  QB 451 (another of the 'Locabail cases' - there was a recognition that Dyson J's link with a betting company due to his property company was too remote to automatically disqualify him from deciding on a disgruntled gambler's case).
There is a tension here - the de minimis exception avoids over inclusiveness, but a more simplistic rule is compromised by de minimis cases. Elliott suggests that the fact that the automatic disqualification rule has a meadure of subtlety, and doesn't seek to disqualify a judge with any financial interest irrespective of its remoteness, goes some
way to meeting disproportionate.
The more subtle the rule becomes though, the more the AD rule seems to emulate a substantive evaluation of the circumstances in which the decision is made. The modern view appears to be that there aren't two rules - the cases covered by automatic disqualification are just a subset of the 'fair minded and informed observer' test. W&F refers to those falling within the de minimis exception (such as Locabail) as 'fanciful allegations of bias'.
Beyond financial interests Note R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2)  1 AC 119
Pinochet No1: The HoL had to decide whether Pinochet could be extradited, or whether he should be protected by an immunity rule for former heads of state. AI were allowed to intervene in the HoL case, there was a 3-2 majority in favour of the permissibility of extradition. Lord Hoffman was a member of the majority. Pinochet No2: Lord Hoffmann was the director of AI Charity Limited - a related company to AI in the earlier case. The HL first decided they had the authority to set aside their own decision (a novel jurisdiction), and then decided to do so. They applied the automatic disqualification rule. The scope went beyond financial interests - the interest could also be disqualified if he the judge was a party. He wasn't a party, but he was sufficiently analogous to one. Hoffmann had a non-financial disqualifiable interest in the case, because he had a strong interest, and a close relationship with the party.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson's 'defence' of this 'extension' of the principle: o
General principle applying to judges with interest in outcome
The HL argued that they were not extending the automatic disqualification rule, but that that prohibition had always applied (properly understood) to judges with interest - financial, proprietary or otherwise in the outcome. Second, Lord BW was at pains to point out that the AD principle would, in the absence of a financial interest, operate only in the event of a rare coincidence of circumstances, such as those in Pinochet itself. o
Unusual circumstances of Pinochet
Note criticisms of Pinochet (see generally Malleson, 'Judicial Bias and Disqualification after Pinochet (No 2)' (2000) 63 MLR 119 and also (2002) 22 LS 53): o
Uncertainty - compromises 'efficiency' of automatic disqualification rule?
One of the advantages of AD is its efficiency - it is only triggered by certain easily identifiable interests - those financial and proprietary. We have already seen that this is blunted by the Locabail willingness to examine the directness of a financial interests, but should we blur the position further by allowing other interests to come within the scope of the rule? This adds scope to Elliott's argument above that we only truly have a rule of apprehended bias now, and that the AD rule is extinct.
When does the rule operate? (Compare Lord Browne-Wilkinson's view with that of Lord Hutton ( 1 AC 119 at 145))
The proper construction of the rule is that it should be narrowly constructed, as Lord BW suggests (requiring both a strong interest and close relationship with a party), otherwise the decision would extend the ambit of Pinochet well beyond the unusual circumstances of the case. Lord Hutton thought only one of these elements was necessary.
However, the circumstances in which the Pinochet principle will apply are relatively limited. See, eg, Helow v. Secretary of State for the Home Department
 UKHL 62  1 WLR 2416
Apprehension of bias
The Court of Appeal commented in Locabail (UK) Ltd v. Bayfield Properties Ltd 
QB 451 at  that: 'In practice, the most effective guarantee of the fundamental right [to a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal] ... is afforded not ... by the rules which provide for disqualification on grounds of actual bias, nor by those which provide for automatic disqualification, because automatic disqualification on grounds of personal interest is extremely rare and judges routinely take care to disqualify themselves, in advance of any hearing, in any case where a personal interest could be thought to arise. The most effective protection of the right is in practice afforded by a rule which provides for the disqualification of a judge, and the setting aside of a decision, if on examination of all the relevant circumstances the court concludes that there was a real danger (or possibility) of bias.' Here there is no inevitable presumption of bias; rather the disqualification follows only if the facts give rise to an apprehension or perception of bias.
The precise nature and content of the rule was for a long time more difficult to pin down than AD. What standard does the test use, a 'reasonable suspicion' or 'real likelihood' of bias?
Through whose eyes is the question considered from - the court or the reasonable person? One might be more or less sensitive to what could constitute bias. If it is the latter, what level of knowledge do we impute to them - do they know that clerks don't tell magistrates what to decide?
See generally on this debate Alexis  PL 143
See further R v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy  1 KB 256, R v. Barnsley Licensing Justices, ex parte Barnsley and District Licensed Victuallers' Association  2 QB 167 and Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v. Lannon
 1 QB 577
In Gough, the HL attempted to lay the confusion to rest. The 'real danger' test.
****************************End Of Sample*****************************
SATDAY:DEC 17 2016 Visiter No.639815 to mike/ann's www.opg.me STATEMENT by TOM CRAWFORD Tom Crawford to Eviction the fraud of the bank
2 hrs ·
Sorry for taking so long to give you an update on yesterday’s court case, but I had to gather my thoughts.
First of all, I would like thank all those that came to support my family on the day unfortunately there was not enough seats for them all to witness the court case, and some travelled a very long way, but your efforts will always be remembered by our family and also the good wishes from those who could not attend, from the bottom of our hearts we would like to thank you all for your support.
Well it was an epic struggle against a system that has been put in place to stop information such as ours getting into the court system let alone achieve justice!
There were two magistrates and a Crown Court Judge Rosalind Coe QC, who I’ve seen in action before were she tried to convict a woman in a mobility scooter who was suffering from motor neuron disease and many other ailments, who was accused of growing a marijuana plant in her rented out upstairs flat in fact she could not possibly get into the flat unless she was physically carried up the stairs, the person who rented the flat was found not guilty in the Crown Court. So why attempt to prosecute this woman? So I was under no illusion to the character of this judge, and as it transpires my opinion of her was well founded,
First of all, I had a list of eight witnesses that I required witness summonses for, all of these witnesses were denied! the Crown Prosecution Service call 2 witnesses, I was denied my right to face and cross examine my accuser! they also read out witness statements that they had not given me before not that there was much information in them.
Judge Coe tried railroad me and stop me putting my evidence into court and on the record, you see I had prepared a court bundle that had taken two weeks to prepare showing the corruption and fraud within their system, she didn’t succeed in restricting all off the evidence as I managed to get a quarter of the information that I had on the record, I also told the judges that there was no equality of arms as I been denied my witnesses which would have proved my innocent without a shadow of a doubt basically, but the court had taken away my armour of protection, but I told them I still had the sword of truth which I will use to the best of my ability.
Even with the restrictions placed upon me I managed that to get into court the credit River case from America as this is the only case in the world that the bank was found guilty because of mortgage fraud! I also proved that the County Courts does not have the jurisdiction to take private property as in their act and statutes property is referred to as dwellings and residential property these are in actual fact commercial property and have a rateable value unlike private property! that the general public are not aware of, I told a judge that the County Court is a court of commerce and does not have jurisdiction on the private side, and I backed this up with a judgement from Ireland, where in the Court of Appeal that upheld commercial courts such as County Courts do not have the jurisdiction over private property! You see, they have been hoodwinking us into believing that a dwelling is a private house, what will come out of this information will help others fighting council tax!
During the confrontation the judge did her very best to undermine my case, claiming that she cannot undermined the civil courts decisions, but I pointed out to her the fraud in the court documents and there was criminal elements operating in the filing office.
I had previously had a mention in the Crown Court three weeks ago where it was agreed that the CPS would produce six documents. One of them to be the elusive warrant and I require it to be certified and attested by a sworn in judge on his oath!
Once again, they were not able to provide any of the documents, let alone the certified warrant, but the judge didn’t care, and claimed that all the documents were correct and even if they weren’t the eviction went ahead and it was no longer your property, only a criminal with the most corrupt intent will come out with such a comment.
I told the judge that Sue and myself brought our children up to believe that the banks would assist us with our monetary matters, the solicitors would be good counsel when needed, and the courts would protect the innocent and punish the guilty! And the police would uphold the law and protect the public, every one of these have now been proved to be a fallacy! The banks are a criminal entity, the solicitors deal and treachery and lies, the courts are there to protect their masters the banks in a criminal cartel between the three of them and the police have now been so corrupted that they can’t even understand what common law is, at that point I got a round of applause from the gallery the old witch on the bench was not too pleased with that.
The judges and the CPS embarrassed themselves and were a disgrace to the word justice! So much so Miss Almas Ben-Aribia for the Crown Prosecution Service stood up and told the judge that she did not want to cross examine the defendant!!!! Guy Taylor said in 29 years he’s never seen the accused not being cross examined! She didn’t even give her summing up, and that’s another amazing point, I believe it was because she was so embarrassed and so guilty for witnessing and taking part in such injustice, so at this point they retired to give their decision.
Well during this break one of our trolls attacked a young lady outside the court and assaulted other members of the public which he was rightly arrested, this is the general standard of the mentality of these sick individuals, not been so embarrassed with the situation one of them would you believe it is a property developer commented that it was a shame it should have been my daughter Amanda who should have been assaulted these people are mentally ill and really should be pitied, there is one thing we have all the information on every one of these individuals and they will be getting their collars felt once I finish taking on the big boys, but back to the court case.
Judge Coe with her to criminal friends having retired for 10 minutes which wasn’t enough time to make a cup of tea let alone considered five hours of evidence, but nevertheless they all came back into court, gave judge Coe gave their decision and in quiet sheepish voice starting speaking! after a short time one of the members of the gallery had to ask her to speak up and in the fastest time possible she upheld the previous court’s decision and found me guilty with no change to the previous sentence, she then quickly got up quickly bowed and the all three criminals exited the door as fast as they could, I believe that the evil that was in that woman was even suppressed for a while, But not enough for her to do her master’s bidding, the woman is a traitor to the people and the people will have their say as justice will.
And finally, I’m sorry for the length of the post, but it is condensed as best as I could, I will have to say had I had a jury of my peers I believe there is not one in this country or the world that would have found me guilty, this is why they are subverting the common-law jury practice because they fear it so much that if the true law was returned to this country their masters would not get the decisions that they require to pillage this country and the rob the people.
I think the dark side should consider surrendering now! because I am not going to give up, I look at it this way, they are attempting with a big hammer to hit a steel spring, It only results in coming back at them especially when they are not watching! Another comparison is a master beating his dog! the majority of dogs will cower and whimper, but there are ones that will pull their legs off! we will NOT! be beaten. My family and myself will not be beaten by liars, cowards and criminals we will keep going to the end of this battle and we shall never leave the battlefield until we
SUNDAY:DEC 11 2016 Visiter No.639625 to mike/ann's www.opg.me LAND REGISTRY FRAUD by DIANE SMITH email@example.com
Sent: Sat, Dec 10, 2016 01:38 PM
Subject: To put on website.
Those who know me, will have heard me many times say that to beat the corruption of Land Registry's participation in asset stripping targeted victims of property / land , you need to timeline events of your case.
This is because Land Registry truly believe they can walk on water when it comes to perfecting the art of shutting the stable door , when the horse has already long bolted.
This is now a heads up to the scheme Land Registry is very publicly running called " Property Alert", in place since 2014.
Over 50,000 people have already registered.
It is free and supposedly open to all.
It requires you requesting the lodging of further details for contact , like e-mail addresses or say an address of a friend or relative and a means of additional contact details.
In return Land Registry will notify if there is any movement to do with the property like someone fraudulently taking out a mortgage.
All that said , Land Registry have run an unlawful " Disengagement Policy" since 2008.
All the people l know who have been disengaged with , appear to be denied this scheme that is meant to be open to all.
However as it is known once you record a request to use this scheme, under the terminology of their own rules regarding " disengagement" , a file has to commence to make an accurate account.
This is valuable to victims as it could be possible later on to breach the walls we are hitting .
Property / Land Law does not meet in any way with Civil Law .
In fact under Property / Land Law , a person receiving redress has to be it back in the situation they were in prior to matters happening.
This means victims who have lost their homes , must have them returned to them.
I realise how ridiculous this must sound , as of course as time goes on , properties change hands , mortgages become involved.
But Property / Land Law states it has to happen.
Also under Property / Land Law , issues are frozen to the law at the time of them occurring.
Which Land Registry seem to choose to forget.
So apply to join the Property Alert Scheme that " MoneyWise" and " The Moneysaver Website " are promoting as open to all.
As long as you are still active , whether trying to get a stolen home back or fighting to stay in your home, files made once you make your request, could save the day later on, as in theory it makes record of everything happening behind the scenes and information that can be used to become a winner!
Diana Smith - AGENDA JUSTICE - defending the rights of the vulnerable and elderly.
Should NEVER have happened in the 1st instance. What really needs to be addressed is why in the 1st instance is a so called Judge issuing such draconian punishment on innocent grandmothers???? WHY is it happening and why are they getting away with it??? They did the same to Kathy Danby who also is at risk of it happenning again and also to Wanda Maddocks not to mention myself where there are valid lawful natural reasons for such a contempt to be broken under the legal rule of 'lawful excuse'. Where a crime or a law is broken or it is unjust it is a humane duty but to oppose it or disregard it... the courts are not listening and the Judges are equally deaf because they under their own draconian rules that cannot see or hear us in relation to the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 we are all DEAD wards of courts that must have representation that IS indeed a fraud by non disclosure leading to Personage & Barratry to make money in the legal world attaching charges to innocents properties.. it's clear what it's all about.. but it just amounts to a scandalous FRAUD... time it was buried with those who keep purpetuating such FRAUD.
The so called 'Judge' Jackson in our own case will not take account at all PERIOD of the allegations against the court whom he works for the court of 'protection' that have by fraud made serious errors upon my own mother who is a great great grandmother that has for the very last 4 years been denied her right to a normal life to go and see her own new additional relatives without fear of being dragged off to a place she chooses not to go by forces acting completely against her will... a will that is clearly intact and has been from day one but this courts additional motives are to cover up FRAUD on a grand scale. It simply beggars belief how in 2017 approaching we are still trying to obtain some justice for what has transpired and that the common purpose of agencies that will conspire against us to close ranks in order to cover their failings using all methods of any pressure that can be brought to bear upon us that are infact failing.
MONDAY:NOV 21 2016 Visiter No.638914 to www.opg.me INTERESTING FACEBOOK ENTRY
Carole Kennedy -
Roger Taylor Moore
14 November at 14:54
People seem to think that England is in the UK. It isn't.
England IS in the UK geographical area, but for statutory matters the UK is a corporation. As such it is totally imaginary and exists only on paper and in the minds of man. You see, geographical areas couldn't care less about
statutes. Corporations take them very seriously.
Clearly a real thing like land, Eng-land, cannot exist within a fiction such as the UK.
England is a well defined geographical region governed by a constitutional monarchy and English parliament under the Law of the Land.
The UK is a state active all over the world and unrestricted by geography. It is governed by the UK parliament, the Crown Corporation and the judiciary. These represent the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government respectively. All three are headed by the same man or woman albeit acting in three different capacities - the Queen (or king)in Parliament, the sole shareholder and the head of the judiciary.*
Here is the kicker:
UK citizens, while obviously in UK jurisdiction, are taught to belive that the UK includes England, Scotland and Wales etc. The English people therefore expect English law and justice to prevail in the UK when in England.
Well you can't be in both the UK and England! Sure, you can be in the geographical region of England and in the corporate UK. But you cannot be in England as governed by a constitutional monarchy AND in the UK under a
corporate sole. NO MAN CAN HAVE TWO MASTERS!! Can you work for Tescos and Asda simultaneously???
Obviously if the UK government told the truth, that English people aren't actually in England, there would be hell to pay. So they lie, pay lip service to English law and the constitution and then ignore it whenever they
can. In doing so they are not breaking English law or violating the constitution because England is an entirely separate jurisdiction to the UK and its laws are not relevant to the UK.
It follows that the English constitution has nothing to do with the UK. The UK did not even exist when much of the English constitution was created!
When you go into a UK court and threaten to sieze it under Magna Carta you are taking the law from one jurisdiction, England, and attempting to apply it to another, the UK. Now the government can hardly tell the truth can they? So they just ignore their unruly citizens and continue in accordance with their own rules - leaving constitutionalists bewildered and angry at having, from their perspecitve, their laws, customs and traditions trampled on. The fact is that this has not happened because they were never in the correct jurisdiction to avail themselves of those laws in the first place.People seem to think that England is in the UK. It isn't.
because the business of theft from the vulnerable is so lucrative the next generation follow suit HUGH JONES's sons HENRY and DAVID... Henry Jones being a lecturer in law at DURHAM university and David Jones a solicitor at his dad's flourishing HUGH JONES SOLICITORS Manchester. DAVID JONES pictured below\/\/\/\/
THURSDAY:NOV 17 2016 Visiter No.638755 to www.opg.me THE SHOCKING CRIMINALITY OF BRITISH ESTABLISHMENT
I think the evidence is completely undeniable that the Houses of Parliament and the establishment elites are up to their necks in every form of criminality including the most heinous crime of pedophilia, a revolting and despicable crime that traumatises the mind of all good people, notwithstanding the suffering, torture and psychological pain that it inflicts upon the innocent victims.,
The Lord Sewel scandal were he allegedly procured prostitutes and possessed and supplied a Class A drug and the mind-boggling Westminster pedophile ring and cover up story unfolding before our eyes is only the tip of the iceberg of a mountain of criminality that has been deeply entrenched into the day-to-day operation and culture of the Houses of Parliament and the elite of the British establishment for many decades and continues unabated to this day as we can see.
The Houses of Parliament is made up of the House of Lords (785 Unelected Peers) and the House of Commons (650 Elected MP’s, some of whom are Knights of the Realm). These fourteen hundred plus people are judged and self-promoted to be of the highest integrity, the most intelligent, trustworthy, honest and selfless people within our society, and into whose hands we place our trust to ensure our security, justice, equality, liberty, economic well-being and most importantly, the protection of our children from sexual predators and murderers.
Yet within these ranks of the Westminster political elites and their lackeys there has been a statistically disproportionate number of criminals committing the most horrendous and heinous crimes known to human society, just in the last few decades alone.
The arrogant Westminster political classes and their minions have been implicated, involved or convicted for such crimes as Murder, Illegal War, War Crimes, Terrorism,Torture, Crimes against Humanity, Corruption, Espionage, Treason, Drug Trafficking, Pedophilia, Rape, Indecent Assault, Sex Trafficking, Arson, Blackmail, GBH, Bribery, Insider Trading, Cash for Questions, Asset Stripping, Tax Evasion, Money Laundering, Expenses Fraud, Theft, Perjury, Phone Hacking, Spousal Assault, Perverting the Course of Justice, Cover Ups ,Cash for Honours, Conspiracy and Forgery.
It should also be noted that many key figures in the British establishment such as local councillors, judges, barristers, lawyers, police officers, civil servants, newspaper executives and journalists, clergymen, high-profile celebrities and the BBC have also been convicted or have been involved with the cover up of many crimes especially establishment pedophile rings.
This list does not include other dubious and distasteful behaviour such as drug and alcohol abuse, nepotism, adultery, bullying, threatening behaviour, cheating and lying and as we in Scotland know at first hand, all manner of other dirty tricks.
Here are just a few of the crimes the Westminster political classes and their crony establishment friends and Knights of the Realm have been implicated, involved or convicted of.
Lord Sewell – Alleged Class A drug possession and procuring prostitutes.
•Lord Lucan – Murder Suspect
•Lord Watson – Arson
•Lord Archer – Perjury
•Lady Uddin – Expenses fraud
•Lord Paul – Expenses Fraud
•Lord Mackenzie -– Cash for Access corruption
•Lord Kagan – False Accounting
•Lord Hanningfield – Fraud
•Lord Taylor – Cash for Access corruption
•Lord Britton – Paedophilia Cover Up, Questioned by police investigating rape allegation
•Lord Janner – Under Investigation for Child Sex Abuse
•Lord Black – Fraud
•Lord Tebbit – Failure to expose known pedophile Peter Morrison PPS for Maggie Thatcher
•Lord Mandelson – Force to resign from government twice in mortgage and passport scandals.
•Lord Blencathra – Breached the Code of Conduct in return for cash for lobbying
•Lord Bhatia Expenses Fraud
•Lord Laird – – Cash for Access corruption
•Lord Redesdale – Non disclosure of links to energy companies
•Lord Stephen – Non disclosure of personal corporate interests
•Lord Clarke – Expenses Fraud
•Lord Stevens – Ex high ranking police officer – Facing probe over Stephen Lawrence inquiry.
•Lord Truscott – Cash for Access corruption
•Sir Peter Hayman – Member of Pedophile Information Exchange
•Sir Cyril Smith – Pedophilia, Rape, Child Abuse
•Sir Nicholas Fairbairn – Under Investigation for Child Sex Abuse
•Sir Anthony Blunt – Treason and Espionage
•Sir Jimmy Savile – Pedophilia, Necrophilia, child abuse, conspiracy to murder
•Sir Peter Morrison – Pedophile
•Prime Minister Tony Blair – War Crimes, Illegal War in Iraq, Pedophilia cover up by issuing D Notices to the media.
•Prime Minister Gordon Brown – Ordered to pay back £12000 in expenses, raided pension funds and sold off gold reserves on the cheap and telegraphed his intentions to city insiders who made millions.
•Prime Minister David Cameron War Crimes, Illegal War in Libya, Paedophilia Cover Up.Bombing Syria without parliamentary permission.
• Prime Minister John Major – Pedophilia Cover Up.
• Prime Minister Edward Heath – Pedophile and implicated in conspiracy to murder
• Prime Minister Maggie Thatcher – Pedophilia Cover Up, Using “privatisation” to asset strip the country and removing banking regulations that let to massive multi billion pound fraud on the public.
•MP David Chaytor – Theft
• MP Jonathon Aitken – Perjury
• MP Elliot Morley – Theft
• MP John Stonehouse – Conspiracy, Forgery and Fraud
• MP Jim Devine – Theft
• MP Neil Hamilton – Guilty in Cash for Questions probe
• MP Maria Miller – Resigned due to Expenses Scandal
• MP Mark Harper – Employing Illegal Immigrant
• 389 MP’s – Shamed in Expenses Scandal for Unbridled greed but not arrested and convicted for fraud .
Of course these are only the crimes and corruption that have made the headlines, but how much more do we not know about? It is beyond comprehension why many people in Scotland still put their trust in such a proven criminal enterprise called the British Establishment, when quite evidently, it’s one law for them and a different one for the rest of us.
One other interesting fact revealed by the expose on Lord Sewel, it would appear the elites also have vile hatred and contempt for some of their fellow elites, revealing just how sociopathic these people really are. Do you really believe these people care about you and your family? Are you happy that your tax money is paying for class A drugs and prostitutes? Are you happy that criminals are making the laws you have to obey but they get a “get out of jail free card”?
Scotland has only one option to free ourselves from this criminal cabal that is hellbent on our destruction through dire poverty and the theft of all our remaining public assets and natural resources, and that is independence, the sooner the better.
WEDNESDAY:NOV 16 2016 Visiter No.638695 to www.opg.me REVOLUTION IS STIRRING DOWN ON US
"This man was right all along" ..by.. Phillip Inman of the Guardian
Further to your article in which you discussed the fact that journalists did not have a handle on the direction that the American election was going, I cannot emphasise enough that, because the media is ignoring stories of crime and wrongdoing committed by the British establishment and submitted to them by the people, they don't have a handle of the mood of the people here either. Britain is about to be Trumped in some way. The people here have had enough of a corrupt system in which police, the Home Office, judiciary, court staff, lawyers, ministers, MPs, and others work hand in glove to steal their children and assets.
Patrick Cullinane, a leading folk hero, was defrauded by the government, and left penniless and homeless, either by criminals working inside HMRC or by a mistake or deliberate crime of the government itself. He also lost his four bedroom home because false allegations by an anonymous caller to HMRIC were not looked into properly by the lazy, stupid HMRC workers. Police worked for the wrong side, and the government closed ranks and refused to look into the case. White collar crime is happening to thousands of people in the UK, and is transnational in nature and, as in Patrick's case, police and government consider that plebs don't warrant an investigation.
This is echoed by journalists, who continually ignore information sent to them by members of the public. Similarly, we have proof of MPs or their clerks simply deleting emails upon receipt. It would be HIGHLY unusual to get a reply from a minister. Isn't it about time that the media addressed this issue alone?
The only journalist to do his job in Patrick's case was Phillip Inman of the Guardian, who was gracious enough to listen to him and examine his paperwork, finding that everything he said was the truth. Mr. Inman wrote two articles about Patrick's case. Patrick was forever grateful to Mr. Inman, whom he revered as a proper and honest journalist.
Patrick fought for justice for himself and all of the British people, working as a vocal common law lawyer to help individuals denied justice by a corrupt British justice system, for 25 years. In all of that time, not one other journalist or media outlook gave him the time of day. After all, he was only a pleb, and therefore not worthy.
It's about time the media started to do their jobs. Thousands and thousand of people are being denied justice by a corrupt system, their children are being stolen, and people are being wrongly imprisoned. Brown envelopes are changing hands, and NOT ONE MP will do their jobs either. People are calling for MPs in the UK to be limited to a four year term only. These self-serving MPs have brought it on themselves.
You are right that the media is complacent and, if they don't start working for the people, there is likely to be bloodshed. When it happens, the media, in denial, will say they didn't see it coming.
Keep up the good work. A revolution is on its way, and I hope journalists don't get left behind. They are in a position to change things before they happen, and before people stop supporting mainstream media altogether.
With Ref. to a Mrs Barbara Hofschroer:
Judges not only swear their own Judicial Oath, but purport to act in the name of the Sovereign, whose Coronation Oath - Sworn before Almighty God - was 'To Deliver Justice with Mercy'!
An observer at Peter Hofschroer's last 'hearing' in Westminster Mags tells me 'His legal team seemed to know it was a scam'.
I should hope you did!
A blind man can see that the 23 months of persecution, torment & torture already inflicted on him while in prison 'On Remand', & now to allow him to be extradited on some trivial charges, is to silence his whistle-blowing.
But whatever about the stitch-up of Peter, to deny his frail, wheelchair-bound mother a family life, to deny her the loving care of the one person who has proved his ability & willingness to give it, is sadistic.
Instead, in her twilight years, she is incarcerated in some unknown 'Care Home'(?) (which one is kept secret) - which means that friends cannot even write to her, much less visit her!
An innocent old lady, she is being treated worse than in a Category A Prison!
Never were there worse violations of the 'Human Rights' we are supposed to have!
Those who have presided at what purported to be Mr Hofschroer’s 'hearings' have shown no Mercy for him, but neither have they a scrap of Mercy for his mother - or concern for the RIGHTS, which she, like all of us, is supposed to have!
Not only have they denied her the right to the loving care of the one man who has proved his ability & willingness to give it, but they have been party to her continuing incarceration in this secret prison!
Did you mention any of this to the court?
If not, then you, by your silence, have been party to this diabolical state of affairs, & should take every possible step - & even impossible steps – to remedy the situation.
If you DID mention it to the presiding judge, & s/he ignored it, then s/he is monster, quite unfit for judicial office, And you should have said so, in your loudest voice, in that court.
And you should still be saying it, until it is remedied.
The Rights of Mrs Barbara Hofschroer weigh far more heavily than whatever trivial matters are alleged against her son.
Peter Hofschroer was living in a safe haven abroad. As a whistle-blower, he knew he could be in danger if he set foot in Britain again.
Yet, so great was his concern for his mother, he took that risk. With the result we know of.
Other diabolical fact that needs to known. Barbara's brutal & illegal abduction from Peter's care was part of the campaign by those anxious to seize the property of both of them. Knowing of Peter's concern for his mother, she was used as the bait to bring him to Britain. It worked. There was other treachery & legal trickery, which I have not time to mention now.
Elsewhere I have referred to One-Way Law.
Neither Hitler nor Stalin could have done all they did without the millions of people who carried out their policies with enthusiasm. And so it is in Britain.
As a whistle-blower myself, I am well qualified to write on the subject.
WEDNESDAY:NOV 16 2016 Visiter No.638666 to www.opg.me BANKSTER MAFIA CORPORATIONs ARE YOUR CONTROLLERS don't be under any illusion about the vaticans satanic masonic collusion
mix these 2 & what you have in common is - federal reserve rejection!
BREAKING NEWS: WORLDWIDE 1st in SPAIN
Spain has reformed its criminal code, Parental Alienation is now from today a crime in Spain and the perpetrator can go to prison and loose custody!
Spanish authorities, Judicial Organic Law, Spanish Courts can prosecute worldwide involving a Spanish national and foreigners in Spain.
This gives light to an interesting situation that could put non Spanish civil courts conflicting with Spanish Criminal Courts where say, a Spanish Father in the UK is alienated from his child and the UK courts give custody to the mother, the Spanish Criminal Courts can claim jurisdiction and extradition. And a British Citizen resident in Spain would be protected.
WEDNESDAY:NOV 9 2016 Visiter No.638350 to www.opg.me SERIOUS QUESTIONS FOR OFFICAL SOLICITOR FROM JOHN HEMMING EX MP
Kathy Danby Bravo John, exposing the corruption once again. And of course there's our case where my granddaughter is ONCE AGAIN denied the right to speak on her own behalf because she is considered to be "a vulnerable person", and the official solicitor must represent her! No matter that the diagnosis of learning disability has completely falsely been attributed to her, but she is confined in what amounts to secure accommodation, in order to keep her quiet. But, what the heck, the official solicitor must not be deprived of the fat fee he receives for "representing" the people the court of protection label as "vulnerable"! What a joke - well it would be if it wasn't so tragic! The OS has no idea who my granddaughter is - all he sees is £ signs before his eyes as another person is deprived of the justice they have a right to expect - simply on the word of a social nazi declaring they "lack capacity"! It is high time this farce was ended.
A WORLD WAR AVERSION IS IN THE MAKING. The planet is slowly being taken back from PREDATORY GUARDIAN BANKSTERS CORPORATIONS LIKE the BREXIT death of EU lets say THANKS to the US electorate for just adding the NAILS to the coffin doors of corporate corruption and hope TRUMP carries out the right things for the world am so pleased.
TUESDAY:NOV 8 2016 Visiter No.638336 to www.opg.me APOSTILLED LIEN & LIVING WILL ARRIVE BACK IN SPAIN Let the games begin!
Earlier today, three drag queens on the pretentious UK High Court managed to sabotage the will of the British people yet again.
The phenomenon of judicial tyranny has become a contemporary staple in Anglo-Saxon plutocracies. The decision making power of the ballot has become nothing more than a novelty governments ignore when votes are inconvenient, whether it’s Proposition 8 in California, or now Brexit. Many communist countries during the Cold War had similar symbolic plebiscites and elections, but at least the 1970’s-80’s USSR wasn’t trying to exterminate its native people unlike the current dying Atlanticist powers.
The Supreme Court of the United States is known to be almost half Jewish, the United Kingdom is no different. Here are the three individuals electing themselves arbitrators of British destiny. Jews are only 0.5% of the British population, yet two thirds of the forces misappropriating the Judicial branch of the government to stave off a fair and democratic referendum.
As usual, the single Gentile involved Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd is tapped to provide a whipping post for the angry public, despite the fact that his experience working for European Union think-tanks and NGOs are the very definition of a conflict of interest.
The homosexual Jew Terence Etherton and the Jew “Lord” Justice Sales should have recused themselves due to tribal bias.
The lawsuit was mounted by the international finance Jew Alan Miller, who pushed his mulatto wife Gina Miller to provide a face for the case. The Jewish law book, the Talmud, demands Jews always grant special privileges to other Jews in a dispute with Gentiles. Jews always seek to have a plausible alibi, but are never more than one degree away from the scene of the crime. If you’re a superfluous conservative moron reading lots of Breitbart, you’ll interpret this travesty as a “Eurocrat” judge and a Guyanese immigrant making a last ditch effort at overturning popular political consensus. But if you scratch the surface, you’ll find a globalist Jewish speculator in tandem with two Jewish judges running the show in the background.
I don’t believe Brexit is as great as some others think, but it certainly creates more opportunities to steer the United Kingdom back on course than staying in the disastrous European Union. Jews as a few-in-number class clearly prefer exercising tyranny over great swaths of Europe from a single place like Brussels because it’s easier, but while a post-Brexit Britain may have fewer assimilable Poles and Italians, if they pull this off successfully the conservatives will open up the flood gates to the third world “Commonwealth.” Both Jews and capitalism must be crushed, Brexit is only a baby step in the right direction.
They are in between a rock and a hard place. The first and last solution British patriots must assume: either drive Zion out of Britain, or the indigenous British will cease to exist.
Gina Miller who brought the case has links via a trusteeship with "Philanthropy impact" run by a certain George Soros.
George Soros is a Hungarian-American business magnate, investor, philanthropist, political activist, and author. He is chairman of Soros Fund Management.
JOHN THOMAS is a colloquial term for dick! Sounds about right.
THURSDAY:NOV 3 2016 Visiter No.638160 to www.opg.me JUDGES ARE IN CONTEMPT
17 January ·
IT IS 'LORD JUSTICE' GILLEN & MR JUSTICE HORNER THAT ARE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT, AS THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO OPERATE A COURT WITHOUT A JURY:
Officer who 'threatened to arrest judge in court' faces contempt trial
15 Jan 2016
A POLICE officer is facing the threat of prison next week after a lengthy legal battle over a house repossession allegedly led to extraordinary scenes in the High Court.
The officer is to go on trial for contempt of court after it is claimed he approached one of Northern Ireland's most senior judges and threatened to arrest him.
Dressed in full uniform of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) as he attended the Royal Courts of Justice in Belfast again on Thursday (January 14), Thomas Anthony Carlin declined to apologise for his actions at an earlier hearing.
WHY SHOULD THOMAS ANTHONY CARLIN APOLOGISE WHEN IT IS THE 'JUDGES' THAT ARE BREAKING THE LAW OF THE LAND: MAGNA CARTA 1215?
He also rejected an offer of legal representation and asked to have a jury decide on his behaviour towards Lord Justice Gillen.
DEMAND A JURY TRIAL, AS THIS IS YOUR GUARANTEED RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 39 OF MAGNA CARTA 1215
But another judge refused his request, instead listing the case to be heard by him on Monday (January 18).
THE JUDGES ARE CONSPIRING AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICER TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, AS THEY HAVE NO JURISDICTION
Mr Justice Horner said: "I'm going to arrange for a trial to take place on this issue of whether or not there has been contempt in the face of the court.
YES, BY THE JUDGES (KHAZARIAN MAFIA) AND NOT BY THOMAS ANTHONY CARLIN, AS NORTHERN IRELAND IS A COMMON LAW JURISDICTION: - NOT A JUDGE JURISDICTION: THEREFORE TAKE ALONG ENOUGH POLICE OFFICERS ON MONDAY 18 TO ARREST MR JUSTICE HORNER & 'LORD JUSTICE' GILLEN and ANY COURT STAFF THAT INTERFERE TO PROTECT CRIMINALS:
"I will hear it, there will not be a jury."
He also warned the policeman that, if found guilty, he could be fined or sent to prison.
'MR JUSTICE' HORNER HAS NO JUEISDICTION TO SAY THIS, DOES HE THINK HE IS GOD? - IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE POLICE ARREST SUCH CORRUPT 'JUDGES', AS THE RULE OF COMMON LAW MUST BE RESTORED:
MORE BELFAST SHAME here on Fraddie Andrews
The English Law of Liens
Extracts from Halsbury’s Laws of England, widely regarded within the legal profession as ‘the bible of English Law’.
701. Types. The concept of lien in the simple sense of a legal right to keep possession of property until a claim has been met and has been extended to cover a number of analogous rights. Liens are now variously described as legal, non-possessory, equitable, general, particular, statutory, contractual, judicial and subrogatory. Some of these may exist concurrently. A lien arising by operation of law or equity and not contractual in its nature does not seem to fall within the definition of ‘security’ in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 but is included for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986.
702. Legal Lien. In its primary or legal sense ‘lien’ means a right at common law for a man to retain that which is rightfully and continuously in his possession belonging to another until the present and accrued claims of the person in possession are satisfied, but this is given by law and not by contract. A written agreement to grant a lien is not a bill of sale, for a legal lien does not as a rule arise until possession of the property is obtained. However, in exceptional cases, possession is no essential to constitute a legal lien.
703. Non-possessory Lien. In its secondary sense, ‘lien’ may be applied to a right subsisting in a person who has no possession of the property concerned but who nevertheless has a right against the owner analogous to a legal lien. Such a right may arise in equity, by statute or under a court order. Thus, a trustee has an equitable lien on the estate or fund for money properly expensed on it and a solicitor, in addition to his legal lien on the client’s documents in his possession, has a statutory lien right to ask the court to direct that property recovered is to stand security for his costs. So also where a party has by his efforts brought into court a fund in the administration of which various parties are interested, his costs and expenses are a first claim on the fund; and a provisional liquidator’s remuneration and his solicitor’s expenses are charged on the funds of the liquidation so that the provisional liquidator has a lien over the company’s assets in his hands.
Likewise, a receiver or receiver and manager appointed by the court has an indemnity over assets and is a secured creditor with a lien for his expenses, remuneration and costs. A trustee’s lien on the trust estate or fund for money properly expended on it seems to extend to the payment of costs of proceedings authorised by the court. However, where a beneficiary or minority shareholder is entitled to a similar indeminity there can be no legal lien because there is no possession; and it is not clear whether an equitable or judicial lien could be said to arise in such a case, or whether such a proposition could have any useful effect. A trustee’s equitable and statutory rights to impound a beneficiary’s interest, where the trustee has committed a breach of trust at the instigation of the beneficiary, do not depend on the trustee’s actual possession of the trust fund.
704. Equitable Liens. An equitable lien is a specie of equitable charge arising by operation of law independent of possession. Re Bond Worth Ltd  Ch 228 at 250-251,  3 WLR 610 at 613-614 per Nourse J. A right which arises by express contractual agreement is sometimes described as a lien; see Re Bond Worth Ltd supra.
Although the vendor’s and the purchaser’s equitable liens arise in circumstances where there is a contract, a contract is not necessary for the creation of an equitable lien. Eg the trustee’s lien: see Shirlaw v Taylor (1991) 102 ALR 551 at 557, Aust Fed Ct, Full Ct.
Since it arises in equity, it is subject to all the usual conditions affecting equitable rights. Thus relief may be refused where the conduct of the person claiming the right has been questionable or improper. __It is not possible to state a general principle which accounts for the diversity of situations in which an equitable lien arises. __Hewett v Court (1983) 149 CLR 639 at 645, Aust HC, per Gibbs CJ.
Apart from equitable liens arising from contractual dealings in property, equitable liens have been based upon general considerations of justice or upon the principle that he who seeks the aid of equity in enforcing some claim must admit the equitable rights of others associated with the subject matter. Shirlaw v Taylor (1991) 102 ALR 551 at 557-558, Aust Fed Ct, Full Ct.
The vendor’s lien is founded on the principle of equity that he who has obtained possession of property under a contract for payment of its value will not be allowed to keep it without payment. Where through the deposit of deeds and compliance with the statutory formalities, an equitable mortgage arises, there is a lien on the documents.
705. Concurrent Legal and Equitable Liens. Legal and equitable liens may both arise in the same transaction. Thus on the sale of land the vendor’s or purchaser’s equitable lien exists concurrently with a more limited legal lien before conveyance and a legal lien on the title deeds in the claimant’s possession; and it would also seem that a legal lien arising by statute on the sale of goods may exist concurrently with an equitable lien on the same goods. An equitable charge over a chattel can co-exist with a bailment of the chattel: Re Cosslett (Contractors) Ltd  4 All ER 46 at 61,  3 WLR 299 at 314 per Jonathan Parker J.
706. Statutory Lien. Where a lien arises by virtue of statute there will be different considerations from those raised by a common law or equitable lien, because the primary question will be the meaning of the statute; and it will not necessarily follow that the principles affecting a common law or equitable lien are intended by the statute to apply. Statute law may also destroy or nullify a lien which would otherwise be enforcable.
An accountant’s lien in respect of unpaid fees over a client’s books of accounts, files and papers is unenforcable in so far as the existence of the lien conflicts with the requirement imposed by the Companies Act 1985 s 222 (as substituted) […] that a company’s accounting records must be kept at the company’s registered office or such other place as the director’s think fit, and must at all times be open to inspection by the company’s officers: DTC (CNC) Ltd v Gary Sargeant & Co (a firm) 2 All ER 369,  1 WLR 797.
It may not be clear whether the statute creates a general or a particular lien. __See eg Consumer Credit Act 1974 ss 70(2), 73(5); cf s 72(4). __An example of a statutory particular lien is that created in favour of the unpaid seller by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 [ss 39, 42, 43, 47, 48, 55].
707. Contractual Lien. Where a lien arises by contract there will usually be different considerations from those raised by a common law or equitable lien, because the primary question will be the meaning of the terms of the contract. Contract has been said to supersede lien and to limit the rights of the person claiming under contract to those for which provision has been made in the contract. Walker v Birch (1795) 6 Term Rep 258; Re Leith’s Estate, Chambers v Davidson (1866) LR 1 PC 296; Fisher v Smith (1878) 4 App Cas 1, HL; Seka Pty Ltd (in provisional liquidation) v Fabric Dyeworks (Aust) Ltd (1991) 4 ACSR 455, Aust Fed Ct.
An example of a contractual lien is a security within the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A contract which puports to create a general lien will be strictly construed. Squamish Terminals Ltd v Price-Waterhouse Ltd (1980). Just as a contract may suersede the lien, so a course of dealing inconsistent with the lien may destroy it. Fisher v Smith (1878 4 App Cas 1, HL.
708. Subrogatory Lien. A lien may arise by subrogation in equity where there is a primary and secondary liability of two persons for one and the same debt, the debt being (as between the two) that of one of those persons only, and not equally of both, so that the other, if he should be compelled to pay it, would be entitled to reimbursement from the person by whom (as between the two) it ought to have been paid. Duncan, Fox & Co v North and South Wales Bank (1880) 6 App Cas 1 at 10-11, HL. As to subrogation see also Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd  AC 95,  3 All ER 1, HL; Lord Napier and Ettrick v Hunter  AC 713,  1 All ER 385, HL.
This right of subrogation arises independently of contract or guarantee and is equivalent to the right of contribution which exists in equity where a creditor has a right to come upon more than one person of fund for payment of the debt. In such a case there is an equity between the persons interested in the different funds that each shall bear no more than due proportion. Deering v Earl of Winchelsea (1787) 2 Bos & P 270, Ex Ch; Stirling v Forrester (1821) 3 Bli 575.
That principle applies equally where ultimately one person is liable for the whole debt and the other is ultimately liable for none of it. The right of subrogation will only carry with it the right to a lien where the person primarily liable was subject to such a lien and not, for instance, where the original loan was clearly intended to be unsecured or where a trustee has no indemnity rights against the trust fund because its contract is unauthorised. Eclesiastical Comrs v Pinney  2 Ch 736 at 743, CA.
Paul v Speinway Ltd (in liquidation)  Ch 220 at 232,  2 All ER 587 at 597 per Oliver J (applying Wylie V Carlyon  1 ch 51. The ordinary and typical example of subrogation is that ‘where A’s money is used to pay off the claim of B, who is a second creditor, A is entitled to be regarded in equity as having had assignment to him of B’s rights as a secured creditor’: Burston Finance Ltd v Speirway Ltd  3 All ER 735 at 738  1 WLR 1648 at 1652 per Walton J. This is similar to the statutory transfer of a mortgage, where the receipt for mortgage money indicates that payment has been made by some person not immediately entitled to the equity of redemption: see the Law of Property Act 1925 s 115(2) […] It has been held that ‘it is not open to doubt that where a third party pays off a mortgage he is presumed, until the contrary appears, to intend that the mortgage be kept alive for his own benefit. Ghana Commercial Bank v Chandiram  AC 732 at 745,  2 All ER 865 at 871, PC.
COMPARISONS AND DISTINCTIONS
709. Distinctions. A lien must be distinguished from a mortgage, a pledge, a bill of sale and an equitable charge.
710. Legal Lien and Mortgage. A legal lien has been held to differ from a mortgage in that it is generally assignable without the express or implied authority of the owner of the subject goods. See 719 post; Tobin v Melrose  SASR 139, S Aust SC. For departures from the supposed principle that a legal lien is not freely assignable see paras 708 ante, 719 post. A mortgage, in comparison, can be transferred at the will of the mortgagee. See the Law of Property Act 1925 ss 114, 115(2); Taylor v Russell ’1892] AC 244 at 255, HL. There is, however, authority for the rule that a legal lien can be acquired along with the secured debt itself. See Vered v Inscorp Holdings Ltd (1993) 31 NSWLR 290, NSW SC, per Hodgson J, following Bullv Faulkner (1848) 2 De G & SM 772.
A more substantial difference between legal lien and mortgage may be that, whereas a legal lien lasts only so long as possession of the goods is sustained, a mortgage does not depend on possession, and can arise or subsist without any delivery of possession to the mortgagee. The mortgagee may, however, be entitiled to possession: see Western Bank Ltd v Schindler  Ch 1 at 9,  2 All ER 393 at 396, CA, per Buckley LJ.
Further, a legal lien in its true sense arises by operation of law, whereas a mortgage is contractual in origin. Note that for the purposes of the Law of Property Act 1925, ‘mortgage’ includes a lien for securing money or money’s worth: see Law of Property Act 1925 s 205(1)(xvi). A lien is also an ‘incumbrance’: see 205(1)(vii). Where an equitable mortgage is created through the deposit of the title deeds, the mortgagee has a legal lien on the deeds deposited. The former rule that a deposit of title deeds to a property by way of security created by itself an equitable mortgage of the property has not survived the enactment of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s 2 (as amended): United Bank of Kuwait v Sahib  Ch 107,  3 All ER 215, CA.
711. Concomitant Legal Lien and Equitable Mortgage. Where a valid equitable mortgage of land has been created through deposit of title deeds, the mortgagee has a concomitant legal lien on the deeds. However, there must now be a contract which complies with the statutory formalities for the equitable mortgage to arise.
As to the historical devlopment of the equitable mortgage by deposit of the title deeds see Russel v Russel (1783) 1 Bro CC 269; Ex p Mountford (1808) 14 Ves 606; London & Cheshire Insurance Co Ltd v Laplagrene Property Co Ltd  Ch 499 at 514,  All ER 766 at 779 per Brightmann J;[…] See now, however, the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s 2 (as amended) (seenote 3 infra); and REAL PROPERTY. See also United Bank of Kuwait plc v Sahib  Ch 107,  3 All ER 215, CA; and para 710 note 6 ante.
712. Equitable Lien and Mortgage. The main distinction between equitable lien and mortgage is that the mortgage is contractual but the lien arises by operation of equity. An equitable lien does not depend on possession and in theory, as an equitable right to a charge, it is assignable; but since it is dependent for enforement on a court order, it is not in practice assignable. A lien is not, then, in the strictest sense of the word a mortgage, but for the purposes of the Law of Property Act 1925, a mortgage included any charge or lien on any property for securing money or money’s worth. See the Law of Property Act 1925 s 205(1); para 710 text and note 5 ante; and MORTGAGE.
It follows that an equitable lien affecting a legal estate in land will rank for priority according to its registration as a land charge and may be void as against a purchaser if not so registered. See ibid s 97 (as amended); and the Land Charges Act 1972 s 2(1). It also follows that an equitable lien may be realised by a court as an equitable mortage. See ibid s 90 (amended by the County Courts Act 1984 s 148(1), Sch 2 Pt II para 3(1); and the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991, SI 1991/724, art 2(8), Schedule). As to the consequence of lien being included as a mortgage within the Law of Property Act 1925 see MORTGAGE vol 32 para 895.
713. Pledge or Pawn. A pledge of pawn is a bailment of goods or chattels as security for some debt or engagement. It gives a special assignable interest in the property to the pledgee Donald v Suckling (1866) LR 1 QB 585 at 612. and carries an inherent power of sale in the event of default See Palmer Bailment (2nd Edn, 1991) p 1379 et seq.. It differs from both legal and equitable lien in being essentially contractual, but is similar to legal lien in that actual or constructive delivery occurs and possession passes to the pledgee Dublin City Distillery Ltd v Doherty  AC 823, HL..
The right to possession of the property vests in the pledgee so far as is necessary to secure the debt; in this sense pledge or pawn is intermediate between a simple lien and a motgage which wholly passes the property in the thing conveyed Halliday v Holgate (1868) LR 3 Exch at 302.. The manner in which a possessor’s security is designated in the parent contract or other instrument is a persuasive, but not necessarily decisive, indication as to whether the security is a pledge or a lien.
714. Bill of Sale. A bill of sale is in some sense the converse of a legal lien in that possession is not given but the property in goods or chattels is transferred by a written instrument. Since a lien arises by operation of law or equity there is no document, and so the registration requirements of the Bills of Sale Acts do not apply.
715. Equitable Charge. An equitable charge is normally a right founded on contract, whereas both legal and equitable liens, in their true sense, arise by operation of law or equity. The effects of an equitable lien and an equitable charge are similar in that both are equitable interests and not mere equities and both are liable to be defeated under the Limitation Act 1980 s 20(1) (action time-barred after 12 years); and LIMITATION OF ACTIONS para 1002 post. and for non-registation.
(1) NATURE AND ESSENTIALS
716. General Lien. A general lien entitles a person in possession of chattels to retain them until all claims or accounts of the person in possession against the owner of the chattel are satisfied. It can exist (1) as a common law right arising from general usage; or (2) by express agreement. General liens are discouraged because they give special privileges as against other creditors and tend to upset the equitable distribution of assets in bankruptcy. They have been regarded as an encroachment upon the common law. However, where the usage has been frequently recognised the right of lien becomes part of common law and is accepted by the courts without further evidence.
717. Particular Lien. A particular lien at common law is the right to retain goods for which charges have been incurred until those charges have been paid; if the owner of the goods is willing to pay these charges, the goods may not be retained until payment of any general balance due to the person having the particular lien. Jones v Tarleton (1842) 9 M & W 675.
Being consistent with the principal of natural equity, particular liens are favoured by the law, which is contrued liberally in such cases. Jackson v Cummins (1839) 5 M & W 342. As general liens may arise from general usage, or by express contract, it follows that particular liens may arise in the same manner.
The terms of a contract may be such as to negative a particular lien which might otherwise have arisen Hatton v Car Maintenance Co Ltd  1 Ch 621., but a particular lien cannot be extended by contract so as to become a general lien against the goods of strangers to the contract. Thus an unpaid seller’s right of stoppage in transitu cannot be defeated by an agreement between the carrier and the buyer: see Oppenheim v Russell (1802) 3 Bos & P 42.
718. Legal Lien by contract. A lien, whether general or particular, may be created and defined by contract. A lien so arising bears in some respects a closer resemblance to a pledge, althought it can exist without an inherent or agreed power of sale, which is a concimitant of pledge. A general lien often arises by contract between a company and its members under the articles of association. An agreement which is void from the beginning for want of legal formalities cannot give rise to a right of lien, but an agreement to do something which is illegal could give rise to a lien if the work was done. Just as a legal lien may be created by7 contract, it may be negatived by the terms of the contract, either expressly or by implication because it is inconsistent with the terms of the contract, or it may be discharged or superseded by the contract.
719. Nature of Legal Lien. A legal lien is a right of defence to an action in respect of the chattel an action in conversion brought by the owner to recover the chattel. and is not a right of action in itself Tappenden (t/a English and American Autos) v Artus  2 QB 185 at 194-195, [1963 3 All ER 213 at 215-216, CA, per Diplock LJ, holding further that lien is a self-help remedy, triggered by the performance of work which improves a chattel of which the performer has lawful possession, and does not depend on any implied contractual term. But a lien, depending necessarily on possession of the subject chattel, normally entitles the holder to sue any third party who commits a wrong (such as trespass or conversion) against the chattel during the period of that possession: The Winkfield  P 42, CA. See also para 745 text and note 2 post; and BAILMENT vol 2 (Reissue) para 1889. As to legal lien see also para 702 ante..
Its limited character has both advantages and disadvantages for the party entitled. On the one hand, lien can be asserted even where the secured debt is statute-barred See Higgins v Scott (1831) 2 B & Ad 413. See also BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY vol 3(2) (Reissue) para 490; LIMITATION OF ACTIONS para 1002 et seq post., and the chattel cannot be taken in execution Goods the subject of a lien cannot be taken in execution, because lien is merely a personal right continuing during the possession of the goods: Legg v Evans (1840) 6 M & W 36. As to what can be seized in execution see EXECUTION.. On the other hand, a lien confers no power to sell the chattel As to the enforcement of a legal lien see para 745 et seq post..
It has been held that, in contrsdistinction to a pledge, a lien confers a mere personal right, which cannot be granted to a third party merely by granting the third party possession of of the chattel, without the consent of the owner. But decisions on solicitors and accountant’s liens have readily inferred the necessary authority and have held the lien to be assignable in cases where the secured debt is also assigned. The benefit of a lien can therefore be assigned along with the debt in respect of which it arises. It is arguable that these decisions afford one of several indications that common law possessory liens are beginning to be recognised as a limited form of property interest.
Donald v Suckling (1866) LR 1 QB 585 at 612-613 per Blackburn J, and at 618-619 per Cockburn CJ. The rule stated in the text does not apply where there is an equitable right of subrogation: see para 708 ante. The purchaser of an article which is subject to a lien having called upon his vendor to pay off the sum claimed may himself pay off the sum in order to obtain possession of what he has purchased and sue the vendor for any sum properly paid (Bevan v Waters (1828) 3 C & P 520); and goods may, it seems, be delivered by a person who has a lien on them to another person as his agent with notice of the lien so as to preserve his lien (see M’Combie v Davies (1805) 7 East 5). The right to pledge conferred on factors (see AGENCY vol 1(2) (Reissue) para 160) arises entirely by statute, and is an exception to the general rule: Cole v North Western Bank (1875) LR 10 CP 354, Ex Ch.
Bull v Faulkner (1848) 2 De G Sm 722; and see SOLICITORS vol 44 (Reissue) para 250. Vered v Inscorp Holdings Ltd (1993) 31 NSWLR 290. NSW SC. In these decisions it was held that, as the law allows the assignment of debts, it also allows the assignment of the benefit of any lien held over the client’s papers in respect of the debt.
Vered v Inscorp Holdings Ltd (1993) 31 NSWLR 290. NSW SC. The proposition in the text must be read subject to any express or implied prohibition on such assignment by the owner. That might occure, for example, where the chattel subject to the lien is a valuable work of art and the party having the lien has some personal characteristic or resourse, known to the owner, which makes him especially well qualified to hold and safeguard it.
For another suh indication see The Freightline One  1 Lloyd’s Rep 266 at 272 per Sheen J (possessory lien, in common with the statutory right of detention conferred by the Port of London Act 1968 s 39, may survive a change of ownership of the chattel). In Teppenden (t/a English and American Autos  2 QB 185 at 195,  3 All ER 213 at 216, CA, Diplock LJ described lien as a remedy in rem, requiring for its exercise no intervention by the courts.
720. Registration. A common law possessory lien, being dependent for its existence on possession, does not require to be registered under statutory provisions relating to bills of sale and company charges.
721. Care and Custody. The holder of a lien voluntarily in possesssion of a chattel which belongs to another [see BAILMENT vol 2 (Reissue) para 1801.], is a bailee of the chattel [the bailment is probably one for mutual advantage] and (subject to contrary agreement or special circumstances) owes the normal duty of care owed by the bailee towards the owner. This includes a duty to exercise reasonable care in the safekeeping and management of the chattel and a duty to answer for the deliberate wrongs of those to whom the holder of the lien has entrusted the chattel and delegated any part of that duty of care. In general, the party asserting the lien cannot charge the owner for the cost of keeping the chattel during the period of his possession by reason of the lien, and cannot add such costs to the charges in respect of which the lien is asserted.
722. Possession. No legal lien can arise until possession has been obtained by the person claiming the lien. A racehorse trainer may not, therefore, have a lien for his fees where discretion as to the place at which, and the jockey by whom, the horse is to be raced is reserved by contract to the owner. The transfer of deeds to a client’s deeds box by a solicitor may be sufficient to give possession to the client for this purpose. The possession must have been rightfully obtained before a lien can arise. Thus a person who rejects goods for which he has paid is no longer entitled to possession and may assert no lien for the purchase price; and a person who has obtained possession of the property of another by misrepresentation may not set up a lien to which he might otherwise have been entitled; nor may a person paying freight duty or other charges on goods of which he has obtained possession wrongfully retain the goods until repayment of the freight duty or charges.
Similarly, money paid by insurers to brokers under a mistake of fact is not the property of the assured and is not therefore subject to the broker’s lien for unpaid premiums of the assured. A person cannot have a lien over property which he has acquired in an assumed character. Agents employed by a person who subsequently becomes bankrupt by obtaining possession after the bankrupty, either through an act of the bankrupt or their own, set up a lien against the bankrupt’s trustee for money due to them from the bankrupt.
Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition.
More to Know About Your Name
Yesterday, we touched on the fact that you are not your name, that it is a "thing" separate from you, akin to a tool, or a conveyance like a bicycle, that you are given and that you hold as a possession. You are its first "Holder in Due Course" and nobody using your name at any time after that can claim a greater claim to it.
But there are some difficulties.....
For example, what if you have a common name like, "John Robert Brown"? There can be real confusion about who is who and even, as we shall see, what is what--- associated with a name.
Let's go back to the Bible where most conundrums appear in literature. God gave Adam the job of naming things and animals. That much is clear and clearly stated in the Book of Genesis, but, although naming people is not forbidden, it is not mandated, either.
Hmm..... that, together with the odd nature of names gives rise to a certain amount of trepidation and even superstition regarding names applied to people and also some long-standing questions about the Mark of the Beast. Obviously, names are a "mark" of beasts, because animals are supposed to be named.
When we adopt a name, do we necessarily also diminish ourselves to the status of beasts?
And what about "nicknames"? Those names that we give each other like "D-Day" and "Sparky", as well as "assumed names" that we use as "noms de plume" as writers and "noms de guerre" which people sometimes adopt to escape detection or carry on business in wartime? Isn't "Nick" another name for Satan---the Father of All Lies?
Are names applied to people essentially all lies? -- A sort of "convention of falsehood" that is convenient, but imperfect, and not to be taken seriously?
In America it is common to say, "I'm John Smith from Abilene." --but in Germany and most other European countries and languages, this same information has to be translated as "I am called John Smith from the town called Abilene."
Both the Germanic and Romantic languages make a clear distinction between the man and the thing, the name, by which he is called. They recognize that the man is not the name and vice versa--- a point that Americans need to remember and note along with everyone else on the planet.
As we have learned thanks to the diligence of friends in Australia and thanks to the Great Researcher, Frank O'Collins, the NAME that the governments use is not a name. It is a sign. A mark like a brand on an animal, in the literal sense. It is called a "dead ledger"---- or an "account" that hails from the Egyptian Book of the Dead and even further back.
The ACCOUNT is not a name.
It merely appears to be your name written in all capital letters, which is a form of corrupt Ancient Latin. This use of all capital letters has been adopted as "American Sign Language", but is also known as Glossa, and as "the poisonous text", because while it appears to be your name, it isn't, and it is commonly embedded into English text in ways that seem to use it as your name.
See the definition of "GLOSSA" given in Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition.
So you have a name that isn't you and you have an ACCOUNT that looks like your name that isn't your name.
The plot thickens....
THIS receipt is verification that the corporate for profit court and its judge jackson has received by royal mail its ORDER returned and defaced by the living souls ann & mike as VOID as are ALL orders in relation to their fiction ANN CLARKE whom is a living soul and has the protection of the common law of the land that supercedes their corporate for profit admiralty FRAUD by barratry and personage, in which ann's LIVING willhere clearly spells out THAT jackson thinks he can ride roughshod over. ANN the fiction no longer exists as the court is well aware of the documents served upon them of DEED POLL NAME CHANGE to re convey ANN to the land jurisdiction of ann, also documents served to relinquish corporate british citizenship as the FRAUD that it is, ann & mike RESIGNED bye bye!! The courts trespass upon ann's property is clear and such trespass has resulted in the demand of SURETY BONDS to indemnify ann from the harm loss and injury that the coporate for profit fraudsters are causing. ALL courts are corporations for profit, the more cases made the more money is made.
TUESDAY:OCT 11 2016 Visiter No.637048 to www.opg.me THE DOG-LATIN JUSTINIAN DECEPTION
Dave John Clapham
If ROME has become the legal title holder of England and its subdivisions, “defender of the Christian Faith”, than have you become the legal “third party” title holder of Rome? being the debtor of ROME evidenced by any account you may be holding with your name “GLOSSED” into Ancient Latin, (American Sign Language) or a corrupt version, being the property of Rome or its banking debtor, and appearing in such names or effigies as: “JOHN PAUL SMITH” or “John Paul SMITH” or “MR SMITH”? …(What foreign text appears on your Passport, Driver License, Bank Account, and the list goes on)…Is it even Latin or DOG-LATIN?… And if so, maybe you are not aware that a true name can never grammatically appear in “illustrative” (Symbolic) text? …(Illustrative text is a picture, not writing) Grammatically speaking, true proper names are “Capitalized”, not “SYMBOLIZED” (Oxford Manual of Styles) rendering the presumption that your own ignorance of the grammatical rules of English, and Ancient Latin, are the root cause of your own inability to know the difference between your true name and a foreign debtor account or LEDGER of the foreign Roman Empire that you were deceived into holding without your knowledge. Even your own name is made up of two entities, “Christian Name” and “SURNAME“, that is two! not one! and this is even evidenced by two birthing Certificates. (Birth of the Christian Name ACCOUNT (CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH) and the birth of the Surname name ACCOUNT) (State BIRTH Certificate) … The only time that the full legal Person was birthed, being the name appearing with the Christian name and surname appearing as one in proper English, such as: “John Paul Smith” is on the day of “registration” not the day you were born because the date the Christian Name was registered was on the registration date some time after you were born! and not your born date. Your true full name is only the Christian name or given name, it is the “State” that joined the family name to your Christian name so they are liable for the debts under the full name: “John Paul Smith” because its their property, their copyright, their creation. He who creates owns.
Such a deception was done by a grammatical masterpiece of fraud in order to “annex” (Attach) the living man to the dead accounts of Rome, rendering such a living man as the “Account Holder” of the property of the Roman Empire, therefor giving Justinian, Emperor of Rome, total authority over the ACCOUNTS of Rome were being “attached” to such a living man, rendering his own standing from beneficiary to trustee of his own account. It was not the man that was under the Power of Rome, it was the ACCOUNT that was under the authority of Rome and because the living man had unwittingly become the “Holder” of such an account, (Assumed attachment) the man was bound as the assumed “trustee” of such a foreign account and is obligated to settle the debts of such an account. The Dog Latin trustee is the legal DEAD third party SLAVE of such a Roman Account.
Remember this, Under the legal meaning of TRUST, (Blacks Law Dictionary 4th. Edition, a trustee has right to be compensated for acting as Trustee, however, if you were never aware that you were made a Trustee, than were you ever compensated? …
TUESDAY:OCT 11 2016 Visiter No.636978 to www.opg.me ANOTHER VOID ORDER FROM HIGH COURT ARRIVED TODAY
The Judge does not give a flying fuck for the 1837 wills act & ann's living will here & click below for surety bonds demanded
TUESDAY:OCT 11 2016 Visiter No.636964 to www.opg.me THE LITTLE PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH THE CHANGE IS COMING
MONDAY:OCT 10 2016 Visiter No.636893 to www.opg.me MOTHERS VIEW THIS MORNING OF A YATCH IN THE BAY
and finally, from mother, one more view for the masonic jesuit racketeering terrorists of the PLC UK court of 'protection'
MONDAY:OCT 10 2016 Visiter No.636860 to www.opg.me MASONIC JESUIT CONTROL OF THE WORLD A TRUE REVELATION
To take down the new world order you need to take the inner city of London, its only one square mile, The Templar Bar. THIS is what controls the world & this is where the real corridors of power lay. Parliament and downing st are just puppet symbolism.
The BAR is the enemy within the Republic. It was that which foisted foreign rules and codes from the DISTRICT of Columbia on the people of the 50 Free and Independent states and over-throwing the common law! The BAR is a FRANCHISE of the CROWN Corp of London and ran from the Middles Inns of Court in London! It’s role is to attorn the rights and property of Americans back to the State and itself (attorn – to turn away from another)! aka Profiteering and treason! Think of the BAR as on land pirates operating with a letter of Marque and Reprisal to operate on Enemys of the State (all Americans since March 9th 1933). It is a self elected monopoly that was never sanctioned under the Organic Constitutions or by any vote of the people! In most cases it is my understanding that their organizations Franchise has expired in each Federal Overlay STATE (not physical states but Buck Act STATES)! Its better described as a criminal cartel practicing as a closed union shop that has monopolized the law in our courts and what people assume to be a public office of this nation! The truth is – that the BAR agents have arranged for all organic public offices in this nation to be privatized! IE – their are no LAWFUL public offices in local, state or national Government! Everything has been privatized for benefit of those that work to overthrow this nation into a One World Order! This is the mission of the BAR! The following exposes this plot of the BAR in 1950! Further – all BAR agents are operating in violation of the standing 13th Amendment to the Organic Constitution that banned anyone in a public office with an affiliation to any foreign power!
A MUST WATCH 15 MIN VIDEO of RACKETEERING here This can only be described as the exact description in full of the UK & USA corporate masonic terrorists that are operating fake courts to extract money and or incarcerate anyone standing in their way via the monopolised statute mis-represtation of acts with due protection afforded to themselves explaining why man v man court applications for real law is being denied to STOP evidence of FRAUD being submitted.
SUNDAY:OCT 2 2016 Visiter No.636400 to www.opg.me MEETING FREELANCE JOURNALIST WHOM WANTS the STORY A freelance journalist arrives in Spain today whom wants to interview us to get a face to face explanation of some of the facts surrounding the case. The case is also being considered by a documentary company.
LAWFUL EXCUSE In law this principle is called the jury's power of nullification, and it's been a right that has been regularly used over the years when juries have felt the law has been applied harshly, or inappropriately, or unjustly, or incorrectly here
THURSDAY:SEPT 29 2016 Visiter No.636290 to www.opg.me MASONIC NEW WORLD ORDER CONTROLLING HOLIDAYS CLICK TO ENLARGE IMAGE
You can seriously take this new world order here as demonstration of how they want to go about controlling peoples lives by choosong what destination a person can go to on holiday or worse, the removal of the their passport to prevent travel at all.
On her last trip to Thailand my mother had a bout of dehydration. Dehydration you can have in the United Kingdom or Spain or anywhere else, it is not just Thailand. Because we where planned to stay for 9 months in the far east, there was no provision in the short term to return to the EU early and at the time of illness, needed to fly back to EU for treatment and so called on her daughter to repay some money what she had owed her own mother for 20 years a sum of £4950 but we only needed £900 in which the daughter refused any money but offered to spend £1500 for her to fly out and forcibly repatriate her mother to the UK £1500. A video of mum in hospital refusing such repatriation without me was sent to the daughter. Now after securing provision for our next trip to Thailand the authorities without jurisdiction want to prevent it, how sick is this new world order of masonic control! Mum's 1st holiday destination choice might not be Thailand but faced with the corrupt UK or a daughter whom cannot be trusted, she will go to Thailand.
ALL things considered the picture is very simple to paint, without masonic court corruption and respect to article 8, a private family life being active, then mum would be free to stay with her relatives during our trip to Thailand & if she could do this without fear that her choices will be removed ie thrown in a care home or her passport confiscated as Jackson wants!
With these potential threats its impossible to have a normal family life for mum, which is disturbing to the very core, as its what we personally want. Mums living will does actually cover this and her protection is there in writing but the masonic judiciary apparrently don't give a flying fuck, for the wills act of 1837!!
We are dealing with TERRORISTS simple.com I saw an article only last week in which the new world order was summed up in red, lower down in this website as and I quote, "What appears to be happening is that TERROR is now being used by such de-facto corporate foreign governing contractors, in order to enforce corporate governance upon the people. People that question any part of the system meet face to face with a very different government than what they assumed existed. Terrorizing the masses into a submission of servitude may be effective but is it right and will it work in the long haul?. Below here is a picture taken of mum in Thailand, Pattaya beach road overlooking the sea awaiting dinner at a restaurant known as GULLIVERS can you tell how distraught does she look to be in Thailand?? The dress she is wearing was tailor made for her in Thailand with another 14 taboo.
A statement was made not long after this trip to Thailand. The statement provides proof that on the table at the time was Emigratio to Spain not residence and also shows the problems encountered with exchange rate losses from a pound euro plummet from 1.5 to the £1 to 1 euro £1 dropping 30% causing havack with our daily living and also making an overall 5 year loss to mum of £100,000 constantly complained about but never once addressed. here dated 09.10.2010 Mum then went on to have 2 more trips to Thailand. As for risks, well we all know that dehydration can happen in England and or one can get run over in the next street but one thing is for sure even in the Mental Capacity act they allow patients choice to things that do carry risk! There is more to this story than what meets the eye, as one commentor said in the botched article of the Daily Mail yet to be sued, that the masonic judiciary GOV controllers want nothing more but ME and are persecuting us for this reason. The court of 'protection' talk about whats in a persons best interests. To start with, a person is an entity it is a birth certificate fraud under the 1666 Cestui Que Vie Act claimed to be an entity or corporation agent of the state 'DEAD' ie ANN CLARKE but this is not the claimed living soul ann for a real glimpse of whats NOT in ann's best interests please read the next paragraph in a response to the court by the highest office on the land ann's living will executor...
FRIDAY:SEPT 23 2016 Visiter No.636075 to www.opg.me TREADING DANGEROUS WATERS IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH THE JUSTINIAN DECEPTION
The DANGER of the Truth:
When you start looking for the truth, you will confront the reality of just how corrupt and dogged our system has become, you will be subject to brutal attacks from the serpent, because, you are the real beneficiary of Eden but the Quasi Counterfeit will not let go without a fight and probably a fight to the death. Beware of these loyal DOGS of the Justinian Deception, their rich life depends on your slavery and your lack of ability to see the Justinian Deception in full swing. The Kennedy kill, the 9/11 murder of thousands of people, the causing of World War in order to sell arms and run drugs, causing massive debt and hardship at the cost of your lives and the lives of our children for nothing more than profit, these people stop at nothing to keep hidden the deception they need in order to hold such corrupt power over the right to control the treasury of the people. You will be cast as a “Terrorist” or “Sovereign Citizen” being things that make no sense legally but will be tagged to you in order to discredit your stand for the truth. Your good will is their enemy, your quest for the truth undermines their fraud and their deception. This truly is a sad situation for good people and once you become aware of how utterly corrupt and dogged the system is, you then must live with such disturbing knowledge but not having the ability and might to correct it. To make a stand for what is right may lead to nothing but humiliation and even death. I myself have now been subject to threats against the well being of myself and my children, and I fear for our well being. This document is all I have left in order to explain the dander I have faced for the research undertaken in order to discover the Grammatical Crime employed by such counterfeit deceptive corporate administrative entities passing themselves off as true common law governments of the people.
It is the fraud in the beginning that renders such a fraud to the end, such all uppercase symbolic text is only “assumed” to be the “written” fact because we, living man, have become stupid and ignorant and dumbed down to the point where we can not ever read proper English, but not really, we have been indoctrinated, programed from the day we were born, birthed into a fraud and we have never known any better. Its only when we start to feel things are wrong within our natural bodies, within our harts that some of us start to look deeper into what is causing so many people to wonder, what is wrong with our system. When you notice the rates bills, power bills, court bills, all state entities bills appear in the mail, they are not bills! they are “ACCOUNTS” they are not even domestic accounts, they are foreign accounts and its only when you claim such an account by opening such an envelope that “houses” such an account, you become the “claimant” of such a “foreign” ACCOUNT appearing within. Its only after you have claimed such an ACCOUNT appearing in the mail, does the ACCOUNT become your “bill”, why? because you agreed to “act” as the “ACCOUNT HOLDER” and why? because what you “assumed” to be your name or street, or town or your address, was in fact the foreign designation of a foreign assumed “ACCOUUNT” and by your actions relating to you opening and claiming the mail, did you become the assumed “ACCOUNT HOLDER” of such an account. The ALL UPPERCASE TEXT was not even proper English! but you were never told. ACCOUNTS are things and things are rendered in the “SIGN” language, all uppercase text. The big question is who sent you the ACCOUNT? was it your true government? or was it a private quasi “foreign” corporate “Shadow” government that we know nothing about? … (Hidden in their Dogged Deceptive Language)
ACCOUNTING is the art (Art of cunning) of conferring debt titles upon the unsuspecting. The all uppercase text is just a legal title that renders you as the trustee of such a title. You must settle the debt if you have claimed “ownership-trusteeship” over such a debt ACCOUNT.
The greatest deception that people of today refuse to believe is that “THIS TYPE OF ALL UPPER CASE TEXT IS NOT ENGLISH“, and “This type of text is English“. The great difference is that “THIS ALL UPPER CASE SYMBOLIC TYPE OF TEXT” is totally foreign to the English language and has different grammatical rules to the English language and if you are not aware of such a difference between the grammatical differences between the two languages “English” and “Ancient Latin”, (American Sign Language, Re: Article 11:147 Chicago Manual of Styles) and the difference between their different grammatical rules, you will fall for the deceptive trappings of the foreign accounts of ROME, CITY OF LONDON and the UNITED STATES FEDERAL RESERVE, (All foreign corporate accounts)… You become the Citizen of Rome, the debtor trustee of the VATICAN, you are no longer the living man with common law rights, you are the dead legal fiction, ripe for plunder by the Emperors of Rome in order to rape and plunder its own Citizens. You are no longer a Townsmen or a Countrymen or Civilian, you are a foreign “citizen” being the trustee to Rome, the world debtor… The very word “city” is an abbreviation of the: “CITY OF LONDON” being the square mile in in the middle of London.
What appears to be happening is that TERROR is now being used by such de-facto corporate foreign governing contractors, in order to enforce corporate governance upon the people. People that question any part of the system meet face to face with a very different government than what they assumed existed. Terrorizing the masses into a submission of servitude may be effective but is it right and will it work in the long haul?
TUESDAY:SEPT 20 2016 Visiter No.635955 to www.opg.me THE HARD TRUTH FROM WITHIN
We strongly urge the State Department to reverse its decision and allow Ambassador Murray freedom of travel and freedom of expression without hindrance in the United States of America.
Why is this important?
The U.S. government, for no stated reason, and after having approved his entry in the past, has denied Craig Murray the usual approval to enter the United States without a visa that is given to UK citizens. Craig Murray was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004.
Murray was forced out of the British public service after he exposed the use of torture by Britain's Uzbek allies. Murray is scheduled to chair the presentation of this year's Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence to CIA torture whistleblower John Kiriakou, and to speak about diplomacy as an alternative to war at a World Beyond War conference planned for September 23-25 in Washington, D.C.
In 2006 Murray was himself awarded the Sam Adams Award, and the citation included the following: "Mr. Murray learned that the intelligence authorities of the UK and the U.S. were receiving and using information extracted by the most sadistic methods of torture by Uzbek authorities. He protested strongly to London, to no avail. He was forced out of the British Foreign Office, but has no regrets. There are more important things than career…Mr. Murray's light has pierced a thick cloud of denial and deception. He has set a courageous example for those officials of the 'Coalition of the Willing' who have first-hand knowledge of the inhuman practices involved in the so-called 'war on terror' but who have not yet been able to find their voice."
Shocked by the denial of approval to enter the United States without a visa, Murray stated: "I shall apply for a visa via the State Department as suggested but I must be on a list to be refused under the ESTA system, and in any event it is most unlikely to be completed before the conference."
"It is worth noting," Murray added, "that despite the highly critical things I have published about Putin, about civil liberties in Russia and the annexation of the Crimea, I have never been refused entry to Russia. The only two countries that have ever refused me entry clearance are Uzbekistan and the USA. What does that tell you?
"I have no criminal record, no connection to drugs or terrorism, have a return ticket, hotel booking and sufficient funds. I have a passport from a visa waiver country and have visited the USA frequently before during 38 years and never overstayed. The only possible grounds for this refusal of entry clearance are things I have written against neo-liberalism, attacks on civil liberties and neo-conservative foreign policy. People at the conference in Washington will now not be able to hear me speak. Plainly ideas can be dangerous. So much for the land of the free!"
The following joint statement has been signed by members of the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence listed below:
News that former British Ambassador Craig Murray has been denied entry to the United States under the regular visa waiver program is both shocking and appalling. We Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) had invited Craig to be Master of Ceremonies at our award ceremony honoring John Kiriakou, the CIA torture whistleblower (more details at samadamsaward.ch ), this September as part of the 'No War 2016' conference.
Now we're wondering which agency's long arms have reached out to disrupt our ceremony and to try to silence Craig.
Whatever they intend, it will be bound to backfire, since it only makes the U.S. government look like some sort of monolithic repressive apparatus out to mimic the world's worst despotic regimes. Ambassador Murray notes in his blog that Uzbekistan -- whose government apparatchiks are notorious for torturing its citizens -- is the only other country to have barred his entry. Even Russia - which Ambassador Murray criticizes freely - allows him to travel there trouble-free. What are the implications for U.S. democratic values?
We strongly urge the State Department to reverse its decision and allow Ambassador Murray freedom of travel and freedom of expression without hindrance in the United States of America.
Top Definition. blackball. To conspire to ruin someones reputation untill they become unemployable and people refuse to associate with them. This in principle is masonic terrorism that is the undercurrent of government running our court and justice system. Once you have been ear-marked for treatment you start to see it filter through via revolving doors and in some cases firmly slammed shut. Two weeks ago I had a job as a DJ compere in the SHOWBOAT Benidorm where I was fired after 2 days. It transpired that someone had contacted the owner to inform her of a DAILY MAIL article about me, one which I am trying to place before the courts of justice for printing such lies, of course in an effort to discredit, to ruin, to conspire & further to deprive access to remedy and justice. Think about it! PEOPLE JUST DO NOT BELIEVE THIS HAPPENS.
SEPT 12 2016 Visiter No.635730 to www.opg.me VICTIM - LEONARD LAWRENCE gets article printed IN THE EURO WEEKLY
One former test pilot for BAe has effectively lost control of his life and has been put under the ‘care’ of the infamous asset stripping Court of Protection even though he is quite lucid and is fighting for compensation.
. JUSTICE DENIED
Of course, and this is increasingly apparent to all who are paying attention, the Magistrates, County Courts and High Courts are dripping in deceptive practices. The deception relies upon the people never questioning the validity of the documents that get spewed out. Fraud upon fraud upon fraud.
No matter what predjudice is thrown at us, by a bias, homophobic DAIL MAIL newspaper, its water off a ducks back to us. As we continue to care and protect mother, in her 76th year, whilst in exile from a vile and despicable UK.GOV PLC of satanic evil masonic conspiracy to defraud old ladies whilst denying access to courts for remedy. We portray here the fact of our love that has weathered the storm of 7.5 years with our 33 year age gap intact and our pride that goes with it.. 'up yours' to the DAILY MAIL satanists - we're coming to get you.
SEPT 10 2016 Visiter No.635676 to www.opg.me The Holy See - Papal Decree of July 11, 2013 APOSTOLIC LETTER
APOSTOLIC LETTER [Annotated]
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO [on his own impulse]
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
ON THE JURISDICTION OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OF VATICAN CITY STATE
IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
In our times, the common good is increasingly threatened by transnational organized crime, the improper use of the markets and of the economy, as well as by terrorism.
It is therefore necessary for the international community to adopt adequate legal instruments to prevent and counter criminal activities, by promoting international judicial cooperation on criminal matters.
In ratifying numerous international conventions in these areas, and acting also on behalf of Vatican City State, the Holy See has constantly maintained that such agreements are effective means to prevent criminal activities that threaten human dignity, the common good and peace.
With a view to renewing the Apostolic See’s commitment to cooperate to these ends, by means of this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio, I establish that:
1. The competent Judicial Authorities of Vatican City State shall also exercise penal jurisdiction over:
a) crimes committed against the security, the fundamental interests or the patrimony of the Holy See;
b) crimes referred to:
- in Vatican City State Law No. VIII, of 11 July 2013, containing Supplementary Norms on Criminal Law Matters;
- in Vatican City State Law No. IX, of 11 July 2013, containing Amendments to the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code;
when such crimes are committed by the persons referred to in paragraph 3 below, in the exercise of their functions;
c) Any other crime whose prosecution is required by an international agreement ratified by the Holy See, if the perpetrator is physically present in the territory of Vatican City State and has not been extradited.
2. The crimes referred to in paragraph 1 are to be judged pursuant to the criminal law in force in Vatican City State at the time of their commission, without prejudice to the general principles of the legal system on the temporal application of criminal laws.
3. For the purposes of Vatican criminal law, the following persons are deemed “public officials”: [former “private officials” exempt from law are now within the laws dictates and are held liable, aka “public servants”]
a) Members, officials and personnel of the various organs of the Roman Curia and of the Institutions connected to it. [world-wide corporations and all individuals in trust are corporations pursuant to their birth certificate]
b) Papal legates and diplomatic personnel of the Holy See. [The Pope governs the Church/people/trust, all the people in the Birth Trust, through the Roman Curia, the governing body of the Vatican]
c) those persons who serve as representatives, managers or directors, as well as persons who even de facto manage or exercise control over the entities [public servants] directly dependent on the Holy See [trust beneficiaries] and listed in the registry [through birth certificates] of canonical juridical persons [legal fiction represented by your birth certificate ALL CAPS NAME] kept by the Governorate of Vatican City State;
d) any other person holding an administrative or judicial mandate in the Holy See, permanent or temporary, paid or unpaid, irrespective of that person’s seniority. [all public servants]
4. The jurisdiction referred to in paragraph 1 comprises also the administrative liability of juridical persons arising from crimes, as regulated by Vatican City State laws. [public servants are now liable for crimes against humanity]
5. When the same matters are prosecuted in other States, the provisions in force in Vatican City State on concurrent jurisdiction shall apply.
6. The content of article 23 of Law No. CXIX of 21 November 1987, which approves the Judicial Order of Vatican City State remains in force.
This I decide and establish, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
I establish that this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio [on his own impulse] will be promulgated by its publication in L’Osservatore Romano, entering into force on 1 September 2013.
Given in Rome, at the Apostolic Palace, on 11 July 2013, the first of my Pontificate.
[Synopsis: Church = People = Trust
The Vatican created a world trust using the birth certificate to capture the value of each individual’s future productive energy. Each state, province and country in the fiat monetary system, contributes their people’s value to this world trust identified by the SS, SIN or EIN numbers (for example) maintained in the Vatican registry. Corporations worldwide (individuals became corporate fictions through their birth certificate) are connected to the Vatican through law (Vatican to Crown to BAR to laws to judge to people) and through money (Vatican birth accounts value to IMF to Treasury (Federal Reserve) to banks to people (loans) to judges (administration) and sheriffs (confiscation).
Judges administer the birth trust account in court matters favouring the court and the banks, acting as the presumed “beneficiary” since they have not properly advised the “true beneficiary” of their own trust. Judges, attorneys, bankers, lawmakers, law enforcement and all public officials (servants) are now held personally liable for their confiscation of true beneficiary’s homes, cars, money and assets; false imprisonment, deception, harassment, and conversion of the true beneficiary’s trust funds.]
Importance of Motu Propria
The Importance of Motu Propria by Pope Francis
According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Motu Propria in Latin stands for “of his own accord” and is the name given to an official decree by a Pope personally in his capacity and office as supreme sovereign pontiff and not in his capacity as the apostolic leader and teacher of the Universal Church. To put it more bluntly, a Motu Propria is the highest form of legal instrument on the planet in accordance to its provenance, influence and structure to the Western-Roman world, over riding anything that could be issued by the United Nations, the Inner and Middle Temple, the Crown of Great Britain or any other Monarch and indeed by any head of state or body politic. If you are a member of the United Nations, or recognized by the United States or the United Kingdom or have a bank account anywhere on the planet, then a Motu Propria is the highest legal instrument, no question.
In the case of the Motu Propria issued by Pope Francis on July 11th 2013, it is an instrument of several functions and layers.
In the first instance, it may be legally construed to apply to the local matters of the administration of the Holy See.
In the second instance, the document relates to the fact that the Holy See is the underpinning to the whole global system of law, therefore anyone holding an office anywhere in the world is also subject to these limits and that immunity no longer applies.
Thirdly, we see the Holy See and the Universal Church clearly separating itself from the nihilist world of the professional elite who continue, to be proven time and time again, to be criminally insane, bark raving mad and with no desire to do anything honorable until they are torn from power by anyone, anybody who cares for the law.
The age of the Roman Cult, as first formed in the 11th Century and that hijacked the Catholic Church first formed by the Carolingians in the 8th Century, then the Holly Christian Empire or Byzantine Church by the 13th Century and the world at large by the 16th Century ceased to exist around March 14th 2013 upon the election of Pope Francis.
This document issued by Pope Francis is historic on multiple levels, but most significant above all others in that it recognizes the supremacy of the Golden Rule, the same teaching ascribed to Jesus Christ and the intimate connection to the Rule of Law, that all are subject to the rule of law, no one is above the law.
SEPT 9 2016 Visiter No.635650 to www.opg.me TWO CROWNS OF ENGLAND/WORLD
Dave John Clapham
3 hrs ·
How the Crown Rules the World
There are two Crowns operant in England, one being Queen Elizabeth II.
Although extremely wealthy, the Queen functions largely in a ceremonial capacity and serves to deflect attention away from the other Crown, who issues her marching orders through their control of the English Parliament.
This other Crown is comprised of a committee of 12 banks headed by the Bank of England (House of Rothschild). They rule the world from the 677-acre, independent sovereign state know as The City of London, or simply 'The City.'
The City is not a part of England, just as Washington, D.C. is not a part of the USA.
The City is referred to as the wealthiest square mile on earth and is presided over by a Lord Mayor who is appointed annually.
When the Queen wishes to conduct business within the City, she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple (Templar) Bar where she requests permission to enter this private, sovereign state. She then proceeds into the City walking several paces behind the Mayor.
Her entourage may not be clothed in anything other than service uniforms.
In the nineteenth century, 90% of the world's trade was carried by British ships controlled by the Crown. The other 10% of ships had to pay commissions to the Crown simply for the privilege of using the world's oceans.
The Crown reaped billions in profits while operating under the protection of the British armed forces. This was not British commerceor British wealth, but the Crown's commerce and the Crown's wealth.
As of 1850, author Frederick Morton estimated the Rothschild fortune to be in excess of $10 billion [today, the combined wealth of the banking dynasties is $300 trillion]. Today, the bonded indebtedness of the world is held by the Crown.
The aforementioned Temple Bar is the juristic arm of the Crown and holds an exclusive monopoly on global legal fraud through their Bar Association franchises. The Temple Bar is comprised of four Inns of Court. They are; the Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn. The entry point to these closed secret societies is only to be found when one is called to their Bar.
The Bar attorneys in the United States owe their allegiance and pledge their oaths to the Crown. All Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association
located at the Inns of Court of the Crown Temple.
The Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license that bleeds Canada and Great Britain white, while the Middle Temple has license to steal from America.
To have the Declaration of Independence recognized internationally, Middle Templar King George III agreed in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 to establish the legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, referred to internally as the Crown Temple States (Colonies). States
spelled with a capital letter 'S,' denotes a legal entity of the Crown.
At least five Templar Bar Attorneys under solemn oath to the Crown, signed the American Declaration of Independence. This means that both parties were agents of the Crown. There is no lawful effect when a party signs as both the first and second parties. The Declaration was simply an internal memo circulating among private members of the Crown.
Most Americans believe that they own their own land, but they have merely purchased real estate by contract. Upon fulfillment of the contract, control of the land is transferred by Warranty Deed. The Warranty Deed is only a 'color of title.' Color of Title is a semblance or appearance of title, but not title in fact or in law. The Warranty Deed cannot stand against the Land Patent.
The Crown was granted Land Patents in North America by the King of England. Colonials rebelled at the usurious Crown taxes, and thus the Declaration of Independence was created to pacify the poplulace.
Another ruse used to hoodwink natural persons is by enfranchisement. Those cards in your wallet bearing your name spelled in all capital letters means that you have been enfranchised and have the status of a
corporation. A 'juristic personality' has been created, and you have entered into multi-variant agreements that place you in an equity relationship with the Crown.
These invisible contracts include, birth certificates, citizenship records, employment agreements, driver's licenses and bank accounts. It is perhaps helpful to note here that contracts do not now, nor have they ever had to be stated in writing in order to be enforceable by
American judges. If it is written down, it is merely a written statement of the contract.
Tax protestors and (the coming) draft resistors trying to renounce the parts of these contracts that they now disagree with will not profit by resorting to tort law (fairness) arguments as justification. Judges will reject these lines of defense as they have no bearing on contract
law jurisprudence. Tort law governs grievances where no contract law is in effect.
These private agreements/contracts that bind us will always overrule the broad general clauses of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (the Constitution being essentially a renamed enactment of English common
law). The Bill of Rights is viewed by the Crown as a 'bill of benefits,' conferred on us by them in anticipation of reciprocity (taxes).
Protestors and resistors will also lose their cases by boasting of citizenship status. Citizenship is another equity agreement that we have with the Crown. And this is the very juristic contract that Federal judges will use to incarcerate them. In the words of former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, "Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements." The balance of Title 42, section 1981 of the Civil Rights Code states, " .citizens shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind"
What we view as citizenship, the Crown views as a juristic enrichment instrumentality. It also should be borne in mind that even cursory circulation or commercial use of Federal Reserve Notes effects an attachment of liability for the payment of the Crown's debt to the FED. This is measured by your taxable income.
And to facilitate future asset-stripping, the end of the 14th
amendment includes a state of debt hypothecation of the United States, wherein all enfranchised persons (that's you) can be held personally liable for the Crown's debt.
The Crown views our participation in these contracts of commercial equity as being voluntary and that any gain accrued is taxable, as the gain wouldn't have been possible were in not for the Crown. They view the system of interstate banks as their own property. Any profit or gain experienced by anyone with a bank account (or loan, mortgage or credit card) carries with it - as an operation of law - the identical same full force and effect as if the Crown had created the gain.
Bank accounts fall outside the umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection because a commercial contract is in effect and the Bill of Rights cannot be held to interfere with the execution of commercial contracts. The Crown also views bank account records as their own private property, pursuant to the bank contract that each of us signed and that none of us ever read.
The rare individual who actually reads the bank contract will find that they agreed to be bound by Title 26 and under section 7202 agreed not to disseminate any fraudulent tax advice. This written contract with the Crown also acknowledges that bank notes are taxable instruments of commerce.
When we initially opened a bank account, another juristic personality was created. It is this personality (income and assets) that IRS agents are excising back to the Crown through taxation.
A lot of ink is being spilled currently over Social Security.
Possession of a Social Security Number is known in the Crown's lex as 'conclusive evidence' of our having accepted federal commercial benefits. This is another example of an equity relationship with the Crown. Presenting one's Social Security Number to an employer seals our status as taxpayers, and gives rise to liability for a reciprocal quid pro quo payment of taxes to the Crown.
Through the Social Security Number we are accepting future retirement endowment benefits. Social Security is a strange animal. If you die, your spouse gets nothing, but rather, what would have gone to you is divided (forfeited) among other premium payers who haven't died yet.
But the Crown views failure to reciprocate in any of these equity attachments as an act of defilement and will proceed against us with all due prejudice.
For a person to escape the tentacles of the Crown octopus, a thoroughgoing study of American jurisprudence is required. One would have to be deemed a 'stranger to the public trust,' forfeit all enfranchisement benefits and close all bank accounts, among other things.
Citizenship would have to be made null and forfeit and the status of 'denizen' enacted. If there are any persons extant who have passed through this fire, I would certainly appreciate hearing from them.
SEPT 7 2016 Visiter No.635570 to www.opg.me EUROPEAN LAWYER FINDERS
So that said we then have any member of the BAR being either or solicitor attorney or judge has his 1st duty to the court and those in BLACK ROBES running it so where is the justice and remedy in all this there is'nt. QUESTION LEVELLED AT JUST ANSWER?
I fled the UK with my mother on Jan13 2013.. three and a half years ago.. I have been laying claim to obtain my own JURY court for my case in the UK courts but are being blocked by masonic conspiracy to deny access to justice in a protection racket... is there anything I can do European wise???? my website is www.opg.me Hello,
I've been working hard to find a Professional to assist you with your question, but sometimes finding the right Professional can take a little longer than expected.
I wonder whether you're ok with continuing to wait for an answer. If you are, please let me know and I will continue my search. If not, feel free to let me know and I will cancel this question for you.
Nicola ME: I am ok to wait 05.09.2016 Hello,
We will continue to look for a Professional to assist you.
Thank you for your patience,
I apologise as we have not yet been able to find a Professional to assist you. Do you wish for me to continue to search for someone to assist you or would you like for us to close your question at this time?
Thank you for your patience,
ME:I will continue to be patient 06.09.2016 Hello,
We will continue to look for a Professional to assist you.
Thank you for your patience,
Nicola 07.09.2016 Hello,
Please understand it is rare for us not to be able to find the right Professional to assist our customers. We can close this question and return your good faith deposit to the original funding source on request.
Please let me know how you wish to proceed and again I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
I hope you will give JustAnswer a try again in the future,
ME: Thank you for trying, please now refund my money. once you've been blackballed by the secret terrorists that run britain this is your clear route BLOCKED We knew that they could not get anyone before we started, here is the proof, so why are they still sending legalese brush off letters, saying get legal advise in a revolving doors torture, that would drive the weak under, it's all a game. One that needs fixing.
SEPT 6 2016 Visiter No.635544 to www.opg.me ONE AND HALF HOURS OF PURE TRUTH from ANNA VON REITZ
SEPT 5 2016 Visiter No.635520 to www.opg.me FREEMASON GRIP ON BRITAIN OVER THE YEARS by THE DAILY MIRROR
SEPT 3 2016 Visiter No.635475 to www.opg.me UPDATE ON ANOTHER FRAUDULENT COURT STITCH UP FROM PETER HOFSCHROER
SEPT 3 2016 Visiter No.635433 to www.opg.me THE BAR COLLABORATION with JUDICIAL RACKETEERING For the very best description of what is happening to me and my mother by RACKETEERING JUDICIARY in collaboration with the BAR this 15 minute video best descibes it all to a Tee. SO if you can spare 15 minutes then educate yourself to whats coming your way too if its not STOPPED!
TO EXTORT MONEY - *A MUST WATCH*
SEPT 2 2016 Visiter No.635415 to www.opg.me ALL 3 DEED POLL & DEFAULT NOTICES SERVED TODAY FULL 28 PAGES HERE WITH PROOF OF DELIVERY Giving 14 days under default to take action, as regards total and utter injustice and the obvious outright prevention of justice, making a mockery of our courts in which we, are not the only ones there are many many others whom deem the denied access to Queens Bench common law courts with jury, a treasonable act of obvious freemasonic terrorism, that is the true corrupt mechanism behind the fraudulent puppet facade front, that is portrayed, that is impotent.
We immediately ramp up the pressure in this case by filing a default notice on the 120 million pounds debt and by issuing change of jurisdictional names from the LEGAL FICTION STRAWMAN CORPORATION to the alive on land in common law jurisdiction of small caps also demanded the cestui que vie accounts collapsed with damages demanded.
AUG 27 2016 Visiter No.635199 to www.opg.me READ IT AND WEAP from Dave John Clapham In Britain, this black art of money creation
has serious ramifications for the humble taxpayer.
When the bankers have created their fresh air
money and this ‘nothingness’ is then lent to HM
Treasury in return for bonds (IOU notes), the
British taxpayers then have to find the money to
pay the interest on this 'nothingness'.
Currently, the interest being paid by HM Treasury to the
bankers amounts to £52 billion a year (that’s £1
billion a week!)....just to pay the interest on
something that never actually existed in the first
place! It’s absolutely insane! And it’s provably
from Anna von Reitz
24 August at 17:09 ·
Hello? Earth? This is Anna.... Hello? Hello? Houston, We've Got a Problem Here......
In answer to the question ---- why is the signature line on my "personal" check actually a line of micro-print endlessly repeating "authorizing signature"? Why is this hidden? Why is this necessary?
I am supposing it's the truth, biting everyone in the butt-----again.
I told everyone to look at what appears to be a signature line on what appears to be their "personal checking account" checks under high magnification.
I told them that instead of it being a line it is a line of microprint, endlessly repeating "authorizing signature" or words to that effect.
I told them that they are not the actual beneficiaries of that checking account that they believe to be their own----but instead, are only presumed to have signature authority over the funds deposited----like an account manager.
I told them that every penny they deposit in any such bank account is "deemed to be" a "donation"---- a 100% donation--- to the entity named as the actual beneficiary, which merely appears to be them, because it is expressed as their NAME in all capital letters, like this: MARTIN ROBERT SCHROEDER.
I have told them that instead of "MARTIN ROBERT SCHROEDER" representing good old Martin, down on the farm, it represents an ACCOUNT---- merely a ledger maintained under that name by the bank.
In fact, the account belongs to the bank. And the bank, being an incorporated entity, belongs to the government that chartered it. And the government being an incorporated entity owes its existence to the Holy See, which also chartered it.
This is how the government has endeavored to "interpret" your earnings as a living man or woman as "corporate income". This is how the government has been able to breach your privacy and track every penny going into your account.
It's not really your account. It's their account. Or should I say, MARTIN ROBERT SCHROEDER belongs to them---- literally.
Just like all the money you donate to HIS account, you "donated" him, too---- or rather, your Mother unwittingly donated him. She wasn't told what she was doing, but did it nonetheless. She signed away her parental rights at the hospital and made her baby a "ward of the state". He had a chance to correct that when he was eighteen, but he wasn't told about that opportunity, either.
So, he just remained a helpless little ward of the state his whole life.
You, the living man, don't have an identity in their system. You are just a nameless, faceless worker bee. Your entire function is to make honey for them.
I told you all last week about my experience going into the court to do the name change. I told you that nobody asked a word about who I was. At no time in the entire process did anyone ask to see any identification at all. It was blatantly apparent that if I wanted to call myself "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" I could do so and nobody would care.
Until you go to court and adopt a name, you don't have one. Your Mother gave yours away to them by mistake.
You've just been allowed to use your own name all these years. It doesn't actually belong to you.
And this is how the "government"---- which is just a privately owned corporation like Walmart--- contrives to control everything you do, lays hold to everything you own, and maintains an iron fist over your head from cradle to grave. You are a "Missing Person".
Literally. You disappeared from the Public Record when you were a few days old and so, you are literally "presumed dead, lost at sea" and all your property is "presumed" to belong to the government corporation----which belongs to the Holy See.
It's the same bogus bull crap with everything else. We haven't had an actual "Treasury" in this country since 1924. We haven't had a "Secretary of the Treasury"--- except euphemistically, either. Instead, the man in that private corporate office has been the servant and chief "Governor" sitting on the Board of the International Monetary Fund. That's his actual job. It has nothing to do with America per se.
There is no "United States Treasury", no "Treasury of the United States", no "Department of the United States Treasury"------none of that. Those are just names for subcontracting bill collection agencies, tasked to collect rents and fees and taxes from you under false pretenses. There are no functioning public offices operating under those names. These are just privately owned and operated entities functioning under old trademarks they bought-----mostly from Bill Clinton, who sold the trade and service marks of old government agencies the same way that a brand name like "Twinkies" might be acquired by a creditor in bankruptcy or as a result of a corporate merger----and used to spin off a new product merely using the "Twinkies" name.
That's what happened with Wells Fargo Bank. It no longer exists. It's just a familiar trade name. What you've really got there is a Chinese-owned securities firm operating under the trade name "Wells Fargo Bank" when it's not even a bank----just a clearing house with bank functions.
So all these years you have been a missing person-worker bee and the IMF has claimed to own everything---- your name, your bank account, your public treasury. They have claimed it as "abandoned property" just as they have declared you "civilly dead" they have "presumed" that your states of the Union are "dead" too.
First they practiced identity theft against you, and then they practiced credit fraud against you. They claimed to "represent" you and they took out loans benefiting themselves and charged your credit to the limit and beyond. Now they are in bankruptcy liquidation and they have named YOU and YOUR ASSETS as chattel property backing their debts--- fair game for their creditors to attack and make claims against.
You have one final shot at getting this right and making it stick. You have to besiege the courts and the Holy See with your complaints.
And you have to take whatever rational steps you can to reclaim your name and estate.
Otherwise, these bastards are going to pretend that everything has been "abandoned" and is free to take.
May I suggest that it is well beyond the time for you to "contact" the "members of Congress" and the Vatican and the Pope and the Heads of State running other corporations in other countries and tell them that you know what is going on and you aren't putting up with it. Whatever paper games they've played, somebody needs to hit the "Reset" button and leave you and your private and public property out of it.
There is going to be a worldwide Revolution---- not just in America. It will visit every country including Britain where this filthy "management system" has been employed against the living people.
The Holy See which owns all these government corporations is on the Hot Seat for it---- literally accused of being the Great Whore of Babylon because of it. The priests down to the local level are on the Hot Seat. The politicians are, too. The lawyers and bankers who implemented this fraud while enjoying so much respect and trust are in it up to their necks. The police? Where have they been? Asleep? And all the many, many "law enforcement" agencies you have paid good money to protect you from con men and securities fraud? Snoring, too?
What about the bankruptcy courts that have allowed this crap to go on? The "US Trustees"?
Hello? Anna to Earth? Houston, we've got a problem.... Hello? Hello? .....
Why wait for the Bank Run? Just go down today and empty YOUR accounts, sink whatever cash you have into durable goods---- coffee, toilet paper, extra cat food. Do the shopping now and beat the rush.
Those in charge of liquidating the "UNITED STATES" are also in charge of liquidating the "STATE OF WHATEVER" and "YOUR NAME IN ALL CAPS" as well.
Maybe it is time you jerked away and said---- WTF??? I'm the Priority Creditor of "MARTIN ROBERT SCHROEDER"!!! And "MARTIN R. SCHRODER", too!
AUG 27 2016 Visiter No.635180 to www.opg.me Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 info here London 1666, during the black plague and great fires of London, Parliament enacted an act behind closed doors, called Cestui Que Vie Act 1666.
The act being debated was to subrogate the rights of men and women, meaning all men and women were declared dead, lost at sea/beyond the sea. (back then operating in Admiralty law, the law of the sea, so lost at sea).
The state (London) took custody of everybody and their property into a trust. The state became the trustee/husband holding all titles to the people and property, until a living man comes back to reclaim those titles, he can also claim damages.
When CAPITAL letters are used anywhere in a name this always refers to a legal entity/fiction, Company or Corporation no exceptions. e.g. John DOE or Doe: JANE
1) CEST TUI QUE TRUST: (pronounced setakay) common term in New Zealand and Australia
2) STRAWMAN: common term in United States of America or Canada
These are the legal entity/fiction created and owned by the Government whom created it. It is like owning a share in the Stock Market, you may own a share… but it is still a share of the Stock.
Legally, we are considered to be a fiction, a concept or idea expressed as a name, a symbol. That legal person has no consciousness; it is a juristic person, ENS LEGIS, a name/word written on a piece of paper. This traces back to 1666, London is an IndependentCityState, just like Vatican is an IndependentCityState, just like WashingtonDC is an Independent City State.
The Crown is an unincorporated association. Why unincorporated? It’s private. The temple bar is in London, every lawyer called to the “bar” swears allegiance to the temple bar. You can’t get called without swearing this allegiance.
Our only way out is to reclaim your dead entity (strawman) that the Crown created, become the executor and then collapse the called Cestui Que Vie trust and forgive yourself of your debts and then remove yourself from the admiralty law that holds you in custody.
When London burned, the subrogation of men’s and women’s rights occurred. The responsible act passed… CQV act 1666 meant all men and women of UK were declared dead and lost beyond the seas. The state took everybody and everybody’s property into trust. The state takes control until a living man or woman comes back and claims their titles by proving they are alive and claims for damages can be made.
This is why you always need representation when involved in legal matters, because you’re dead.
The legal fiction is a construct on paper, an estate in trust. When you get a bill or summons from court it is always in capital letters, similar to tomb stones in grave yards. Capital letters signify death. They are writing to the dead legal fiction. A legal fiction was created when someone informed the government that there was a new vessel in town, based upon your birth.
Birth Certificates are issued to us by the Doc. just as ships are given berth Certificates at the Dock. It’s about commerce. We come from our mothers waters. Your mother has a birth canal just like a ship. The ship moves by the sea current just as we are able to move by the currency.
All this information relates to how the general public are still legally tied through Maritime Admiralty Law. Through this ancient legal construct we can be easily controlled and duped. Learning about your legal fiction helps you to unlock yourself. Otherwise you are just an empty vessel floating on the sea of commerce. Parents are tricked into registering the birth of their babies.
In about 1837 the Births, Deaths and Marriages act was formed in UK and the post of registrar general was established. His job was to collect all the data from the churches which held the records of birth.
Regis – from Queen or Crown. All people are seen to be in custody of,” The Crown”. This allows people to function in commerce and to accept the benefits provided by state. We have to understand who we are as men and women and how we can relate in the system. The City of London is a centre for markets, where merchants work. Then there is Mercantile Law. It comes from Admiralty Law. Look at the symbols in your City Courts that relate to Admiralty.
So where you have commerce and money, you also have “justice” and “injury”. You need to understand the bankruptcy before you can understand the judiciary. We have accepted the claim to accept the summons, yet ONLY the dead can be summoned. There is an obligation to accept any liability which has been created.
We are operating in Admiralty. A not guilty plea, or ANY plea admits jurisdiction. The strawman, aka legal fiction is always guilty. Barristers and solicitors make a living out of creating controversy. By creating a controversy you become liable for the case.
Honour and dishonour. To remain in honour you have to accept a claim and settle (discharge) it. Then you add conditions, ie. “I accept on proof of claim and proof of loss”. This gives the liability back to them. The legal fiction is always guilty. Only in the High Court, can the real man or woman appear. Games are played on courts, hence the name ‘court’. It is a game with actors (acting on acts). It has to be treated as a game and just business. Court room dramas are misinformation.
In the public, we are operating in bankruptcy and you receive benefits. It takes a lot of time, effort and study to understand and use these tools. You have to be prepared to go fully through the process, get the right tool out of your toolbox at the right time.
People need to learn how to act as a creation of God rather than a creation of Man.
Rights Suspension and Corruption
Cestui Que Vie Trust
A Cestui Que VieTrust, also known later as a “Fide Commissary Trust” and later again as a “Foreign Situs trust” and also known as a form of “Secret Trust”is a fictional concept being a Temporary Testamentary Trust, first created during the reign of Henry VIII of England through the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1540 and updated by Charles II through the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 wherein an Estate may be effected for the Benefit of one or more Persons presumed lost or abandoned at “sea” and therefore assumed/presumed “dead” after seven (7) years. Additional presumptions by which such a Trust may be formed were added in later statutes to include bankrupts, minors, incompetents, mortgages and private companies.
The original purpose and function of a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust was to form a temporary Estate for the benefit of another because some event, state of affairs or condition prevented them from claiming their status as living, competent and present before a competent authority. Therefore, any claims, history, statutes or arguments that deviate in terms of the origin and function of a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust as pronounced by these canons is false and automatically null and void. A Cestui Que (Vie) Trust may only exist for seventy (70) years being the traditional accepted “life” expectancy of the estate.
A Beneficiary under Estate may be either a Beneficiary or a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust. When a Beneficiary loses directbenefit of any Property of the higher Estate placed in Cestui Que (Vie) Trust on their behalf, they do not “own” the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust and are only the beneficiary of what the Trustees of the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust choose to provide them.
As all Cestui Que (Vie) Trusts are created on one or more presumptions based on its original purpose and function, such a Trust cannot be created if none of these presumptions can be proven to exist.
The Trust Corpus created by a Cestui Que (Vie) is also known as the Estate from two Latin words e+statuo literallymeaning “by virtue of decree, statute or judgment”. However, as the Estate is held in a Temporary not permanentTrust, the (Corporate) Person as Beneficiary is entitled only to equitable title and the use of the Property, rather than legal title and therefore ownership of the Property. Only the Corporation, also known as Body Corporate, Estate andTrust Corpus of a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust possesses valid legal personality.
The Property of any Estate created through a Temporary (Testamentary) Trust may be regarded as under “Cestui Que Use” by the Corporate Person, even if another name or description is used to define the type of trust or use. Therefore “Cestui Que Use is not a Person but a Right and therefore a form of “property“.
In 1534, prior to the 1st Cestui Que Vie Act (1540), Henry VIII declared the first Cestui Que Vie type estate with the Act of Supremecy which created the Crown Estate. In 1604, seventy (70) years later, James I of England modified the estate as the Crown Union (Union of Crowns). By the 18th Century, the Crown was viewed as a company. However by the start of the 19th Century around 1814 onwards upon the bankruptcy of the company (1814/15) , it became the fully private Crown Corporation controlled by European private banker families.
Since 1581, there has been a second series of Cestui Que Vie Estates concerning the property of “persons” and rights which migrated to the United States for administration including:
(i) In 1651 the Act for the Settlement of Ireland 1651-52 which introduced the concept of “settlements”, enemies of the state and restrictions of movement in states of “emeregency”; and
(ii) In 1861 the Emergency Powers Act 1861; and
(iii) In 1931 the Emergency Relief and Construction Act 1931-32; and
(iv) in 2001 the Patriot Act 2001.
Since 1591, there has been a third series of Cestui Que Vie Estates concerning the property of “soul” and ecclesiastical rights which migrated to the United States for administration including:
(i) In 1661 the Act of Settlement 1661-62; and
(ii) In 1871 the District of Columbia Act 1871; and
(iii) In 1941 the Lend Lease Act 1941.
By 1815 and the bankruptcy of the Crown and Bank of England by the Rothschilds, for the 1st time, the Cestui Que Vie Trusts of the United Kingdom became assets placed in private banks effectively becoming “private trusts” or “Fide Commissary Trusts” administered by commissioners (guardians). From 1835 and the Wills Act, these private trusts have been also considered “Secret Trusts” whose existence does not need to be divulged.
From 1917/18 with the enactment of the Sedition Act and the Trading with the Enemy Act in the United States and through the United Kingdom, the citizens of the Commonwealth and the United States became effectively “enemies of the state” and “aliens” which in turn converted the “Fide Commissary” private secret trusts to “Foreign Situs” (Private International) Trusts.
In 1931, the Roman Cult, also known as the Vatican created the Bank for International Settlements for the control of claimed property of associated private central banks around the world. Upon the deliberate bankruptcy of most countries, private central banks were installed as administrators and the global Cestui Que Vie/Foreign Situs Trustsystem was implemented from 1933 onwards.
Since 1933, when a child is borne in a State(Estate) under inferior Roman law, three (3) Cestui Que (Vie) Trusts are created upon certain presumptions, specifically designed to deny the child forever any rights of Real Property, any Rights as a Free Person and any Rights to be known as man and woman rather than a creature or animal, by claiming and possessing their Soul or Spirit.
Since 1933, upon a new child being borne, the Executors or Administrators of the higher Estate willingly and knowingly convey the beneficial entitlements of the child as Beneficiary into the 1st Cestui Que(Vie) Trust in the formof a Registry Number by registering the Name, thereby also creating the Corporate Person and denying the childany rights as an owner of Real Property.
Since 1933, when a child is borne, the Executors or Administrators of the higher Estate knowingly and willinglyclaim the baby as chattel to the Estate. The slave baby contract is then created by honoring the ancient tradition of either having the ink impression of the feet of the baby onto the live birth record, or a drop of its blood as well as tricking the parents to signing the baby away through the deceitful legal meanings on the live birth record. This live birth record as a promissory note is converted into a slave bond sold to the private reserve bank of the estate and then conveyed into a 2nd and separate Cestui Que (Vie) Trust per child owned by the bank. Upon the promissory note reaching maturity and the bank being unable to “seize” the slave child, a maritime lien is lawfully issued to “salvage” the lost property and itself monetized as currency issued in series against the Cestui Que (Vie) Trust.
Each Cestui Que Vie Trust created since 1933 represents one of the 3 Crowns representing the 3 claims ofproperty of the Roman Cult, being Real Property, Personal Property and Ecclesiastical Property and the denial of any rights to men and women, other than those chosen as loyal members of the society and as Executors and Administrators.
The Three (3) Cestui Que Vie Trusts are the specific denial of rights of Real Property, Personal Property and Ecclesiastical Property for most men and women, corresponds exactly to the three forms of law available to the Galla of the Bar Association Courts. The first form of law is corporate commercial law is effective because of the 1st Cestui Que Vie Trust. The second form of law is maritime and trust law is effective because of the 2nd Cestui Que Vie Trust. The 3rd form of law is Talmudic and Roman Cult law is effective because of the 3rd Cestui Que Vie Trustof Baptism.
The Birth Certificate issued under Roman Law represents the modern equivalent to the Settlement Certificates of the 17th century and signifies the holder as a pauper and effectively a Roman Slave. The Birth Certificate has no direct relationship to the private secret trusts controlled by the private banking network, nor can it be used to force the administration of a state or nation to divulge the existence of these secret trusts.
As the Cestui Que Vie Trusts are created as private secret trusts on multiple presumptions including the ongoingbankruptcy of certain national estates, they remain the claimed private property of the Roman Cult banks and therefore cannot be directly claimed or used.
While the private secret trusts of the private central banks cannot be directly addressed, they are still formed on certain presumptions of law including claimed ownership of the name, the body, the mind and soul of infants, men and women. Each and every man and woman has the absolute right to rebuke and reject such false presumptions as a holder of their own title.
Given the private secret trusts of the private central banks are created on false presumptions, when a man or woman makes clear their Live Borne Record and claim over their own name, body, mind and soul, any such trustbased on such false presumptions ceases to have any property.
Any Administrator or Executor that refuses to immediately dissolve a Cestui Que (Vie) Trust, upon a Person establishing their status and competency, is guilty of fraud and fundamental breach of their fiduciary duties requiring their immediate removal and punishment.
Anna von Reitz
Time to Write Your Letters to the Pope and United Nations Secretary General. Here's a Copy of Mine.
It may not help, but at least put it on the record. Paste it on Facebook, email it, keep your receipts. Give them no plausible deniability for their acts or inactions. Do your duty to inform.
August 26, 2016
His Holiness, Pope Francis via RE 152 242 035 US
c/o The Apostolic Palace
Vatican City State 00120
Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon via RE 152 242 044 US
United Nations Secretariat
New York, NY 10017
Your Holiness, Your Excellency---
The time has come to be honest with the world and with the people in it.
The old British Empire was rotten to the core. It used press-ganging, enslavement, and inland piracy --- otherwise known as "colonialism"--- to cheat the entire world.
In the wake of World War II, the United Nations was established to keep the peace and the Trusteeship Council was established to end colonialism, and to an extent, it has succeeded while ignoring the very much larger problem of continued British colonialism in the UK, Canada, Australia, the US, South Africa, New Zealand, and even mainland Europe where most countries have been severely impacted.
The very short history in the United States is instructive and parallels similar developments and practices throughout the world.
We were coerced into a misrepresented war (Step One) known as the American Civil War (1861-1865) and our government was overthrown (Step Two) and surreptitiously replaced by a government services corporation (Step Three) owned and operated by the Roman Catholic Church and calling itself The United States of America. (Step 4). This was a "private religious non-profit service corporation".
In 1907, the move began to sell off The United States of America, Inc., to an international banking cartel known euphemistically as a the Federal Reserve. This organization took over, very subtly renamed the governmental services corporation --- changing it from "The United States of America" to "the" United States of America (Incorporated)--- and spun off the Federal Reserve System establishing an all-powerful Central Bank (Step 5).
The Federal Reserve set up a fiat money system which among other things forced "US Citizens" to use commercial debt notes instead of real money. They could side-step the actual Constitution of this country because "US Citizens" were never protected by the Constitution.
This confusion between the "US Citizens" who were British Subjects and the actual Americans who are nationals of the fifty American States would later be milked under conditions of duress, extortion, and non-disclosure to create false claims in commerce against the 50 States of America and the American People.
The same or similar practices were employed by the IMF.
This fraud scheme proved so profitable that it was soon deployed worldwide. Instead of England, Ireland, and Scotland, we suddenly had the UK. Instead of Germany, France, and Italy, we had the EU. Instead of Canada, we had CANADA. And so it went around the Brave New World.
The con-artists simply drummed up new names for entire nations, forced fiat currencies down our throats, and proceeded to steal title to everything of value in sight by fraud. (Step 6).
In America, because "US Citizens" were not protected by the Constitution, an all-out effort was made to redefine everyone as a "US Citizen"---- the better to coerce us and plunder our assets. (Step 7).
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, acting as the CEO of the private, mostly foreign-owned "United States of America, Inc." had his franchise managers operating "state of States" ----- "State of Washington" for example--- pledge the "good faith and credit" of their "states and the people thereof" as sureties for the debts of the bankrupt "United States of America, Inc."
He also gratuitously redefined the Trade Names of millions of Americans to be the names of Foreign Situs Trusts, owned and operated by the bankrupt United States of America, Inc., and standing as sureties for its debts.
Thus, the perpetrators endeavored and succeeded in stealing the identity and high-jacking the credit of our entire nation.
For the next 66 years, Americans paid for the debts of the United States of America, Inc. out of one pocket, and paid for the "services" of the IMF sponsored UNITED STATES, INC. out of the other.
When the bankruptcy of the United States of America, Inc. finally settled in 1999, the international Trustees responsible should have released and re-conveyed the names and proper titles owed to the American States and the American People back to us. Instead, they left everything adrift in the foreign international jurisdiction of the sea, and our Trustee on the High Seas and Inland Waterways, the Queen of England, sat on her duff and did nothing.
Our Honorable Trade Names which are and always were our private property, have been labeled "disregarded entities". This is your big wake up call from the Disregarded Entities---- the modern day victims of Commercial Colonialism--- and the greatest fraud and breach of trust violation in world history.
As we write, the Second Round of this fraud scheme is ticking down. The IMF-sponsored UNITED STATES, INC., pulled its own version of the scam by creating Cestui Que Vie Trusts named after each and every "Missing American", creating bogus titles to our assets including our labor and our land, and using this mechanism as a means of borrowing against our assets---all unknown to us.
Having hijacked our credit----again----they have charged our credit cards into the stratosphere, paid no debts, and partied down since 1944 on our ticket, all without the trusting Americans ever realizing or being told what was going on.
And now, because of their utter, reprehensible irresponsibility and criminality, the UNITED STATES, INC. and all its purported "franchises" are not only bankrupt, they've been forced into liquidation.
Which brings us to the Main Topic of this letter. Yesterday, we received word that Mr. Obama is preparing to declare "Martial Law". We are wondering how he can propose to do this, since the "United States" has been at constant war and operating under martial law since 1863?
Also yesterday, we received word that over 6000 innocent American Homeowners have received "tax bills" often greater than the value of their homes along with eviction and sale notices.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. The UNITED STATES, INC., sponsored by the IMF is under liquidation. So they are having their corporate franchises---- the STATE OF MAINE and STATE OF FLORIDA---- bill the Cestui Que Vie Trusts they created and named after the living Americans.
The Sin of Omission of the "US Trustees" who failed to re-convey our Names and our Property back to the land jurisdiction has resulted in this situation and we know exactly who those Trustees are. So do you.
All these "tax bills" are being presented in DOG-LATIN and are utterly fraudulent on their face----yet the IMF and its minions are clearly preparing to use armed force and legal pretense to seize the property of innocent Americans.
Let's make this very clear---except for the nineteen enumerated services our States contracted to receive---none of these expenses charged off against these bogus ESTATE trusts are ours. Neither are we "United States Citizens" nor "citizens of the United States". We, Americans, are the victims of gross Breach of Trust and mischaracterization and identity theft and fraud---but we are not alone.
The same basic conditions have been set up in the UK, EU, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and other countries around the world.
The IMF is a French Corporation. The French Government is responsible for oversight of its activities----including its criminality in this matter.
We, the American People, are all owed the protections of the actual Constitution for the united States of America and are owed the re-conveyance of our good names and the return of our property titles and interests from our international Trustees---- the Pope in the Air Jurisdiction and the Queen of England who is our Trustee on the High Seas and Inland Waterways.
It is well-known and proven already that Americans have been falsely claimed to be "United States Citizens" and that all these acts of systemic fraud have taken place. The Curia has already declared that we are tax exempt and our vessels in commerce are tax prepaid. Trillions of dollars are sitting in our ACCOUNTS as credit and these "Prepaid" tax bills are purposefully not being paid so as to excuse the seizure of our land and our other assets.
Since the French Government chartered the IMF, the French Government is responsible for its operations--- including this ongoing deliberate mismanagement and criminality against Americans.
Pope Francis, we have returned to our land jurisdiction and it is past time to balance the books--- or pull the IMF Charter and leave it with no basis for doing business, no funds and no ability to continue presenting bogus "tax bills", harassing innocent people or paying for commercial armies operating under color of law as "government" agencies.
Secretary Ban Ki-Moon, if you value your mission of keeping world peace, we suggest that you encourage and assist Pope Francis to do the right thing and apply appropriate pressure to the Obama Administration and whatever comes after it, to respect the Will of the American People in this matter, and to seek the cooperation of the French Government.
We have already named new federal contractors to take over the role of providing us with essential governmental services in international jurisdiction and we have properly organized our counties and states to receive back our funding and resume proper operation of our nation-states. We have more than a million Federal Marshals trained and sworn in to provide for peace keeping, with more coming on board every day.
There can be no excuse for allowing the IMF or any of its bankruptcy liquidation operations related to the UNITED STATES, INC. to continue under these false pretenses on our shores.
The bill collectors must be advised of the fraud against Americans and told to cease and desist their false presumptions and fraudulent billing practices. What we owe, we have offered to pay and have instructed our Trustees to pay. The rest of the odious debt racked up by the IMF doing business as the UNITED STATES, STATES OF STATES, and JOSEPH QUINCY PUBLIC stands repudiated as fraud.
You are both fully advised that vast numbers of Americans have been deliberately and non-consensually press-ganged and mischaracterized as "US Citizens" in order to promote fraud against them and their material interests. This was attempted by the perpetrators of the 14th Amendment to the corporate constitution known as The Constitution of the United States of America. It was attempted by FDR via means of identity theft and commercial fraud. And now it is being attempted again by the IMF dba "UNITED STATES".
Enough is enough.
The assets held under color of law must be returned to the Americans. Our Trade Names must be re-conveyed to the land jurisdiction en masse, just as we were originally illegally press-ganged off the land. The assets held under title and color of law in these bogus ACCOUNTS must be returned to the people and the States of America without further obfuscation or delay.
This situation is the result of mismanagement, mischaracterization, and Breach of Trust on the part of the British Monarch, former Popes, and the French Government which has failed to maintain oversight on the IMF and its operations.
It is not the fault of the peaceful, trusting, hard-working American People who have been the victims of all this international corporate fraud.
Anna Maria Riezinger, all rights reserved.
c/o Post Office Box 520994
Big Lake, Alaska 99652
and the complaint to MINISTER DAMIAN GREEN here via the freedom of information site. The carer of 20 years cannot receive care allowance whilst abroad but yet mother can receive her dissability allowance and so the carer is then forced to live from the dissability allowance or the pension so he can eat!
The care allowance was stopped on the 11th April 2016 which to todays date I am owed £1000. So when the only income that the carer has is gone how does the carer pay for his food etc????
There is only one way... and that is to use the disabled persons dissability or their pension!
The caller, HELEN said that when abroad the carer is treated as a sickness benefit when the carer is clearly NOT sick as he is required under their rules to complete 35 hours care per week and in reality I do 85 hours of care so can anyone even begin to understand this???
Again all linked to the same fraud and corruption in my mothers case that the governmental satanic masonic evil conspires across departments to ATTACK. letter/bill £10k from carers allowance here FOI request answer from DWP here
AUG 24 2016 Visiter No.635091 to www.opg.me YOUR OWN CHILDREN ARE NEXT!
LIVING BY THE RULE OF LAW 2011 by Roger Hayes This author is not opposed to ‘statutes’ per se – he is opposed to the abuse of the use of statutes which has reached staggering proportions. Statutes are now used to override and nullify our laws and put power in the hands of the governing elite… but only because we allow it. Our freedoms are our right – but we must be prepared to defend them when they are being snatched from us from right under our noses.
AUG 22 2016 Visiter No.634982 to www.opg.me LEGAL NAME FRAUD NO JURISDICTION CHECK IT OUT
To Remove all “legal” jurisdiction of all fictional authorities simply stop using a legal name that is owned by the Crown.
Stop playing in Crown courts there is no remedy for the living in those places, they serve only the Crown and its’ parasitical minions, you are effectively giving your life energies to dead fictional con-structs, you are being conned.
Using a Crown copyrighted name that appears on any birth certificate without express permission from the Crown is fraud, you will pay and keep on paying as long as you break that law.
All ID is false it cannot truly define the sentient, ID serves one purpose – control over the holder/claimant.
Are you aware of how easy it is to purchase any birth certificate other than the one you think is yours and obtain valid Crown ID with the aid of that birth certificate?
Does that not strike you as rather a large security breach in what you think is uniquely your property?
Do you have original copyright on what you have been taught is your name? No but the Crown does!
Do you have express written permission to autonomously use a name that appears on a birth certificate? NO!
Change your name to reclaim it on the land here are the UK instructions to Queens bench
Every ID is fake, constructive figments of imagination, especially Crown IDs, only you can truly identify who you are, theirs are also “not real” they are simply ideas written on paper, copyright intellectual property created by agents of the Crown, figments of the imaginings of those that obsessed in the fictional laws of man, the underlying delusional suggestion is that they are capable of creating a real human body and its’ consciousness when all they are capable of creating is an inanimate “body of works” a written record in a book.
You discarded your true self and gave up control of your consciousness when you claimed an ID from the Crown, claiming an identity from the Crown, your body and mind become as paper property of the Crown, “owned” by way of your own actions and unwitting ignorant consent to laws of “man”, wherein “ignorance of the law does not constitute an acceptable defense”.
All Crown paper property is subject to Crown copyright and jurisdiction, Using a “legal” name dictates that you are a consenting servant to those of diminished morality, those who revel in and profit through death and misery , stop pretending to be a paper person! The benefit is real life as opposed to slavery and death.
AUG 21 2016 Visiter No.634966 to www.opg.me QUEEN'S BENCH DEMAND WISH FILED today by email
AUG 17 2016 Visiter No.634803 to www.opg.me CAMPAIGN TO INCREASE AWARENESS BEING ASSISTED
This year Michael Gove was wrote to and NO reply came back, these public servants are routinely committing misconduct in a public office by ignoring what they have been put there and paid by the Public to do.
or here for the article in todays paper and so the crap continues SO MUCH for the help of John Hemming and others re justice for families... When will Kathy get to have a normal life with her grand daughter THERE is NO JUSTICE end of in the statute world of corruption where not just grand daughters are becoming prisoners of the state so are pensioners and carers!
AUG 12 2016 Visiter No.634585 to www.opg.me HOW JUDGES AND LAWYERS STEAL YOUR MONEY UNDER GUARDIANSHIP
Setting the stage for Michael Larsen’s collection of personal accounts of escalating crimes against the elderly in probate courts, one typical story from the reference manual, GUARDIANSHIP, describes the techniques probate judges, attorneys and predatory guardians use to plunder the wealth of the elderly, destroying their remaining years
AUG 10 2016 Visiter No.634505 to www.opg.me PRESS RELEASE
PETER HOFSCHROER FRAMED
After a "trial" lasting several days, Grandma B's carer was convicted of possession of indecent images.
This "trial" is regarded as a blatant breach of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Peter continues to vigorously deny these accusations, as he has all of the twenty or more sets of false allegations made against him in the past nine years. His trial barrister, Patrick Duffy of 23 Essex Street Chambers, London, described the trial as "bizarre" and maintains the jury "got it wrong". This has not stopped hostile coverage of the case in the mainstream press, which contrasts with the more favourable comments in the alternative media.
The possibility of going to appeal is now being considered.
Despite having served longer in jail than the sentence he was given, Peter remains in custody. He is now awaiting extradition to Austria, where he faces detention in a mental institution despite the fact that a psychiatrist has confirmed the obvious - that Peter is perfectly sane.
This is how whistle-blowers are silenced in the EUSSR.
Peter's defence was badly handicapped by what is considered to be wilful negligence by his solicitor Karen Todner of Kaim Todner (ONE legal Group), London. She failed to get the case trial ready for the trial due in January 2016. It was not trial ready in July 2016 either. Ms Todner ignored Peter's instructions to call certain witnesses, who would have been able to testify that the indecent images were planted. She also withheld crucial documentary evidence from the trial barrister.
Grandma B remains a captive of York Social Services at an undisclosed location. Her friends are being denied contact with her. At 87 years old, Grandma B is a disappeared person. Her jailers, due to wilful neglect, have crippled her.
A "gagging order" has been issued in an attempt to force Peter to shut down his mother's blog on:
The cost to the taxpayer of trying to silence Peter and discredit his exposure of official corruption in North Yorkshire is believed to amount to well over £1million.
Such is life in Brave New Britain, which is run by criminals in the police, social services, judiciary, government and political parties.
Their victims get jailed on fabricated evidence if they dare to complain. letter from Peter
AUG 9 2016 Visiter No.634473 to www.opg.me ANNA VON REITZ
Anna von Reitz
Yesterday at 17:51 ·
Holy Crap Corporations
Yesterday I had the odd pleasure and distinction of finally knowing what the all capital names convention used in court cases is all about, what it is, how it works, how it is misused by unscrupulous courts and lawyers--- all of it finally came out of the closet.
We now know that what appear to be names simply written in all capital letters like this: DAVID MICHAEL DOE are actually not names, but signs written in a debased form of Ancient Latin called “DOG-LATIN”, or “GLOSSA” or “American Sign Language”.
We know that these signs which appear to be names are actually ACCOUNTS belonging to the Vatican. These ACCOUNTS are held as split titles to incorporated entities, with the Holy See holding equitable title in behalf of the Devil and the legal title left hanging in the wind, available for anyone to claim.
So when you see this “thing” that appears to be your name on a letter addressed to your mailing address you naturally assume that it is yours, when in fact, it should be addressed to the miscreant Holy See.
After all, they are getting the benefit of the ACCOUNT and expecting you to do all the work related to it, including coming up with the funds to pay the bill for their ACCOUNT. They should be the ones sitting in the docket with their checkbooks ready.
This then, and your ignorant willingness to be identified as the party responsible for this “THING”, is at the heart of what is going on in these fake courts. It’s all deliberate fraud, designed to give an “appearance of justice” while “practicing” but not actually executing either law or justice.
All these attorneys are functioning as the Pontiff’s bill collectors and ACCOUNT managers, just like the IRS is functioning as his modern day Inquisition, still collecting “Peter’s Pence” and your “Confession” every April 15th.
How does it feel to be managed by crooks and to have the Roman Catholic Church fronting for all this?
Don’t tell me that the Popes, both Benedict XVI and Francis, don’t know the ins and outs of this scheme. They would have to know. It’s been going on since 1250 A.D. They’ve been on Notice and Demand for eight years to correct operations directly related to this central fraud----these Vatican ACCOUNTS.
So far as I can see, Benedict acted in good faith to correct the situation, but the most constructive action Francis has taken to stop this criminality, his First Apostolic Letter, has merely been a defensive action to cover their own butts.
Now the whole crap wad has been discovered and the closet door has burst open and it is all rolling like a brown wave down the Palatine Hills…. It’s the Roman Cult embedded like a tumor in the Church that has caused all this misery and graft and oppression of humanity, plus Loyola’s perverse dream of creating God’s Kingdom on Earth by force of arms.
Apparently, Loyola never observed the fact that God gave each of us freewill for a reason.
Oh, I am tired, folks, and world-weary. I’ve grown old contesting with this Beast, shadow-boxing it, tracking it, negotiating with it, hearing its vain confessions. It’s time for everyone to wake up, especially the Archbishops and the Jesuits.
The actual beneficiaries of the Vatican ACCOUNTS are here and seeking settlement.
AUG 2 2016 Visiter No.634223 to www.opg.me THE JESUIT MASONIC POPE of FREEMASONS
AUG 2 2016 Visiter No.634220 to www.opg.me ONE FOR THE DAIRY
Thanks Tom Crawford for this, can't find fault in thus anywhere. Can any of my friends on here let me know if you agree?
This is to bring you all up to date with a fantastic meeting that took place in Nottingham Sunday the 31st of July 2016.
For all those that missed the meeting it was a new point in British history I believe. It was confirmed by all present that THE RULE OF LAW! Must be returned to this country.
There were eminent speakers at the meeting with a wealth of knowledge who gave their opinions on the criminal cartels operating today in Britain.
It was agreed that we will no longer stand by while criminal elements in the government, judiciary and financial institutions pillage and rape our people with impunity.
This was what we discussed at the meeting and I believe the time is now right and our aims achievable when we all come together as one.
What Rule of Law stands for:
Rule of Law declares, that ALL are equal before the Law without fear or favour and that the achievement of justice and fairness must always be of supreme importance.
Rule of Law will always seek out the provable truth wherever it takes us.
Rule of Law recognises that Magna Carta 1215 (The Great Charter), along with the Declaration of Right 1689, as being the lawful foundation of the British Constitution and – as they are both peace treaties between the monarch and his people - they take complete precedence over any Statutes, Acts or Regulations passed by Parliament.
Rule of Law therefore demands:
• That Trial by Jury Common Law jurisdiction applies to ALL aspects of the British judicial system – this includes the restoration of Grand Juries to replace the Magistrates Courts and an end to County and Family Courts where judges have unlawfully taken it upon themselves to act as both judge and jury.
• That Trial by Jury Common Law jurisdiction is supreme and is the only jurisdiction allowed in the United Kingdom.
• That Juries be made fully aware of their power to use the proven process of Annulment by Jury to strike off any unjust Statutes, Acts or Regulations passed by Parliament - the ultimate protection against the imposition of tyranny.
• That the Middle Temple, the Law Society and the British legal system as a whole be made more accountable, transparent and completely free from the criminal influences of the City of London and its private banking and financial system.
• That properties, monies and other forfeitures carried out by Courts using fraudulent means on behalf of the private banking and financial sector be returned with immediate effect to their rightful owners.
• An immediate end to the City of London’s special privileges, including the position of City Remembrancer in the House of Commons.
• The Common Law Prohibition of all forms of usury.
• The immediate restoration of the Bradbury Pound so that the British people benefit from debt-free and interest-free money that is created and issued by HM Treasury using a network of local and regional public banks – money that is solely based on the United Kingdom’s wealth and potential so as to provide the liquidity needed for a happy, secure and prosperous nation.
• That the Bank of England ends, with immediate effect, its relationship with the Bank for International Settlements and its fraudulent central banking system.
• That the Bank of England be fully absorbed into HM Treasury and thereby come under the full control of our elected Parliament.
• That Glass Steagall be implemented with immediate effect – that is the separation of high street banking from the riskier investment banking.
• An immediate investigation into how people’s mortgages are fraudulently created by the banking and financial industry.
• An immediate end to Student Fees and Student Debt courtesy of the reintroduction debt-free Bradbury Pound.
• That political parties per se be discouraged in favour of having elected independent Members of Parliament. Also an ending to the so-called ‘whipping system’ whereby Members of Parliament are bullied and coerced into voting in a particular way against their better judgement and conscience.
• A ban on all organised ‘behind the scenes’ political lobbying by large and powerful vested interests.
• The immediate shutting down of the leadership training charity Common Purpose along with other bogus charities which are unlawfully and treasonously undermining the well-being of the United Kingdom as a whole.
• That the Police Constabularies in the United Kingdom act, at all times, under the Common Law and that all serving constables are knowledgeable and fully conversant with the duties expected of them under the Common Law and the over-riding precedence of the Common Law.
• That using the Common Law, an immediate withdrawal from the European Union is achieved by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972 which was signed by the use of provable fraud and deception.
• An immediate public and thorough Common Law investigation into Establishment-led and institutional child abuse and paedophile rings.
• An immediate end to the criminal process of Globalization by the secretive, unelected and unaccountable international banking and financial elite.
AUG 1 2016 Visiter No.634195 to www.opg.me RITA TAYLOR & I JOIN FORCES for CLASS ACTION reminders 'Pecking Order under Common Law that ALL magistrates/police/man/woman take their 'Oath of Office':
1. God/Trial By Jury, the jury members are the only true 'judges' in law!!
2. alive living soul man/woman the 'public Masters' with automatic tax exemptions status in law, see Black's Law Dictionary on capitalisation of names, the 'alive man/woman in law use all lower case letters for christian/surnames, who in fact use 'appellations' for names'!! the 'alive living soul man/woman in law have born with unalienable rights that can never be taken away in law!!' the 'alive man/woman in law have and use 'live born records', not the Birth Certificates for dead debt slaves in law. ships 'birth/berth', alive man/woman are 'born'. 'we, alive man/woman in law' are unlawfully being given 'Birth Certificates' because we are unlawfully being put under the law of the sea, high seas, Admiralty/Piracy law for 'ships' when we are 'alive man/woman in law'!! reminder: in a 'courtroom all parts of a courtroom are names from a ship!!'.
3. magistrates man/woman all public servants below their 'public Masters, the general public alive man/woman at Position Two in law'.
4. court clerks man/woman, again below 'alive man/woman their 'public Masters' at Position Two in law'.
5./6. defendants/plaintiffs known as the 'dead in law, dead debt slaves who unknowingly are being forced to back-up the world's currency using the work-force man/woman as slaves/things/creatures/companies/corporations, after our government man/woman in 1930 stole all the gold/silver previously propping-up the world's currency, and bringing out 'Birth Certificates to unlawfully use the "alive man/woman at Position Two in law" as the workforce dead debt slaves propping-up unbeknowingly the world's currency using slavery and floating them too, alive man/woman, on Stock Exchange too as a commodity to be bought and sold on the Stock Exchange, thereby encouraging and condoning slavery, which was and is unlawfully never been abolished!!' see, Cestui Que Vie Act on government website, also Cestui Que Vie Trust Funds for 'alive man/woman' being unlawfully stolen and raided by all our government man/woman staff employed public servants deliberately doing wrongdoings to their 'alive man/woman public Masters in law'. 'all dead man/woman in law' coming under the 'dead in law, under Admiralty/Piracy law, law of the sea, high seas! when we are most definitely on land and law of the land Common Law lawfully stands and is the highest law there is and should be in operation, but unlawfully is not!! all our government floated on the Stock Exchange run for profit businesses no different to Tesco the Grocery retailer, our government man/woman unlawfully never having put these facts to the public man/woman vote!! the 'dead man/woman in law are the only one's who pay taxes and are even taxed in death with Probate Taxes!!'. the 'dead man/woman in law' see Black's Law Dictionary on capitalisation of names, is denoted by using 'capital letters in all its forms for the victims man/woman christian/surnames who are unlawfully being used as slaves to prop-up the world's currency and being forced to pay taxes too, being worked to death literally and forced to pay taxes in death, Probate Tax!! see, DVLA documents which state 'not proof of ownership -Registered Keeper only!!' as a 'dead debt slaves in law is not allowed to own anything, not their own body, nor any of their properties, homes, children, marriage, automobile, caravan, etc etc!!' because everything 'Registered is unlawfully being owned and stolen by government man/woman' our 'Registered' homes/automobiles/children our properties/our bodies via the Birth Certificates, etc everything is being owned and stolen by government man/woman forcing their 'public man/woman Masters' to Register everything's for them our government man/woman to steal and claim to unlawfully own as theirs!! the 'dead man/woman in law have privileges not rights'!! privileges can be taken away and are, for example Job Centres who 'sanction' the unemployed man/woman and take away their 'privileges' as they have 'no rights', for not being a good slave and working for FREE in all the Council owned bogus Charity Shops making unlawful huge Company/Corporation floated on Stock Exchange profits for all their shareholders/directors, see Companies House Register of Companies, who are stocking ALL their Council bogus Charity Shop with our stolen properties after torturing/robbing/murdering our innocent honourable mother, in our case The London Borough of Barnet Council staff/public servant man/woman are doing these deliberate wrongdoings to us over years and they brazenly and misguidedly believe they can continue to do their evil wrongdoing planned crimes of murder/torture/thefts/harassments/persecutions/unlawfully holding us tortured raped to be murdered isolated victims, etc and get away with it, using the corrupt judiciary magistrates not and never 'judges' (as only trial by jury members are lawful 'judges!'), man/woman, deliberate evil wrongdoer(s) carolyn/caroline hilder and elizabeth batten, etc to do these evils to us over years!! with 'citizens arrests and charges' needed on ALL man/woman police who refuse to do their paid/salaried jobs, deliberately too stealing public Masters funds by taking salaries/wages but refusing to arrest and charge criminal wrongdoing judiciary magistrates man/woman, in this case carolyn/caroline hilder and elizabeth batten!!
JULY 31 2016 Visiter No.634185 to www.opg.me SUNDAY LUNCH OUT FOR ME n MUM
The carer of 20 years cannot receive care allowance whilst abroad but yet mother can receive her dissability allowance and so the carer is then forced to live from the dissability allowance or the pension so he can eat! The care allowance was stopped on the 11th April 2016 which to todays date I am owed £1000. So when the only income that the carer has is gone how does the carer pay for his food etc???? There is only one way... and that is to use the disabled persons dissability or their pension! The caller, HELEN said that when abroad the carer is treated as a sickness benefit when the carer is clearly NOT sick as he is required under their rules to complete 35 hours care per week and in reality I do 85 hours of care so can anyone even begin to understand this??? Again all linked to the same fraud and corruption in my mothers case that the governmental satanic masonic evil conspires across departments to ATTACK.
JULY 28 2016 Visiter No.634056 to www.opg.me 'NO' TO NAMED PERSONS SAY THE AWAKENED
JULY 27 2016 Visiter No.634000 to www.opg.me THE SATANIC LUCIFAREAN FREEMASONIC EVIL WITHIN 26.7.2016 THE SATANIC, LUCIFARIAN, FREEMASONIC STATE of THE UNITED KINGDOM / WORLD.
Those whom, by deafening silence, in secret, behind closed doors, that run the world, using their own language of ‘legalese’ have over years, very carefully constructed the ‘mother of all frauds’ that has enslaved humanity without your knowledge, consent or full disclosure, by barratry & personage.
THIS smoke and mirrors, of deafening silence & revolving doors, that they swear an oath to protect & its brothers to uphold, conflicts with every other oath they swear in courts &/or public office, demonstrating the satanic evil contained within it.
After 15 years of trying to understand the fraud committed upon my own mother’s live estate and having been recruited myself by the masonic brethren to a level 3rd degree & then resigning I have finally figured out, after waking up, what has & is, going on.
The protection of the brethren is utmost for a mason and just to be certain that they had not overlooked me, I wrote to the masons to underline my masonic distress, that they then could not ignore, but ignore they did, whilst they in disguise, continued to plunder my mother’s live estate treating her, as all others, as DEAD under their legalese language from their fraudulently enforced ‘BAR’/‘LAW’ society.
I then realised it was a case of mason [resigned] against MASONICS.
Uncovering stone after stone along the way the plot of fraud against humanity became more and more sickening as I tread the dark path.
Today, 26.07.2016, I make this statement to reflect what I know to be the truth and how they, the masonic brethren will close their establishment ranks, which are all linked through the judiciary the courts and the government, to set out to destroy you/[me], not caring a jot about who might get in the way, such as ie my disabled mother who has paid into their system of national insurance all her life.
THE FORCE they hold is immense, but it’s all built on FRAUDULENT TREASON, lies and deceit based entirely around money and the love of it, being of course the root of the SATANIC LUCIFERIAN EVIL.
When you finally have all the nuts and bolts it’s easy to put together the fraud and how it is protected by its gate keepers in the black robes, the priests of Baal, just another side order of freemason Jesuit gatekeeping in what are supposedly ‘our courts of law’ that have been usurped by Lucifer’s army of evil.
Common Law/Common sense has been ripped up by these creatures and thrown into the trash can.
THE only law now is their law, being their statute acts and whoe betide those whom object to it.
THE EU that is unelected has thankfully been rejected showing how a democracy does work when given the chance to, especially having waited 44 years to take its course by yet another treasonous devious act by lies and deceit committed with impunity by TED HEATH in 1972.
I do not want to digress to far from the root of our problems and so I will go on….. SOON!
notice to agent is notice to principal,
notice to principal is notice to agent!
demand/order: service on one is service on all!
Tuesday, 12th July 2016
URGENT - trial by jury to hear our claim(s), etc...
on notice: urgent trial by jury to hear permanent caveat in place to stop fraud upon the court and us!
Warning And Caution : caveat in permanent place until independent sworn-in trial by jury decision on our claim(s)/damages/restoration of all our properties/permanent caveat in place to stop fraud upon us and our mother's Estate, etc...
for permanently invoked court of [public] records, under permanently invoked common law, law of the land for all alive man/woman in law with automatic tax exempt status...
in i: alive living soul woman court, aggrieved, with full powers of attorney general, executor/executrix for our Estates, we alive living soul claimed bodies, unlimited creditors, with first-hand verified knowledge, prosecutors, prosecuting wrongdoer(s);
at queens bench division
on notice: demand/order/wish/affidavit/declaration of will and testament/as-King:
•demand/order: caveat hereby entered, 'let him beware', we are in opposition as fraud upon the court and upon us, we hereby invoke our lawful 'rights' to let an independent sworn-in 'trial by jury' decide upon these claim(s)/damages/restoration of all our properties/on this caveat, etc, i: alive sovereign free-born woman in law the only executor/executrix/administrator of our dearest mum's entire Estate, which we uphold by our claim of right, us with the only interest in our mum's Estate which i: alive woman, executor/executrix alone have authority for.
•on notice: no action is to take place until this caveat is lawfully heard before trial by jury, due note of our alone interest in our mother's Estate, which i: living soul woman, manage.
•on notice: absolutely no wills to be proved, no grant be sealed in our mother's Estate, no grant letters of administration, not a probate matter, unlawful trespass upon us and our properties, unlawful administration of our properties, demand/order to cease and desist until trial by jury hears this matter and decides upon it...
•sight and proofs of foundation evidence.
•sight of all proofs of claim.
•demand all claim(s) are verified in open trial by jury court, fully open with unrestricted assess to the public and media to witness justice being served and done according to law; common law does not tolerate 'secret courts with secret agendas!'.
•sight of lawful contract.
•sight of full and open honest disclosure of the facts of the contract.
•demand sight of 'Due Process' in law.
•we only operate man/woman to man/woman, alive in law.
•we are the 'alive man/woman in law; we are not the 'dead in law debt slaves/things/creatures/companies/corporations.
•demand proofs we the 'alive man/woman in law' come under statutes/acts for the dead debt slaves in law, companies, corporations, which we are not!
•proofs of jurisdiction to unlawfully administrate our properties, which we put claim)s) upon!
*once jurisdiction is called into question it MUST be proved and we demand/order it proved before trial by jury urgent now!
•proofs of authority.
•proofs of lawful consent.
•we do not consent, we do not agree, we refuse all unlawful administration of our properties and demand all our claim(s)/damages/restoration of all our properties, etc instant now!
•wrongdoer(s) man/woman guilty of failing to lawfully compensate us and to deal with matters lawfully before our demand and order sworn-in trial by jury, wrongdoer(s) unlawful time thefts from us!
•all details for our mother's Estate that i: alive woman in law, alone controls, will be given to the trial by jury to preserve our privacy and confidentiality in law, since wrongdoer(s) are guilty of unlawfully bringing the 'private' into the 'public'.
•on notice: of trespass/copyrights/trademarks, etc breaches/infringements, etc despite Writ(s) being served multiple times to Cease and Desist All Wrongdoing(s), Writ(s) of Dereliction of Duty(ies), etc...
•total abuse of us and power here, with no lawful 'separation of powers', all man/woman breaching their positions, powers and oaths of office to collude and cover-up/destroy evidence/torture and assault witnesses/very serious wrongdoing(s) and frauds for profit planned and instigated to perfection against unsuspecting innocent honourable man/woman alive in law over years causing fatalities by murder, which is why demand/order instant trial by jury sworn-in now posthaste, caveats in permanent place until trial by jury unanimous decisions, etc...
*on notice: treason/misfeasance of treason/malfeasance of treason/barratry by personage/thefts/murders/attempted murders/kidnapping/abduction/torture, etc very serious wrongdoing(s) being deliberately committed by all wrongdoer(s) breaching all laws and in gross dishonour.
**on notice: this matter is urgent, demand/order instant responses to swearing-in trial by jury members to 'judge' our claims/damages/restoration of all our properties/permanent caveat in place until trial by jury to hear our claim(s), etc...
***on notice: demand/order: all our upheld undisputed/no objections/no disputes by any living soul man/woman, our won claim(s)/damages/restoration of all our properties, etc stand in law and MUST be fully paid to us instant, until an independent sworn-in trial by jury members unanimously decide for or against our claim(s), etc in this these claims/damages/restoration of all our properties/hear caveat, etc etc etc...
****reminder: it is free to assess queens bench division, common law, law of the land, the highest law there is, 24/7, justice is free for all alive man/woman in law. and, justice must be seen to be done by the urgent upholding of our lawfully invoked independent sworn-in 'trial by jury!' instant!
all correspondence and attachments applies, maybe cropped, will all be used in evidence...
•all rights reserved,
•errors and omissions excepted,
•Cestui Qui Vie Trust Funds all collapsed/surrendered/yield-up demand our payouts instant now, Form 206 Evidence of Life filled-in ages ago...,
•all inherent unalienable rights intact,
•demand all our claims/damages/restoration of all our properties, etc this instant now!
•etc etc etc...
ALL it needed to expose: Fraud / theft / mal administration / treason / mis prision of treason /mis-conduct in public office / persecution amongst other serious charges is a JURY court of common law as is our rights as man/woman alive flesh born NOT debt slaves etc and the matter can be cleared up. THE MASONICS are at work doing their level best to damage limit the catastrophe that IS the COURT of PROTECTION and its affiliate OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN that are indeed criminally infiltrated organised crime gangs that need eradication NOT just from our life but countless other lives and if you need evidence its all here in this site!
JULY 11 2016 Visiter No.633415 to www.opg.me WORDS OF WARNING FROM FRIENDS STAY VIGILANT
JULY 10 2016 Visiter No.633406 to www.opg.me YORK PERSON OF THE YEAR NOMINATION
JULY 9 2016 Visiter No.633361 to www.opg.me BIRTH CERTIFICATE SCAM SHOWN HERE
The Birth Certificate SCAM.
The BC draws you OUT of the PRIVATE, and into the PUBLIC venue, where you're a SURETY for the PUBLIC (national) DEBT.
JULY 8 2016 Visiter No.633341 to www.opg.me A REQUEST FROM RITA TAYLOR Rita Taylor
mike, can you possibly consider putting the below on your website to highlight these crimes wrongdoings against us?
From: rita taylor
Date: 5 July 2016 at 14:18:26 BST
To: Police PC Caroline Robb Colindale
Subject: demand/order instant arrests/charges against all wrongdoer(s) causing us fraud/losses/harm/injuries/fatalities by murder/torture/isolated false imprisonments, etc...
notice to agent is notice to principal,
notice to principal is notice to agent!
for permanently invoked court of 'public' records, under permanently invoked common law, the highest law there is, law of the land for all 'alive man/woman in law with automatic tax exempt status'...
THIS DOCUMENT IS LAWFULLY BINDING IN LAW AND WILL BE USED IN EVIDENCE, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEMANDED UPON RECEIPT...
attention man/woman, caroline, woman, in personal/private capacities, bearing full own liabilities in law, under penalties of perjury...
Tuesday, 5 July 2016
writ to cease and desist all wrongdoing(s) against our honourable 'alive man/woman in law' selves instant!
writ of dereliction of duty(ies)
on notice: demand/order by law the following:
1. demand proofs reported crimes have been dealt with.
2. where is our reported stolen properties, as none have been returned?
3. stolen automobile [D751 XNJ; Toyota Space Cruiser, Silver, crime number: 2420891/15] still not returned and no paperwork provided for its theft from our personal/private family driveway, yourselves stating that the LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET COUNCIL staff/personnel man/woman took my property because it had tons of parking tickets on it, this was confirmed by the LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET COUNCIL man/woman as being complete wrong incorrect information given by yourselves, they also stated from their own investigations that these thefts of not only our automobile, but burglaries of our properties were carried out by jon dickinson and his social services departments, who have no authority and no paperworks to do such criminal wrongdoing(s) to us and being supported in serious wrongdoing(s) by all colluding agencies connected, with very serious breaches of 'NO' 'separation of powers'. so, demand automobile back, return of all our burglarised properties, computer, electrical goods, clothing, all our personal and private properties are demanded instantly returned, plus sight of all the relevant paperworks/documents connected to these thefts that are all still outstanding!
evidence concerning the theft of my automobile [D751XNJ] from our private family driveway:
Date: 25 February 2016 at 09:57:11 GMT
To: rita taylor
Subject: Re: Parking Tickets involving D751XNJ
Our Ref: 101000684138
Dear Ms Taylor,
Thank you for your e-mail.
We can confirm that there are no penalty charge notices on vehicle registration D751XNJ.
However if a ticket was issued in the last 24 hours it will not show on our systems yet.
If you need to contact us again regarding your enquiry, please e-mail Parking.Permits@barnet.gov.uk. Alternatively you can call on 0208 359 7446 Monday to Thursday 9am to 5:15pm or Friday 9am to 5pm. Further information about council services can be found by visiting www.barnet.gov.uk.
London Borough of Barnet,
North London Business Park,
Oakleigh Road South,
London, N11 1NP
Tel: 0208 359 7446
Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk
CSG is delivered by Capita plc on behalf of London Borough of Barnet.
Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email
How do you rate the service provided in this email?
....End of evidence concerning my stolen automobile [D751XNJ silver Toyota Space Cruiser] stolen by Policeman/woman colluding with Barnet Council staff/personnel man/woman!
4. lawful documents have been served upon yourselves for instant arrests and charges brought against all connected with these criminal wrongdoing(s) and attempting to cover-up these very serious on-going non-stop criminal wrongdoing(s) activities against us, deliberately doing these thieving murderous crimes to us, unlawfully isolating us to carry out these crimes, fabricating evidence, holding us unlawfully isolated England's prisoners robbed of all our properties/family/freedom/liberty/assets/privacy/confidentiality/identity thefts/fraud/losses/harm/injuries/murders/our post stolen from all locations connected to us/torture/harassments/bullying/intimidations/breaches of Data Protection Act/unlawfully administering my properties/slander/defamation of character(s)/libel/no due process of law/deliberate unlawful assets-stripping against us/abusing us made isolated & vulnerable/null and void fraudulent 'orders' being unlawfully with treason, malfeasance of treason, misfeasance of treason/magistrates deliberately and wilfully Administering unlawful Oaths, contrary to Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835, other offences do apply against [12610636 2.11.2015, 11.6.2015, etc] carolyn/caroline hilder/elizabeth batten/carr, etc [A20100044 Fri 2.7.2010] to asset-strip us, no due process of law, no defendant, no lawful independent sworn-in trial by jury members to hear evidence for the 'alive man/woman in law' us, etc etc...
5. no lawful separation of powers, all colluding man/woman falsifying evidence, committing perjury/lies, destroying evidence, stealing evidence and files from us, unlawfully isolating us to carry out these mafia instigated colluding horrendous torturing thieving murderous crimes over years against us, time thefts from us!
6. we demand arrests/charges brought against all reported to police man/woman, [policeman andy chapman Fraud Operation 'Falcon' committing further wrongdoings against us, Crime Number 2410793/15] [Action Fraud: CHS9597 6.7.2015; NFRC15050103 and NFRC150501035814 8.5.2015; elizabeth batten and carolyn/caroline hilder] Action Fraud by telephone and online, criminal dangerous thieving murderous wrongdoer(s) man/woman involved in this asset-stripping for their profits crimes against us.
7. we have permanently invoked common law, the highest law there is, law of the land for all 'alive man/woman in law with automatic tax exempt status', yet we are unlawfully being made 'dead debt slaves/things/creatures/companies/corporations in law' in order to asset-strip us further, time thieve from us, isolate and do further wrongdoing(s) to us, continuing to steal all our properties and hold us England's isolated prisoners, etc...
8. there can NEVER be any contracts between the 'alive man/woman in law' and the 'dead in law', but we 'alive man/woman in law' are being unlawfully subjected continually to these wrongdoing(s) by every colluding mafia government agency invoked in these abuses of power and unlawfully no 'separation of powers'.
9. demand arrests made and charges brought against michael culver [police CHS29447 Mon 18.1.2016] [Royal Mail Ref: 858380111 dated 15.2.2016 michael robert culver fraudulent application into Royal Mail to steal my post invading our privacy/confidentiality] for stealing my post, mail, packages/unlawfully administering my properties, accounts/breaches of Data Protection Act/slander/defamation of character/libel/identity thefts/fraud/losses to us/causing us harm and injuries/time thefts/unlawfully acting on null and void fraudulent 'orders' for his own profit from doing deliberate wrongdoing(s) to us and attempting to charge myself for his wrongdoing(s), etc...
10. demand arrests and charges brought against jennifer dias and cameron ryan for colluding fraudulent thieving murderous wrongdoing(s), slander, libel, defamation of character, perjury, lies, unlawfully administering my properties/breaches of Data Protection Act/time thefts from us, etc...
11. demand arrests and charges brought against lloyd wint of SIGN HEALTH and LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET COUNCIL, for unlawfully administering my properties/accounts/thefts/stealing post/abuses of made isolated vulnerable for profits/breaches of Data Protection Act/slander/libel, etc...
12. our copyrights/trademarks all breached/infringements, fee schedules applies.
13. the torture/theft/asset-stripping/murder of our dearest honourable mum, whilst policeman/woman watched the horror and refused to do their paid/salaried jobs, thereby wilfully stealing public funds, etc still doing exactly the same to all our family/properties still!
14. our properties are unlawfully being administered/destroyed/stolen/possessed, etc without our lawful authority/permission/consent/no contracts, etc. we demand/order the instant return of all our properties now!
15. the list of horrendous thieving murderous criminal wrongdoing(s) endless, demanding and ordering instant arrests and charges, remedies according to law to correct, there can by law be no wrongdoing(s) without compensation. demand all our claims/damages, etc are lawfully dealt with instant, no more time thefts from us, we demand all our properties back, we demand our family/freedom/assets, etc etc etc according to law...
HERE IS THE REMEDY FOR MAGISTRATES BREAKING THEIR 'OATHS' TO DO DELIBERATE CRIMES OF WRONGDOINGS!!
GET THE [JUDGE] MAGISTRATES ARRESTED FOR THEIR DELIBERATE CRIMES TO INNOCENTS, IN THIS CASE OURSELVES WERE THE VICTIMS...
Statement of Offence:
Administering an unlawful Oath, contrary to Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835, possibly other offences do apply here.
Particulars of Offence:
Reference Concerning Case Number 12610636 For Both Magistrates carolyn/caroline hilder and elizabeth batten:
carolyn/caroline hilder and elizabeth batten being magistrates for the Court of Protection, LONDON, on 2nd November 2015 and 11th June 2015 respectively, did unlawfully administer an Oath an Order Appointing An Interim Deputy For Property And Affairs on 2nd November 2015 by carolyn/caroline hilder and a Draft Order On Behalf Of The Mayor And Burgesses Of The London Borough Of Barnet on 11th June 2015 by elizabeth batten; in a manner which the said magistrates hilder/batten had no jurisdiction, namely:
The magistrates hilder/batten has sworn an Oath to well and truly serve our sovereign lady queen elizabeth the second in the Office of Magistrates hilder/batten and to do right by all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affectation or ill-will.
The aforesaid Oath under Common Law, Law of the Land, does not authorise any magistrate in the Common Law jurisdiction of England and Wales to adjudicate any Hearing in which the matter is to be decided in any way other than by a Trial by Jury, for the 'alive man/woman in law', who are at position number two below God and Trial by Jury at number one position, the sitting magistrates hilder/batten at position number three below 'alive man/woman in law' at number two position, no one below number two position for 'alive man/woman in law' can possibly sit in judgment when they are below the number two position, God and Trial by Jury is at number one position, therefore it stands to reason that magistrates hilder/batten deliberately acted outside of jurisdiction, deliberately breaking their Oaths of Office to do crimes to innocents for their monetary financial profits, unlawfully raiding the Cestui Que Vie Trust Funds for their victims.
Furthermore, in the Hearing in question there was no Injured Party, no Corpus Delicti, and no Defendant, no one or 'alive man/woman in law' applicable coming under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Therefore, the Common Law Oaths of Office under which the magistrates hilder/batten claimed authority is unlawful and constitutes an offence contrary to section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835.
The fact that the magistrates hilder/batten sat is considered to be prima facie evidence of the offence.
magistrate hilder also knowingly sat on more than one occasion deliberately and knowingly breaking her Oath of Office over a period of time approaching or over a year in time, 2015-2016.
*[magistrate] carr has also breached his 'Oath of Office' and guilt of the offence outlined above in detail, on Friday, 2nd July 2010 [A20100044 Fri 2.7.2010] with policeman/woman, dick brown, alexandra dunmore and alison turner, etc submitting into evidence fraudulent, perjurious, lying evidence, deliberately not having an independent sworn-in trial by jury members present to 'judge' the proceedings! this court 'order' is fraudulent, null and void in law, void ab initio! this was deliberately instigated to asset-strip our mother, abusing all our family members/our properties/us 'alive man/woman in law', etc this is gross abuses of power, abuses of us, no due process of law, no defendant(s), unlawfully no trial by jury members to hear the 'claims' for the 'alive woman in law' myself one of the victim(s) here and our tortured/abused/asset-stripped/robbed/murdered for her assets mum, etc...
on notice: demand/order take permanent note of the following:
•we are not 'titles'.
•no capitalisation is used in our 'appellations' 'names', see Black's Law Dictionary on the 'capitalisation of names'.
•when an 'appellation' is used for a 'name' it can never ever be the 'alive man/woman in law', since 'alive man/woman in law' are unlimited in all things, unique and special, made in the likeness of God, so a 'name' cannot ever be them, or define them, or describe them, a 'name' is simply not the 'alive man/woman in law!
•we are not 'dead in law'!
•we are not 'dead debt slaves/things/creatures/companies/corporations in law'.
•we permanently invoke common law, highest law there is/law of the land for all 'alive man/woman in law with automatic tax exempt status'.
•there can NEVER EVER be any contracts between the 'alive man/woman in law' and the 'dead in law'.
•the 'alive man/woman in law' are at position number two under common law; all magistrates man/woman at position three, so it is impossible for magistrates man/woman to 'sit' in judgment of 'alive man/woman in law', only God/Trial by Jury members are at position number one under common law and capable of 'judging' the 'alive man/woman in law', everything else would be fraudulent and null and void in law, void ab initio.
•any 'siting' magistrate doing a court 'order' for 'alive man/woman in law' would automatically be deliberately fraudulent on the magistrates part, with wilful breaches of their common law 'Oaths of Office', which is an automatic arrestable and chargeable serious offence in law, the subsequent court 'order' would be fraudulent, null and void in law, void ab initio.
•see Halbury's Laws on Administration Courts, that nothing can be done to make them lawful!
•we do not give permission, consent, or authority for our personal/private properties to be administered/destroyed/stolen/possessed by anyone other than us!
•we are not a 'you' or a 'your'!
•demand to know who 'you' and 'your' is?
•send to 'you' or 'your'!
•do not recognise 'you' or 'your'!
•demand/order no trespass onto our properties.
•all our properties held 'Allodial Title Fee Simple Absolute', which means we hold all of them outright, free of any duties/taxes/levies/fees/costs, etc...
•demand/order instant return and restoration of all our stolen properties belonging to us 'alive man/woman in law', forthwith and on formal official records! demand/order policeman/woman to do their paid/salaried jobs with no time thefts from us, instant!
•our time is not free, that we can never get back, so fee schedules do apply and in operation!
•demand/order all sacked/dismissed man/woman as per written correspondence and attachments is instantly put in prison for life with loss of all their assets, to not only protect us, but the global populous!
•we are not a 'defendant' from your 'dead in law world' EVER, NEVER EVER!!
•all wrongdoer(s) acting on fraudulent fake paperwork(s)/bearing perjurious, lying autographs submitted into evidence, all carry life imprisonments and loss of all wrongdoer(s) assets!
•we assert/demand/order/invoke all our rights according to law, common law.
•demand/order all proofs from all police, man/woman concerned, of lawful dealing(s) with our reported criminal wrongdoing(s) and of dealing with the wrongdoer(s), under penalties of perjury, with full and complete disclosure of all the facts, all evidence needs to be verified in open court before an independent sworn-in trial by jury members to 'judge' all 'claims', and that matters have indeed been dealt with correctly according to law, common law...
•etc etc etc...
on notice: yourselves, all colluding for profits by ill gotten gains, man/woman, wrongdoer(s) guilty of bringing the private into the public which are serious offences in law...
all correspondence and attachments applies maybe cropped, will all be used in evidence...
•all rights reserved,
•all inherent born with unalienable rights intact,
•errors and omissions excepted,
•Cestui Que Vie Trust Funds collapsed demand our instant payouts long overdue, Form 206 Evidence of Life fill-out ages ago,
•UCC 1 copyrights/trademarks notices breaches/infringements with fee schedules in operation,
•UCC 1-308, etc...,
•etc etc etc...
Date: 5 July 2016 at 10:47:58 BST
To: rita taylor
Subject: Call to police
Dear Ms Taylor,
I have been made aware that "you" called police stating that previous reports of crime of theft and murder had not been taken seriously.
I would be grateful if "you" could let me know if anything has happened since we were last in communication several months ago as I know that matters "you" had raised up until then were dealt with???.
Caroline Robb PS 20SX
Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.
Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless absolutely necessary.
NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
Find us at:
JULY 8 2016 Visiter No.633338 to www.opg.me THE PETER HOFSCHROER TRIAL From:NORMAN SCARTH firstname.lastname@example.org
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: PH Solicitor? Wrong, wrong, WRONG!
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 11:33:09 +0100
This solicitor (I wish you had got his name), is wrong on every count.
He is either completely useless, or, more likely, he is working for the other side.
"courts getting cheesed off with emails"? Of course they are! They think they are God Almighty, want The Public to worship them, to keep silent, & to mind their own business.
It IS our business!
"solicitor has said peter requests radio silence until the jury has made a final descion"?
I wonder? Has Peter really said this, or is it the solicitor speaking?
To wait till after the jury's 'final decision?
It's too late then! (and the solicitor knows it!)
The solicitor has said "the judge is fair".
He would say that wouldn't he!
Beware the judge who pretends to be on your side!
That is just to make it look as though the victim is getting a 'fair trial', & to give him false hope.
"no one can prove peter didn’t put the images on the computer ""
He does not NEED to prove that Peter didn't put the images on the computer.
All he needs to do is cast doubt on the prosecution's motives, & without doubt it is to silence him, & a warning to other whistle-blowers.
The decision to charge him as they have done is because they know there only needs to be mention of 'child abuse' to turn the world against the victim of their malice.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now to the bit where the solicitor says, "Information from various people including Norman scarth isn’t any good at this stage as its only helping as a character witness not as a expert on images ". Who on earth told him that? The evidence I would give would NOT be as a 'character witness'. And I am certainly not an expert on 'images' (but, as said above, that is completely unnecessary).
However, I AM an expert - none greater - on skulduggery in the courts, on what constitutes a 'Fair Trial', & on the treatment meted out to whistle-blowers in Britain!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THAT is what the jury needs to know about - but, not surprisingly, that is something that the solicitor, & barrister, who are SUPPOSED to be defending Peter don't want them to hear!
To: email@example.com; et al
Subject: PETERS REQUEST NO MORE EMAILS PLEASE
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 09:06:50 +0100
A Solicitor with a Irish accent has just called me advising me the courts are getting cheesed of with many emails from many people.
Peters solicitor has said peter requests radio silence until the jury has made a final descion
He tells me the judge is fair and the trial is going peters way how ever no one can prove peter didn’t put the images on the computer and at this stage we need the judge onside its a 50/50 chance of not guilty.
He told me expert computer people for the defence wasn’t helpful when the pcs hard drives was looked at.
He also said Information from various people including Norman scarth isn’t any good at this stage as its only helping as a character witness not as a expert on images.
He told me peters maximum sentence is 4 years so he would be due for release on dec 1 2016 if the prison governor agreed he could be released immediately I have told the solicitor peter can stay with us and there’s housing available.
Thats all I know
JULY 4 2016 Visiter No.633177 to www.opg.me PETER HOFSCHROER CASE TODAY @10am
JULY 3 2016 Visiter No.633165 to www.opg.me UNIVERSAL DECLARATON OF RIGHTS
the Universal declaration of rights asserts “that a citizen of a state in which that citizen is present has the liberty to travel, reside in, and/or work in any part of the state where one pleases within the limits of respect for the liberty and rights of others, and that a citizen also has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country at any time”. So with this in mind an act of parliament, must comply with this ruling. i man did not write the law they did and what`s more the Government signed and contracted to both domestically and commercially, it’s a done deal and an inalienable right in law. To add it`s also a fundamental right to which a person is inherently entitled simply because he/she is a human being. And,it is my belief when looking at cf. R v Donavan  2KB 498 at 507,  AII ER Rep 207 at 210 in delivering that judgment of the court of criminal appeal Swift J states: “If an act is unlawful in the sense of being itself a criminal act, it is plain that it cannot be rendered lawful because the person to whose detriment it is done consents to it. No person can licence another to commit a crime”.
Justice swift is stating that driving without government documents such as licences, Mot`s etc can be “of itself criminal”, as the government licence these acts and therefore they cannot be criminal. In the opinion of cf. Ex Parte lewis (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 191 Wilis J said in regard to public right of passage the only “dedication” in the legal sense that we are aware of is that as of a public right of passage, as which the legal description is a “right for all Her Majesty’s subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance”.The House of Commons library documents in cf. Roads Unadopted standard Note: SN/BT/402 last updated 18 October 2010 Author; Louise Butcher; Section Business and transport:
What is a Highway? “There is no statutory definition of a highway only a common law one. That definition is quite clear; a “Highway is a way over which all members of the public have a right to pass and re-pass. Their use of the way must be as of right, not on sufferance or by licence”. 1 And, In the case of cf. DPP v. jones and another Lord Irvine LC states “The law should not make unlawful what is common place and well accepted there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights”. Sherer v. Cullen, 481 f 946
JUNE 30 2016 Visiter No.633052 to www.opg.me TODAY IS HIGH TIME WE EXPOSE THE POLICE We will be filing by recorded delivery a formal complaint of masonic conspiracy to deny access to her majesties court of common law in acts of misconduct of public office leading to misprision of treason offences that need police involvement to identify the culprits whom are conducting such frauds upon our courts. Let's see how far up the ladder that masonic corruption extends by filing such a complaint to see if it gets investigated and of which I seriously doubt!
JUNE 29 2016 Visiter No.633036 to www.opg.me WHERE HAS THE GROWTH OF TREASON STEMMED FROM
FORMAL PDF RESPONSE here TAKE NOTE: I asked: 'if the human being'? they reply
'The person in question'?? The person! being of course the corporation legal fiction strawman but this does not apply to the human being!!! WHICH was the question! DEMAND FOR ANSWERS MADE
Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Moving abroad
The original question has been interpreted wrongly.
The PERSON is not what I referred to.
Human being was the question but this I may not have elaborated upon properly, as what I should say is;
•alive with souls, claimed bodies, sovereign free-born man/woman
This is the wo/man/alive with soul, claimed bodies that is sovereign free-born and demanded release of funds after emigration with due submitted clinical doctors reports proving capacity to live where and with whom and after such a denial of release of funds suffered losses that until now have been ignored.
Perhaps now might be the time for the ministry of justice to define the difference of:
as to, man woman alive with souls claimed bodies free born?
It also needs clarification as whom is responsible after complaints raised were not sufficiently investigated?
AND if they were... were covered over and buried!
The deputy was discharged but due compensation never paid!
YOU as corporation, as dead entities are liable for such losses and also the CEO at the time in his capacity as a man martin [john]
NOW the question is put into the formal format we demand an answer?
•alive with souls, claimed bodies, sovereign free-born man/woman
If you cross reference the dates you can clearly see the frauds going on and that any objections or claims are completely ignored in favour of them placed onto the property long before the objection deadline of the 16th June 2016 where they had already got restriction dated 25th May 2016.
JUNE 26 2016 Visiter No.632798 to www.opg.me WHAT.. YOU THINK AM JOKING DEADLY SERIOUS
Long story short
Last year (2015) there was an 'altercation' in a court in Welshpool. A 'bit of shouting'? (And, no doubt, a few home truths ... from Guy .... to some Solicitor).
Suddenly, months later (January, this year), the police turn up at 8:00pm, at Guy's home, and arrest him.
Guy spends 20 hours in police custody, and is then shipped to Aberystwyth to stand trial for something or other.
It turns out that he's charged with a Section 5 Public Order offence. It is the MINIMUM Public Order offence. If you break wind, in front of a Copper, you can be charged under Section 5. However, it is such a minimal offence that you cannot be imprisoned for a Section 5 offence.
In Aberystwyth, Guy points out that he has no idea why he is there ... that he has never been cautioned or formally charged ... has no paperwork ... has never been bailed ... and doesn't know what is going on. He also claims that there is NO CASE TO ANSWER.
The SICK, PSYCHOPATHIC Clerk of the Court (Michael Cray) spits blood ... and has Guy arrested and imprisoned for 7 days.
Meanwhile this SICKO arranges for the imprisonment to be listed as a "Contempt of Court" ... because imprisonment isn't an option for a Section 5 Public Order offence.
All of this has been Appealed ... including a complaint against the SICKO PSYCHO.
In the video above, Guy gives potted history, and also explains what happened during the final Appeal Hearing last Tuesday 14th June.
The SICKO PSYCHO was placed in the Witness Box and questioned (by Guy) for about 1 1/2 hours.
Apparently (according to this PSYCHO):
1) He considers himself to be a 'Hitman' against Freemen-on-the-Land, and was specially "wheeled into" the Hearing in Aberystwyth.
2) There is a 'Black List' of "Freemen-on-the-Land" ... and any associates ... such that they will get HARSHER treatment ... for daring to raise questions about the ENDEMIC CORRUPTION.
So ... there you go. No surprises there, then ... but good to have confirmation ... so thanks Guy ... and well done!!
PDF RESPONSE here ALONG with this reply will be a final demand for questions to be answered failing which proof of fraud will become tacit agreement where we can attached the CEO of land graham farrant to our financial damages along with the co conspirators to defraud alastair pitblado & peter aruthur brian jackson as men in their private capacity.
JUNE 9 2016 Visiter No.632177 to www.opg.me FROM LAND OFFICE SAME response
JUNE 8 2016 Visiter No.632103 to www.opg.me STATEMENT by EXECUTOR of ANN CLARKE estate Yesterdays events are really quite significant on several fronts. All of which relate to the jeopardy that the court of 'protection' have placed my mothers life in whilst breaching several human rights. The family court is using other members of family's hearsay to justify its actions that can easily in fact, in a lawful common law jury court be proved lies and nor would they be admissible plus the distinct lack credability due to the family's own proved dishonerable actions against their own mother over 20 years, this is on top of not providing one ounce of direct care. The court care not one jot about this what so ever, as it suits their overall agenda to use, as the romans have done over centuries, rules, 'admiralty' rules ie sTaTuTe, now talmudic, maritime courts to divide and conquer. The relatives lack of educated intelligence cannot see the frauds and so continue blinded mainly because of their blinkered vision see's only, their own goal which is to pigeon hole their own mother into what they see as the best for her, without listening to one word uttered of mum's own 'words of' capacity in which even if she did not have capacity, under mental health sTaTuTe rules would still be entitled to her wishes met 'right or wrong'. So the courts using their fraudulent bent system can manipulate the so called 'patient' into their own corrupt masonic environment. The problem that they have created is exposure to serious health problems for mum, by denying her the rights to have dignity, in providing for her own care expenses whilst being forced abroad into exile from such utter, vile, satanic masonic corruption, being pushed upon her. The denial of her own property that is under the control of her living will executor as per such living will, but unlawfully court blocked, leaves her without immediate health care should the UK vote out of EU on the 23rd June 2016 again placing her in a periless position. My partner and I have now acquired 2 jobs each within the entertainment area and are working sometimes double shifts as was the case yesterday a total of 10 hours ie from 5pm until 9pm in one venue then 9pm till 2pm in another leaving mum for an inordinate amount of time that I would rather not do! When this doubles into me and my partner doing the same as was the case yesterday it forces mum into one position for that duration of time ie on a chair or in her bed because she cannot walk. Mum has not fully recovered from her bed sores acquired in Thailand from her bout of dehydration and that I am trying to keep on top of that recovery by ie turning her in her bed every couple of hours that I cannot do when working and therefore because she cannot do it herself her condition is at risk by being denied her 'carer' from a] the withdrawal of UK benefits for dissability care and mobility that she is entitled as she paid into the system all her life for such insurance and her exile has been forced by breach of human rights where she is entitled to investigations by law into the allegations of fraud and theft upon her estate that have not been conducted. b] she has capacity and has had capacity from day one that is yet to be exposed just another fraud and that even without it she has a living will executor trying to protect her health by the sale of her property prevented and denied by the court. In effect the UK family court system is killing her indirectly, one way or another. It is for the above reason we make the statement here and now, for a future common law jury court to assess proper damages and in the hope mum does not deteriorte any further. I do believe that the spanish hospital had given up on her prognosis but from my documented video care had made inroads to better health for mum but this now is being made impossible by having to take 2 jobs and the removal of mums dissability allowance and my care allowance plus the prevention of the sale of her property to provide care funds for needed medical requirements of now and the future. These allegations I lay directly at the court of neglection which is indeed a masonic based satanic CoN of fraudulent business, causing untold hardship for mum in her unhealthy late years that the court are to blame for. Today we take on board SPANISH RESIDENCIA! here a book called AGAINST HER WILL! Mum at 8pm today
JUNE 7@1430hrs 2016 Visiter No.632068 to www.opg.me PHONE CALL FROM ESTATE AGENT House buyers pulls out because the matter is taking too long!! Recorded telephone conversation to follow, to be used in evidence against the criminal court of 'protection', who are only using hearsay to do what they do, protecting themselves against the allegations that are now mounting to substantial figures. here in this call
JUNE 7@1300hrs 2016 Visiter No.632055 to www.opg.me MAIL REJECTED by LAND OFFICE BUT NOW RESENT WHAT IS THEIR PROBLEM?
full 5 pages here http://opg.me/landregisterrestriction.pdf RESPONSE to TITLE No LA826609 [re Jo Savage letter/notice B136]
URGENT sending by email, fax and recorded delivery post to the CEO of the LAND REGISTRY - GRAHAM FARRANT & to the OFFICIAL SOLICITOR - ALASTAIR PITBLADO
alastair [pitblado] & graham [farrant] TAKE FORMAL NOTICE of OBJECTION & ACTION notice to agent is notice to principle notice to principle is notice to agent The order of the 9th MAY 2016 was VOID by TREASON Your offer by notice B136 is defaced and attached as refused not contracting services not required Quote; my property/mum, ann [CLARKE], is being deprived of her human being rights [evidence & proof of life form 206 http://opg.me/206-signedann.pdf] here & that The Land Registry ( Rules ) Committee stated on record in 2008, they "were satisfied the LRA2002 [LAND REGISTRY ACT] complied with the HRA [HUMAN RIGHTS ACT] and thus, section six of that Act".
It must then follow there has been a breach of the HRA, as there has been no regard for mum's wishes in seeking dignity, to provide her own medical care/costs by the sale of her home, a course of action she has been forced to take as her dissability and care funding has been withdrawn by her residing abroad, a situation again forced upon her, as me her only carer and also with all the executor rights to attend to her legal affairs through a legally drawn up living will that this judge confirms has legal force [http://opg.me/will20082012.pdf] here, would face incarceration if we both return to the UK.
We therefore strenuously point out that Land Registry's role is one to register property/land, and to make record of the details involved in such transactions as transfers of ownership, run smoothly. It is not the role of Land Registry to involve itself in extra curricular activities to do the bidding of courts acting outside of Acts of Parliament such as their refusing to comply with a validly made subject access request made under the Data Protection Act which clearly is defined in the Human Rights Act as, the right to a fair trial (section 6.1), being the means to seek information to use to put your case and your defence at court [currently ongoing within QUEENS BENCH RCJ claim here linked http://opg.me/damagesdemandordered.pdf]here We seek to assert and demand, Land Registry CEO provide their 'defence' for acting outside of their practises / procedures / protocols, in seeking to do the bidding of unlawful actions that can only achieve further hardship on my elderly sick mother whose entitlement to her rights supersede any unlawful and unjust meanderings of Land Registry being couched to foster.
YOU as CEO but man, graham [FARRANT] and your organisation have five working days to reply .
We reserve all our rights if you fail to provide a full and lawfully proper defence for your actions, to seek any actions available to us, including involving our MP and legal/lawful advisors into these communications and any reply that results from it, not excluding a commercial lien that we may seek to issue upon you in your private capacity as a man, for £10,000,000 [ten million pounds] in your failure to comply with our demand for a lawful response immediately to firstname.lastname@example.org but NOT OUR POSTAL ADDRESS.
This correspondence will be duplicated, served & enacted upon the Official Solicitor himself personally in his private capacity as a man alastair [PITBLADO]. [If I were either of YOU, I would tread with extreme caution!]
MAY 29 2016 Visiter No.631666 to www.opg.me EYES WIDE SHUT - SATAN IS UPON YOU
HER MAJESTYSs COURTS are in PROVEN fact HER MASONIC COURTS of CORPORATE CONFLICT Where swearing an oath to protect the brethren above all other is completely incompatible with the public oath of office taken. The contradiction is blatant, the fraud is just another fraud built upon other frauds of identity theft of the corporate person name/strawman used to gain sTaTuTe joinder to incarcerate you whether that be by prison OR under their Mental Capacity ACT 2005 rules that are completely unfit for purpose unless the purpose is to protect satanic priests of baal worshippers that are indeed committing heinous crimes against babies, infants, and those whom stand against such barbarity as I and others being kidnapped, forced into exile and or denied rights and justice under jewish zionist talmudic rule from the B>A>R> British Admiralty Rule. READ about the reality of false prophets here
Rita is the person speaking on this video of making a jury court common lore claim that was made public recently she is now missing believed kidnapped by the satanic ruling elite until proved otherwise... her facebook profile is.. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008107366148 The police have been informed but terminated the call today @4pm 28/5/2016 in a video to be released shortly. This is the pioneering work that Rita has been persuing.. by rita taylor Reclaim Divinity as Prosecutor over Satanic wrongdoers under common law and UCC - in which you are the Prosecutor of an unlimited number of wrongdoers and demand nullification of fraud actions, claim damages and compensation as remedy, cure, maintenance as a freewill man woman, principle, deity from a magistrate of a lower fiction corporate system..
TEMPLATE 01 by rita taylor in "susan's court",
at queens bench division', etc everyone's own personal 'court'
completely under your rules, your terms, with your orders demanded to be carried out by your public servants, if they do not like it, then let them urgently convene a 'trial by jury', but your input of documents must be complied with. maxims of law:~
'as no man can dismiss another man's claims'
'any man who wants to wrongfully steal another man's world, can have his entire world and more lawfully taken from him':~
queen's bench division magistrates can then either:~
1. pay up;
3. invoke a 'trial by jury';
4. the worse possible option would be for them to do further crimes!
template for a claim into queens bench division:~
important: everything must be in lower case letters, avoid all capital letters, unless a Company/Corporation or names of towns/cities, etc...
do not go to the court, or court 37, deal with everything on paper, preferably by email to keep down costs, keep things simple. best avoid all telephone calls with all government staff men/women as they will try devious unlawful tricks and lies to push through their crimes.
do not fill-out their forms or pay any fees, this is not an application, but a common lore/law 'claim, order, award', to award your own damages and settlements and gets things quickly sorted; this 'claim, order, award' is above any magistrate order.
example: ~ the claimant/the victim here is john paul joseph [smith]; under common lore/law a man can only have two names, and none of those two names can be a surname! in fact, no adult man/woman can have an identifying name under common lore/law. an adult man/woman can use an 'appellation' in order to deal with commerce.
thou = singular
you = plural
everything in lower case letters, the layout and style must be kept to, without changes. omit, add or include to own personal circumstances.
when completed send via paper or email to queens bench division, copy in whoever appropriate.
Subject: [case numbers, in these squared brackets] common lore, queens bench division invoked, demand order damages instantly!
notice to agent is notice to principal,
notice to principal is notice to agent!
x3 once, twice, thrice...
reference: [case numbers] common lore, queens bench division invoked, demand order damages instantly!
demand and order: court of records [public], common lore [law = is legalese word] permanently invoked...
demand and order: service on one is service on all; all duly filed and served....
in john paul-joseph court
at queens bench division
i: man, prosecutor
UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION LIMITED
all derivatives thereof...
all government staff men/women in their person/private capacities...
(numbered list of wrongdoers men/women, put outside of these brackets)
1. put name of wrongdoer here in lower case letters.
2. as number one above...
3. as number one above...
4. as number one above...
etc etc etc...
all as above wrongdoer(s)
all as above email addresses, liens, estoppels, bills, etc etc...
nature of case: claim, order, award...
claim: trespass [list the crimes in these squared brackets, example - theft]
i: man demand, require 'court of record', common lore ; 'trial by jury';
i: man, claim, order, award:
• the said wrongdoer(s) trespass upon i: man property(ies);
• the causal agent of the trespass, comes by way of its use of forged instruments, (list the crimes outside of these brackets, example theft)...;
• the trespass did and does harm, injuries, losses, fraud, etc to i: man property(ies);
• the commencement of the wrong, harm, injuries, losses, fraud, etc etc began on and around (put date crimes started, outside of these brackets);
• the wrong, harm, injuries, losses, fraud, etc etc continues to this day, (put the date you are doing this claim, outside of these brackets);
• i: man, demand, order: the immediate nullification/discharge with prejudice of [put case numbers in these squared brackets you want nullified]; all such written nullity documents must be produced and sent to i: man, instantly;
• i: man, demand, order and award: compensation and damages for the initial and continual trespass upon my property(ies) and the immediate return of all stolen property(ies), instantly or the clock continues to tick by the second [viz.., moment in time] for (put amount in words, pounds sterling, and in numbers, for any per second of time thefts delays in paying out damages, put figures outside of these brackets) per second for every second unlawfully deprived of property(ies);
• i: man, demand, order and award: compensation and damages due instantly: (put amount in words, pounds sterling, and in numbers, outside of these brackets) is overdue payment, demand this amount is forwarded instantly to i: an alive/breathing/with soul/sovereign/flesh and blood/free born man immediately posthaste or further damages/costs/charges/interest/time thefts, etc will become due...;
i: man, say here, and will verify in open court, common lore, trial by jury, that all herein be true...
so, say, demand, order and award, i: man, all said payments and documents must instantly be produced and given posthaste no delay to i: man, now...urgent action needed, demanded and ordered: life endangerments, necessary and proper, needs; i: man/woman/our family are not part of your society...
notice: demand, order: i: man does not take surety for the legal person, a fiction, a piece of paper, strawman...
[case president at Warwick Crown Court, queens bench invoked, on 13.12.2013 Rugby Borough Council vs resham maan]
all correspondence and attachments applies, maybe cropped...
all rights reserved,
all inherent unalienable rights intact,
errors and omissions excepted,
maybe copied, recorded, circulated, without further notice...,
all evidence can and will be used in evidence...,
debts: cestui que vie trust funds collapsed still awaiting lore-full/lawful payouts to ourselves, i: man, demand, order and award this is instantly remedied forthwith...,
debts: unlawfully using i: man/woman/our family, who are alive/breathing/with souls/sovereign/fleshand blood/free born men/women, as dead debt slaves/companies/corporations, etc without fuldisclosure/without our express permission/without our consent/without valid contracts, etc etc demand damages/remedies/settlements/resolutions according to lore/law now long overdue payments to ourselves - i: man, demand, order and award instant payments to remedy now forthwith...;
UCC 1-308, etc...;
etc etc etc...
SUPREME COURT VIDEO CALL 27th MAY 2016 regarding conflicts of oaths in a satanist denial of justice by conflict of oaths. SUPREME COURT biographies here
MAY 27 2016 Visiter No.631592 to www.opg.me DESPERATE TO TELL THEIR STORY Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 20:09:34 +0100
Subject: Corruption in Court of protection
last month my family lost a battle with Essex County Council, resulting in the CoP appointing a Deputy of its choice to manage/liquidate my mom in law's two and a half million pounds estate.
A very complexes machinery involving the memory assessment team, adult social services, the office of public guardian, and finally the official solicitor and the CoP were used with devastating consequences to us as a family.
My mom in law who is 86 and a retired head teacher started developing short term memory loss that became noticeable back in 2012.
After a short hospital stay, she was referred to the memory assessment team who quickly developed a strong interest in her estate.
When I objected to the intense scrutiny into her estate, a vicious campaign of demonization, slander and harassment started against me by adults social services aided by the local council.
I was accused of physical, financial, emotional abuse, and harassment of my mom in law.
Every aspect of my private life was scrutinized by Social services in a quest to humiliate and discredit me. I plunged into depression when one day out with my mom in law, the social workers told the police that I have kidnapped her, the police removed her and turned her to the social workers who placed her in a nursing home for two months while refusing to let us see or talk to get.
My mom in law had in place a Power of Attorney in favour of her son and an acquaintance, back in 2007 when she stated to put her affairs in order.
In the end they revoked two powers of Attorney, got a special order to sack her account of over £ 15.000 that they never accounted for.
The CoP ignored the fact that the local authorities did not provide any evidence to support their allegations.
Instead the court named a Deputy, gave him power to liquidate the estate and barred me from ever seeing my mom in law.
Against my husband who is my mom in law's only child, they used his OCD condition to strip him of the PoA his mom gave him claiming he is not fit to run her affairs.
I am desperate to tell my story to anyone who will listen if only to inform the public and alleviate the pain I experience every waking moment knowing such corruption can be taking place away from public scrutiny in today's Britain
Hoping you might be able to guide and advise me, I look forward to hearing from you.
Wanda Maddocks if you look into her further down this website SHE. was the first person to be jailed by the court of protection and offers her advice. Wanda Maddocks Yes, i know exactly what you are going through, dont ever bring her back to England what ever you do, you are allowing her to live a lot longer by been professionaly cared for by your self, and loved, with a lovely healthy climate, --- keep up the good work, see if you are entitled to NHS continue funding for your mum over there, ---- extra money.
MAY 23 2016@9pm Visiter No.631436 to www.opg.me MUM COMING OUT TONIGHT TO WATCH ME WORK
MAY 23 2016 Visiter No.631393 to www.opg.me STATEMENT TODAY on the CURRENT LACK of ACTIONS! You would think under normal circumstances that the effect this is having upon my 75 yr old disabled mothers life would be sufficient to do the right thing, but no, the forces of evil just carry on, in a sea of silence. i: man, submitted a claim for demanded damages to be actioned immediately due to life endangerment, to the invoked jury court of QUEENS BENCH DIVISION 'action department', by recorded delivery one week ago and apart from the emailed version receiving an automated response confirming its delivery and of course the signed for receipt from the royal mail recorded delivery we have received nothing else what so ever!
This confirms the level of corrupt collusion and conspiracy to deny all rights to justice in a TALMUDIC operation conducted within her majesties courts that are indeed, in fact, registered corporations, believe it or not, where the oaths that these magistrates claim to uphold can be smokescreened, without asking the pertinent question of, which OATH are you upholding? the oath of court, the oath of office or the masonic oath??
THE deception and illusion of trickery/fraud being used upon an unsuspecting public that is thankfully getting very wise is beyond belief.
Crime by court officials of any level is all just part of their normal daily routine, in games they surely enjoy inflicting upon the affected.
The courts are actually doing exactly what was expected so its no surprise to me and therefore has little to no effect upon our fight apart from exposing their criminal collusion conspiracy of intent further, which is a bonus in our camp.
The tragedy to it along side the other injustices being suffered means that we have had to alter what we do to accomodate more income, that has been removed from my mother, meaning we can spend LESS time with her than before.
Its as though the court and siblings see my mother as a 'parcel' that can be passed from one to another at their convenience without a thought for her choices. WELL, its not 'pass the parcel' she is perfectly functional in the brain with who and where she wants to be and so to attempt to remove that by force seems inhumane, which is another word for breaching her human rights. The court have made mention very recently about her recent capacity which highlights how this corrupt courts expands as it goes, it's own goal posts, to meet its own demand for huge legal fees.
If you read all of this site you will see over the years how the criminal probate racketeering fraudsters have constantly made up new rules [expanding goalposts] to cover any and all eventuality cropping up. More recently I focus on a comment made by 'Judge Jackson' about if it was in my mothers best interests to live abroad? THIS is exactly by example how they function... forgetting that she has lived abroad for 8 years since 2008 when she 'emigrated' taking her out of their ENGLAND & WALES jurisdiction and that the court still fails to address the losses that they inflicted upon her by a forced living from £ sterling, in a devalueing pound that forced annual payments up to accomodate the deputies failings of EXCHANGE RATE losses that the court then have used with the newspapers to lay blame upon the carer!
The carer aint taking any what so ever blame and infact demands a common law trial by juror of those people named in the claim to shed light on the injustice suffered of substantial proportions and also where people are unaware that if laws are unjust as is the case here and its criminal backers being the poloticians whom refuse to act upon to change the laws, do not realise that a JURY can change LAWS.
THIS is why they fear a jury?
THE truth is not something the governemnt want to deal with. THIS is another HILLSBOROUGH in the waiting but put a multiplier of 100 on it and that might show how explosive it will be. In 2013 the mental capacity act select committee investigating all this LORD HARDIE stated, quote; " The evidence suggests that tens of thousands of people are being deprived of their liberty without the protection of the law, and without the protection that Parliament intended. The Government needs to go back to the drawing board to draft replacement provisions that are easy to understand and implement, and in keeping with the style and ethos of the Mental Capacity Act." but WHAT has changed? Even such corrupt judges have weighed in, with ie Jacksons quote; " The law is completely inaccessible to those for whose benefit the legislation has been devised" but yet in contradiction his wikipiedia profile describes him as a master tactician who stalks his prey! [PREDATORY GUARDIAN] Its this kind of hypocrissy which is forcing LiPs litigants in person to fight their own cases but being met unlawfully by case dismissal with an endorsement accross it of 'without merit' and this should be followed by full reasoning by law, but usually is'nt, as in my case NO REASONS were given and to add insult to injury mine was followed with the further injustice of 'a 2 year civil restraint order' from making any further applications! Recently I saw one guy comment on facebook about this which is listed as a picture here lower down, that his version of 'without merit' means , 'fuck off I am the judge and it is my duty to cover up the fuck ups of government', which in my opinion make the utmost sense! In comments to one onlooker researching the court of protection who was asked about had there been any people released from it?? He responded by saying 'YES' all those who were in a box!! NOW just look at it from afar and work it out for yourself. WHO is protecting 'WHO'?? The criminals ie: the BAR [BRITISH ADMIRALTY RULE] are protecting the criminals ie: the BAR, backed by a 'corporate' Talmudic [zionist] court service that IS NOT repeat not related to her majesty, what so ever with smoke screen oaths in the main, MASONIC, demonstrating that the masonic linked HILLSBOROUGH tragedy is in comparison to this, SMALL!
I do hope people are getting the picture.
NOW the talmud court want to appoint the talmud official solicitor where his reputation goes before him in other cases whom have been defrauded by him the official solicitor. ITS not an appointment of the official solicitor that's needed as THIS is just another arm, another branch of the same BAR fraud... IT's a JURY court that's needed... that's unbiased .. that can take lawful action in correcting the injustices.. where we do not subscribe to further injustices at my mothers expense.
What the BAR have done along with GOV.UK departments is a very very lucrative REVOLVING DOORS routine where you the innocent think you are going to get justice... and years pass by for example as in the HILLSBOROUGH case 27 years have passed by before a JURY was brought in to convict but yet their revolving doors still exist on other injustices like ours.. the same with complaints like the PHSO parliamentary health and service ombudsman they just go around and around reaching no particular goal.
MAY 17 2016 Visiter No.631157 to www.opg.me MUMs HOUSE IS SOLD - CONTRACTS EXCHANGED EMERGENCY Many Thanks for returning this to me.
I confirm contracts have been issued today.
I have made contact with Linder Myers and Pannone LLP in relation to the notices that appear on the title that will need to be removed.
I will contact you again once I receive any enquiries from the buyer’s solicitor.
Solicitor and Director
BLACKHURST BUDD LTD
Direct Dial 01253 629282 PLEA TO ALL
Whilst mums needs are now substantial especially where a permanent roof over head is concerned and now FOOD and medical needs that cannot be met due to the UK.government STOPPING her dissability payment and my care allowance totalling £600 per month THEY ALSO have a hold on her property which inturn may end up causing her death! PLEASE SOMEONE HELP! The corrupt judge in this is 'jackson' his email address is his clerk - email@example.com
MAY 17 2016 Visiter No.631144 to www.opg.me PERSON = CORPORATION TRUST ME
So you don't believe me?...Sure okay, I can respect that, you SHOULD question EVERYTHING. How about the U.S SUPREME COURT?...would you believe them for saying the same thing?
The Supreme Court Confirms, only the dead can appear in their "probate" courts.
ALL CASES are just probate…so master that!
Maxim of Law: "Disparata Non Debent Jungi"; Latin: Dissimilar things ought not to be joined. PAPER to PAPER and flesh to flesh…. BUT NOT, PAPER to flesh or flesh to PAPER. The Maxim of Law of "like kind". This is why the "private" living being cannot appear in their courts or they are doomed to be turned into a coporation (trustee), and pay the price, literally.
flesh = a living private woman, a living private man jane doe, John Doe
PAPER = a fictitious contract entity, an artificial person, corporation – usually identied in all capital letters as an entity/ person such as: JANE DOE, JOHN DOE
Penhallow v. Doane’s Administraters (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54), SUPREME COURT RULING – NO CORPORATE JURISDICTION OVER THE NATURAL WO/MAN (not allowing yourself to be identified as a mere fiction; "person"s the key).
Supreme Court of the United States 1795, “Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” Supreme Court Reporter S.C.R. 1795, (3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54)
i: man: master and king attach demand instant damages ordered
within such demand are per second charges of £1000 per second of delay
i: man provide 48 hours to action demand based on delivery signed for this morning
contained within is mention of life endangerment thus matter urgent
auto reply received at 13:05
MAY 17 2016 Visiter No.631141 to www.opg.me LITIGANTS IN PERSON by the HOARD
There were queues of litigants in person at the courts, it appears after a recent article that the fat cat lawyers whom were taking all the money had pissed a lot of people off. Anyway lots of squabbling to the point of security guards being called, of course this got through to the office staff. The head of the courts got into an argument with Chancery and resigned his post grin emoticon... 50 people this week, 100 next week then 500 then 1000 screaming for justice no doubt. So it appears they’re rejecting any LIP’s claims as with no merit in order to force them back to take solicitors. They’re losing so much money due to Lip’s cases increasing by 40%.
So for a rejection, the answer is “ I conditionally accept what you say subject to proof of claim that your authority goes beyond the european Human rights judges” (rofl).
sent16.05.2016 QBEnquiries@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk firstname.lastname@example.org receipt received Thank you for your email. Please note that messages received after 4:30pm may not be read until after 9.00am the following day.
If your email is regarding an active case in the Queen's Bench Action Department and does not comply with CPR Practice Direction 5B - Electronic communication and filing, contains multiple attachments, or a single attachment consisting of more than 10 pages your message will not be dealt with.
MAY 14 2016 Visiter No.630980 to www.opg.me PETER HOFSCHROERs CASE UPDATED
GRANDMA B'S CASE - FURTHER COURT OF "PROTECTION" HEARING
York, May 2nd 2016. Our intrepid reporter was present at today's hearing. Grandma B was also there. The court referred to her as "BH", as there are restrictions on reporting her name. Her loyal son Peter Hofschroer, whose name we can mention, was present via a video link.
As with last month's hearing, the video link was not set up so that Peter could see the court. He could only see the judge. Then the audio link was so bad that Peter could not hear what was going on. When Peter pointed out to the judge - Clive Heaton QC - that it was a basic premise of English law that justice has to be seen to be done and that there could only be a fair hearing if Peter could hear what was being said, the judge showed his characteristic contempt for the law and carried on regardless.
Grandma B was distraught that she was unable to converse with her loyal son, which was most likely the court's intention.
This is, of course, emotional abuse of Grandma B by which is perversely called the Court of "Protection".
The next hearing is due on May 16th 2016 at York Crown Court.
All Grandma B ever wanted was to be able to spend her last years living in her own home in peace and safety. Thanks to what Lord Maginnis has described in Parliament as "persecution" by North Yorkshire Police and York Social Services, this was not to be.
For more about this story please go to: https://grandmabarbara.wordpress.com
MAY 12 2016 Visiter No.630881 to www.opg.me EMAIL EXCHANGE TODAY Dear who it may concern
re attached pdf or linked here http://opg.me/peterdefaced.pdf listed below
as a result me and my mum have moved address once more because of current actions by the corrupt court.
only this time we are effectively in hiding,,, no one will be receiving our current location along with only limited posts now on facebook
this court is indeed an organised criminal mafia gang of fraudsters and we stand on everything published on our website www.opg.me
mum is not owned by the court, she is, as i sovereign, god made and therefore answerable to god and a jury, as has been demanded time and time again
we attach our response to the corrupt court today with the order issued but now defaced with a refusal to contract so therefore void
we will shortly be filing our claim into Queens Bench addressing all relevant parties concerned with our claim to go before a jury
a truly shocking turn of events this all is and even more for mum in her late years to be robbed of her freedom by passport removal and also threat of a care home and internship within the United Kingdom.
I also cannot speak as I find on matters of crime which I believe is my duty to, but by doing so to be statute robbed of my rights to be thrown into prison as a whistle-blower of crime
my mothers losses have been claimed but not dealt with by bent judges, in fact ignored without mention of, during all proceedings
human rights breaches in abundance the UK cares not a dot with the CONSULATE, FOREIGN OFFICE and worst our MP Gordon Marsden sit idly by watching it happen and unfold without lifting a finger.
THE CRIME MINSTER too with cohort taking the MICHAEL GOVE has done nothing... it seems the UK s criminal actions are being extended worldwide upon pensioners who are at risk from them of being asset stripped or better termed financially raped with impunity, who also cannot emigrate or leave the UK in digust without first obtaining the permission of the criminal fraudsters whom are doing it, the court of protection proved and here linked in the what do they know question submitted to the OPG last week.. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/moving_abroad#incoming-806771
Thank you for your email of 22 April 2016. In regards to a client moving
abroad and taking their estate overseas with them, although this is in
principle permitted, you are advised to contact the Court of Protection.
An additional Order may be required authorising the purchase of property,
and a decision will be needed on whether the move abroad is in that
client's best interests.
It is not something that the Office of the Public Guardian can authorise
without prior approval from the Court.
It will also be necessary to contact the relevant authority in the foreign
country to ensure that the equivalent of a deputyship or attorneyship can
be set up to manage the client's needs.
As was documented on our website when we tried to do this 6 years ago the cost was €3000 and was to be born by the carer then IF SUCCESFUL can be claimed back from mothers estate clearly showing the court have made such a move impossible to make and therefore forced to live from £ sterling and the UK internship as a prisoner, breaching human rights.
On Monday next I have a meeting face to face with a journalist whom is flying out here to take our story in person.
Things can only get better as sadly they cannot get much worse as it would appear there is common purpose at work with the removal of mums disability allowance payment.
Our resolve grows stronger though by the day as does mums health and so our fight as long free will continue to what ever bitter end we must endure.
mike & ann
NOT acting in the best interests of my mother by again generating more fraudulent costs to her remaining depleted estate by court of protection corruption. AGAIN completely ignoring CLAIMED LOSSES that the court conveniently skips over to suit their own racketeering and looking to have respresentation by official solicitor when she clearly has an EXECUTOR under the terms of the living will to do just that! Making further delays upon mums life and her human rights being trashed by a vicious inhumane gang of fraudsters that trade under the guise of protection clearly protecting only themselves and ALL outside their jurisdiction, noting down their complete disregard for my mother immediate care needs.
MAY 7 2016 Visiter No.630672 to www.opg.me ADMIRALTY[their courts] v COMMON[our courts]
Anna von Reitz
I have written several articles that explain the simple FACT that we are supposed to have TWO functioning court systems operating in the behalf of the people --- one an admiralty court operating on the jurisdiction of the sea, one a common law court operating on the jurisdiction of the land. Duh, folks, how hard is this to grasp?
It's very plainly stated in the Constitution. Amendment VII. Read it.
So where are your Common Law Courts, given the further fact that all you ever see in the courthouses scattered across America are admiralty or administrative courts?
They've vanished, even though they are absolutely mandated.
So where are they? Answer: you haven't provided them for yourselves.
You have to provide your own government. You are supposed to be self-governing,. Remember? That means you have to elect and staff and support your Common Law Courts, because there is NO mandate in the Constitution for the "federal government" to provide these courts for you.
The Constitutoin is only concerned with setting up and running the federal government. And the federal government is only concerned with international and interstate affairs.
So, you won't find a lot of reference to the Common Law Court System in The Constitution, because it was taken for granted and was not the subject of The Constitution as a whole. Nonetheless, our American Common Law Court System was and deserves to be the dominant court system in America.
It's what you are owed and what you owe yourselves, along with your birthright standing as American State Nationals.
There are misguided and also self-interested souls wandering around saying that I am a "fake" judge. All those individuals are either (1) ignorant or (2) self-interested because they make money off the admiralty court system and are afraid of losing their gravy train, or (3) both.
As with everything else, you have to learn. You have to read. I can point things out to you, but it is up to you to think and to look around the corners.
Who has a vested interest in trying to keep Americans from exercising their right of self-governance? Who profits from suppressing or attempting to discredit the lawful work and standing of the American Common Law Courts and judges?
I think it is apparent that a whole roster of people have grown rich off the admiralty and administrative court system. I think that those same people have enjoyed the power of control and oppression of others that "owning the court system" has given them.
If you want justice, you must give it to yourselves. You must demand it and you must begin by building your own local jural societies, electing your court officers, your sheriffs on the land, and all the other vacated offices must be filled. Otherwise, the "money mill" that the courts have become will only grow more corrupt.
It is an ugly but common fault of human nature to want to control others and to profit from them. This despotism and oppression is something you can prevent if you act now and act decisively and intelligently in support of your own Common Law Courts.
See my earlier post at www.annavonreitz.com comparing and contrasting Common Law v. Admiralty in Our Courts v. THEIR Courts.
MAY 6 2016 Visiter No.630647 to www.opg.me PETER HOFSCHROER & GRANDMA B UPDATE
When Grandma B was abducted from her refuge in Germany in May 2014, eye-witnesses mention the presence of people from Britain with the German police, one of whom has been identified as her main abuser. North Yorkshire Police (NYP) and York Council have persistently denied that any of their officers were present. However, we have now had sight of documents from an anonymous source inside NYP indicating that at least one of their officers was there.
One may ask what officers of NYP were doing in Germany. Apparently, this officer's role was to provide an English-speaker to converse with Grandma B.
Excuse me, but does the German police not have interpreters available, making it unnecessary to send over a group of officers from Britain, none of whom were likely to be able to speak German? Grandma B's refuge was just down the road from the RAF base at Guetersloh. If the German authorities had nobody suitable, would it not have been easier to find a suitable person there?
Then this part of Germany has been host to British armed forces since 1945. Many local officials speak fluent English. Why couldn't one of them have acted as interpreter? When the German police kidnapped Grandma B's carer Peter Hofschroer, the German police violently assaulted him then held him for four hours before releasing him without charge. In that time, Grandma B's flat had been carefully searched and showed no signs of disturbance. However, both her passport and medical insurance card were missing, as well as a large sum of cash.
It would have taken a matter of minutes to search this small flat, but NYP officers were in it for four hours. They had access to Peter's laptop, which contained the evidence he has of NYP's criminal activities. It is likely his laptop was accessed and his data downloaded.
No "indecent images" were found then, and Peter was not charged in Germany. However, these images were found only after Peter returned to the UK.
MAY 6 2016 Visiter No.630645 to www.opg.me THE FAMILY STEALING COURTS IN SECRET
Trust me the next scandal on the horizon will be the court of 'protection' and as a prediction is proof that the courts, JEWdiciary, police, establishment have learned nothing as it is still going on in HEAPS of abundance.
In a stitch up by the court of so called 'protection' who want to silence the whistleblower carer son of his 75yr. mothers estate being plundered by them, the court incite press to deliberately print a manufactured story to suit their own objectives in covering up their frauds when the old lady has capacity that can be proved and where money hungry relatives jump on the bandwagon to play to the courts tune.
IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE:
THE UK IS A COMMON LAW JURISDICTION - Magna Carta 1215 = The Great Charter and Due Process is by Trial by our Peers and LAWFUL representation of our own choosing:
Therefore, Mrs 'Justice' Aspin and her judicial working group has NO jurisdiction whatsoever to draw up any consultation regarding, We the People, as the UK judiciary have Sworn an Oath to be our Public Servants and have NO authority to operate courts without juries or make rules to OPPRESS, We the People, which is High Treason:
"A judicial working group led by Mrs Justice Asplin (pictured) drew up the consultation."
"On the issue of non-fee charging McKenzie friends, the judiciary said that current practice guidance does not have the force of law, and should be replaced with rules of court."
"the judiciary also recommends that all McKenzie friends sign up to a code of conduct, and that rules governing the courts’ approach to McKenzie friends be legally codified."
NOTE: Legally codified is not LAWFULLY codified:
COMMON LAW ← has been replaced with → MARITIME LAW = the People cannot win
TRIAL BY JURY ← has been replaced with → SUMMARY JUDGEMENT = the People cannot win
LAWFUL ADVICE ← has been replaced with → LEGAL ADVICE = the People cannot win
It is high time that the UK Judiciary started honouring their Oath to, We the People, and started acting LAWFULLY under the WRITTEN Constitutional Common Law of the Land = Magna Carta 1215
Patrick Cullinane, Common Law Lawyer and Victim of Legal Advice and the UK Judiciary.
APRIL 19 2016 Visiter No.629945 to www.opg.me YOUR PERSON YOUR STRAWMAN
“The Official State Office Known As "PERSON"
This is the single most important lesson that you MUST learn. If you spend an hour to learn this material you will be rewarded for the rest of your life.
The word "person" in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings. See e. g. 1 U. S. C. sec 1. Church of Scientology v. U. S. Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F. 2d 417, 425.
One of the very first of your STATE statutes will have a section listed entitled "Definitions." Carefully study this section of the statutes and you will find a portion that reads similar to this excerpt.
In construing these statutes and each and every word, phrase, or part hereof, where the context will permit:
(1) The singular includes the plural and vice versa.
(2) Gender-specific language includes the other gender and neuter.
(3) The word "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, eSTATEs, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations.
NOTE HOWEVER, THE DEFINITIONS STATUTE DOES NOT LIST MAN OR WOMAN -- THEREFORE THEY ARE EXCLUDED FROM ALL THE STATUTES !!!
Under the rule of construction "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," where a statute or Constitution enumerates the things on which it is to operate or forbids certain things, it is ordinarily to be construed as excluding from its operation all those not expressly mentioned.
Generally words in a statute should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. When a statute does not specifically define words, such words should be construed in their common or ordinary sense to the effect that the rules used in construing statutes are also applicable in the construction of the Constitution. It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that words of common usage when used in a statute should be construed in their plain and ordinary sense.
If you carefully read the statute laws enacted by your STATE legislature you will also notice that they are all written with phrases similar to these five examples :
1. A person commits the offense of failure to carry a license if the person ...
2. A person commits the offense of failure to register a vehicle if the person ...
3. A person commits the offense of driving uninsured if the person ...
4. A person commits the offense of fishing if the person ...
5. A person commits the offense of breathing if the person ...
Notice that only "persons" can commit these STATE legislature created crimes. A crime is by definition an offense committed against the "STATE." If you commit an offense against a human, it is called a tort. Examples of torts would be any personal injury, slander, or defamation of character.
So how does someone become a "person" and subject to regulation by STATE statutes and laws?
There is only one way. Contract! You must ask the STATE for permission to volunteer to become a STATE person. You must volunteer because the U. S. Constitution forbids the STATE from compelling you into slavery. This is found in the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United STATEs, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the STATE wherein they reside. No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You become a STATE created statutory "person" by taking up residency with the STATE and stepping into the office of "person." You must hold an "office" within the STATE government in order for that STATE government to regulate and control you. First comes the legislatively created office, then comes their control. If you do not have an office in STATE government, the legislature's control over you would also be prohibited by the Declaration of Rights section, usually found to be either Section I or II, of the STATE Constitution.
The most common office held in a STATE is therefore the office known as "person." Your STATE legislature created this office as a way to control people. It is an office most people occupy without even knowing that they are doing so.
The legislature cannot lawfully control you because you are a flesh and blood human being. God alone created you and by Right of Creation, He alone can control you. It is the nature of Law, that what One creates, One controls. This natural Law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. God created us and we are, therefore, subject to His Laws, whether or not we acknowledge Him as our Creator.
The way the STATE gets around God's Law and thereby controls the People is by creating only an office, and not a real human. This office is titled as "person" and then the legislature claims that you are filling that office. Legislators erroneously now think that they can make laws that also control men. They create entire bodies of laws - motor vehicle code, building code, compulsory education laws, and so on ad nauseum. They still cannot control men or women, but they can now control the office they created. And look who is sitting in that office -- YOU.
Then they create government departments to administer regulations to these offices. Within these administrative departments of STATE government are hundreds of other STATE created offices. There is everything from the office of janitor to the office of governor. But these administrative departments cannot function properly unless they have subjects to regulate.
The legislature obtains these subjects by creating an office that nobody even realizes to be an official STATE office.
They have created the office of "person."
The STATE creates many other offices such as police officer, prosecutor, judge etc. and everyone understands this concept. However, what most people fail to recognize and understand is the most common STATE office of all, the office of "person." Anyone filling one of these STATE offices is subject to regulation by their creator, the STATE legislature. Through the STATE created office of "person," the STATE gains its authority to regulate, control and judge you, the real human. What they have done is apply the natural law principle, "what one creates, one controls."
A look in Webster's dictionary reveals the origin of the word "person." It literally means "the mask an actor wears."
The legislature creates the office of "person" which is a mask. They cannot create real people, only God can do that. But they can create the "office" of "person," which is merely a mask, and then they persuade a flesh and blood human being to put on that mask by offering a fictitious privilege, such as a driver license. Now the legislature has gained complete control over both the mask and the actor behind the mask.
A resident is another STATE office holder.
All STATE residents hold an office in the STATE government.
But not everyone who is a resident also holds the office of "person."
Some residents hold the office of judge and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of prosecutors and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of police office(rs) and they are not persons.
Some residents hold the office of legislators and they are not persons.
Some residents are administrators and bureaucrats and they also are not persons.
Some residents are attorneys and they also are not persons.
An attorney is a STATE officer of the court and is firmly part of the judicial branch. The attorneys will all tell you that they are "licensed" to practice law by the STATE Supreme Court. Therefore, it is unlawful for any attorney to hold any position or office outside of the judicial branch. There can be no attorney legislators - no attorney mayors - no attorneys as police - no attorneys as governor. Yes, I know it happens all the time, however, this practice of multiple office holding by attorneys is prohibited by the individual State and U.S. Constitutions and is a felony in most STATEs.
If you read farther into your STATE constitution you will find a clause stating this, the Separation of Powers, which will essentially read as follows:
Branches of government -- The powers of the STATE government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.
Therefore, a police officer cannot arrest a prosecutor, a prosecutor cannot prosecute a sitting judge, a judge cannot order the legislature to perform and so on.
Because these "offices" are not persons, the STATE will not, and cannot prosecute them, therefore they enjoy almost complete protection by the STATE in the performance of their daily duties. This is why it is impossible to sue or file charges against most government employees. If their crimes should rise to the level where they "shock the community" and cause alarm in the people, then they will be terminated from STATE employment and lose their absolute protection. If you carefully pay attention to the news, you will notice that these government employees are always terminated from their office or STATE employment and then are they arrested, now as a common person, and charged for their crimes. Simply put, the STATE will not eat its own.
The reason all STATE residents hold an office is so the STATE can control everything. It wants to create every single office so that all areas of your life are under the complete control of the STATE. Each office has prescribed duties and responsibilities and all these offices are regulated and governed by the STATE. If you read the fine print when you apply for a STATE license or privilege you will see that you must sign a declaration that you are in fact a "resident" of that STATE.
"Person" is a subset of resident. Judge is a subset of resident. Legislator and police officer are subsets of resident. If you hold any office in the STATE, you are a resident and subject to all legislative decrees in the form of statutes.
They will always say that we are free men. But they will never tell you that the legislatively created offices that you are occupying are not free.
They will say, "All men are free," because that is a true statement.
What they do not say is, that holding any STATE office binds free men into slavery for the STATE. They are ever ready to trick you into accepting the STATE office of "person," and once you are filling that office, you cease to be free men. You become regulated creatures, called persons, totally created by the legislature. You will hear "free men" mentioned all the time, but you will never hear about "free persons."
If you build your life in an office created by the legislature, it will be built on shifting sands. The office can be changed and manipulated at any time to conform to the whims of the legislature. When you hold the office of "person" created by the legislature, your office isn't fixed. Your duties and responsibilities are ever changing. Each legislative session binds a "person" to ever more burdens and requirements in the form of more rules, laws and statutes.
Most STATE constitutions have a section that declares the fundamental power of the People:
Political power -- All political power is inherent in the People. The enunciation herein of certain Rights shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the People.
Notice that this says "people" it does not say persons. This statement declares beyond any doubt that the People are Sovereign over their created government. This is natural law of creation and the natural flow of delegated power.
A Sovereign is a private, non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, NOT SUBJECT to any real or imaginary statutory regulations or quasi laws enacted by any STATE legislature which was created by the People.
When you are pulled over by the police, roll down your window and say, "You are speaking to a Sovereign political power holder. I do not consent to you detaining me. Why are you detaining me against my will?"
Now the STATE office of policeman knows that "IT" is talking to a flesh and blood Sovereign. The police officer cannot cite a Sovereign because the STATE legislature can only regulate what they create. And the STATE does not create Sovereign political power holders. It is very important to lay the proper foundation, Right from the beginning. Let the police officer know that you are a Sovereign. Remain in your proper office of Sovereign political power holder. Do not leave it. Do not be persuaded by police pressure or tricks to put on the mask of a STATE "person."
Why aren't Sovereigns subject to the STATE's charges? Because of the concept of office. The STATE is attempting to prosecute only a particular office known as "person." If you are not in that STATE created office of "person," the STATE statutes simply do not apply to you. This is common sense, for example, if you are not in the STATE of Texas, then Texas laws do not apply to you. For the STATE to control someone, they have to first create the office. Then they must coerce a warm-blooded creature to come fill that office. They want you to fill that office.
Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U. S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275 (1947).
The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United STATEs, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874).
As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186 (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 460 U. S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983).
Furthermore, as explained in United States v. Herron, 20 Wall. 251, 255 (1874), even the principle as applied to the enacting Sovereign is not without limitations: "Where an act of Parliament is made for the public good, as for the advancement of religion and justice or to prevent injury and wrong, the king is bound by such act, though not particularly named therein; but where a statute is general, and thereby any prerogative, Right, title, or interest is divested or taken from the king, in such case the king is not bound, unless the statute is made to extend to him by express words."
U. S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes explained:
"A Sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal Right as against the authority that makes the law on which the Right depends." Kawananakoa v. Polyblank, 205 U. S. 349, 353, 27 S. Ct. 526, 527, 51 L. Ed. 834 (1907).
The majority of American STATEs fully embrace the Sovereign immunity theory as well as the federal government. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 895B, comment at 400 (1979).
The following U. S. Supreme Court case makes clear all these principals.
I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that STATEs and governments were made for man; and at the same time how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and at last oppressed their master and maker.
... A STATE, useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. ...
Let a STATE be considered as subordinate to the people: But let everything else be subordinate to the STATE. The latter part of this position is equally necessary with the former. For in the practice, and even at length, in the science of politics there has very frequently been a strong current against the natural order of things, and an inconsiderate or an interested disposition to sacrifice the end to the means. As the STATE has claimed precedence of the people; so, in the same inverted course of things, the government has often claimed precedence of the STATE; and to this perversion in the second degree, many of the volumes of confusion concerning Sovereignty owe their existence. The ministers, dignified very properly by the appellation of the magistrates, have wished, and have succeeded in their wish, to be considered as the Sovereigns of the STATE. This second degree of perversion is confined to the old world, and begins to diminish even there: but the first degree is still too prevalent even in the several STATES, of which our union is composed. By a STATE I mean, a complete body of free persons united together for their common benefit, to enjoy peaceably what is their own, and to do justice to others. It is an artificial person. It has its affairs and its interests: It has its rules: It has its Rights: and it has its obligations. It may acquire property distinct from that of its members. It may incur debts to be discharged out of the public stock, not out of the private fortunes of individuals. It may be bound by contracts; and for damages arising from the breach of those contracts. In all our contemplations, however, concerning this feigned and artificial person, we should never forget, that, in truth and nature, those who think and speak and act, are men. Is the foregoing description of a STATE a true description? It will not be questioned, but it is. .... See Our Enemy The State
It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the Sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the Sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchise, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a Sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability, became incompatible with such Sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject.
"No such ideas obtain here (speaking of America): at the revolution, the Sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the Sovereigns of the country, but they are Sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the Sovereignty." Chisholm v. Georgia (February Term, 1793) 2 U. S. 419, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. Ed 440.
There are many ways you can give up your Sovereign power and accept the role of "person." One is by receiving STATE benefits. Another is by asking permission in the form of a license or permit from the STATE.
One of the subtlest ways of accepting the role of "person," is to answer the questions of bureaucrats. When a STATE bureaucrat knocks on your door and wants to know why your children aren't registered in school, or a police officer pulls you over and starts asking questions, you immediately fill the office of "person" if you start answering their questions.
It is for this reason that you should ignore or refuse to "answer" their questions and instead act like a true Sovereign, a King or Queen, and ask only your own questions of them.
You are not a "person" subject to their laws.
If they persist and haul you into their court unlawfully, your response to the judge is simple and direct, you the Sovereign, must tell him:
I have no need to answer you in this matter.
It is none of your business whether I understand my Rights or whether I understand your fictitious charges.
It is none of your business whether I want counsel.
The reason it is none of your business is because I am not a person regulated by the STATE. I do not hold any position or office where I am subject to the legislature. The STATE legislature does not dictate what I do.
I am a free Sovereign "Man"(or woman) and I am a political power holder as lawfully decreed in the STATE Constitution at article I (or II) and that constitution is controlling over you.
You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a STATE officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their "legal" system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become "NON COMPOS MENTIS", not mentally competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein.
The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the STATE, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge w ill try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the STATE may not lawfully move against you.
The STATE did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder. Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power.
When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those STATE employees in legislative created offices.
This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U. S. Supreme Court case:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the STATE, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43 at 47 (1905).
Let us analyze this case. It says, "The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights." It does not say, "Sit on his Rights." There is a principle here: "If you don't use 'em you lose 'em." You have to assert your Rights, demand them, "stand upon" them.
Next it says, "He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way." It says "private business" - you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says "in his own way." It doesn't say "in the government's way."
Then it says, "His power to contract is unlimited." As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a "contract" to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.
Next it says, "He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the STATE, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property." The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.
Then it says, "His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the STATE." This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U. S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX STATEs, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the STATE.
Next the Supreme Court says, "And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away "by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution." "Due process of law" involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. "Trial By Jury" means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.
Then the case says, "Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law." These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.
Finally, the Supreme Court says, "He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights." The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes.
If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is "old" and that it has been "overturned." If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. We have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found :
"We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U. S. Supreme Court.
Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and STATE appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.
So if the STATE through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the STATE created office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the STATE lacks all jurisdiction over you. The STATE needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts.
A few weeks in jail puts intense pressure upon most "persons." Jail means the loss of job opportunities, separation from loved ones, and the piling up of debts. Judges will apply this pressure when they attempt to arraign you. When brought in chains before a crowded courtroom the issue of counsel will quickly come up and you can tell the court you are In Propria Persona or simply "PRO PER", as yourself and you need no other.
Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the STATE's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign People's command in the constitution that the STATE respect their privacy:
Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public's Right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law. See U.S. Constitution, Ninth Amendment
If the judge is stupid enough to actually follow through with his threats and send you to jail, you will soon be released without even being arraigned and all charges will be dropped. You will then have documented prima facie grounds for false arrest and false imprisonment charges against him personally.
Now that you know the hidden evil in the word "person", try to stop using it in everyday conversation. Simply use the correct term, MAN or WOMAN. Train yourself, your family and your friends to never use the derogatory word "person" ever again.
This can be your first step in the journey to get yourself free from all STATE control
APRIL 17 2016 Visiter No.629770 to www.opg.me BIAS AND THE APPEARANCE OF IT
Dave John Clapham
Bias and the appearance of bias
3.7 The question whether an appearance of bias or possible conflict of interest is sufficient to disqualify a Justice from taking part in a particular case is the subject of United Kingdom and Strasbourg jurisprudence which will guide the Justices in specific situations. Recent UK cases include Porter v Magill  2 AC 357, Locobail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd  QB 451, Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No.2)  1 WLR 700 and Helow v Secretary of State for the Home Department  1 WLR 2416.
3.8 Circumstances will vary infinitely and guidelines can do no more than seek to assist the individual Justice in the judgment to be made, which involves, by virtue of the authorities, considering the perception the fair-minded and informed observer would have. What follows are merely signposts to some of the questions which may arise.
3.9 A Justice will not sit in a case where:
he or she has a close family relationship with a party or with the spouse or domestic partner of a partner;
his or her spouse or domestic partner was a judge in a court below;
he or she has a close family relationship with an advocate appearing before the Supreme Court.
3.10 Sufficient reasons for not sitting on a case include:
personal friendship with, or personal animosity towards, a party; friendship is to be distinguished from acquaintance, which may or may not be a sufficient reason depending upon its nature and extent;
current or recent business association with a party; this includes the Justice's own solicitor, accountant, doctor, dentist or other professional adviser; it does not normally include the Justice's insurance company, bank or a local authority to which he or she pays council tax.
3.11 Reasons which are unlikely to be sufficient for a Justice not to sit on a case, but will depend upon the circumstances, include:
friendship or past professional association with counsel or solicitors acting for a party;
the fact that a relative of the Justice is a partner in, or employee of, a firm of solicitors or other professional advisers involved in a case; much will depend upon the extent to which that relative is involved in or affected by the result in the case;
past professional association with a party as a client; much will depend upon how prolonged, close, or recent that association was.
3.12 A Justice will not sit in a case in which he or she or, to his or her knowledge, a member of his or her family has any significant financial interest in the outcome of the case. 'Family' for this purpose means spouse, domestic partner or other person in a close personal relationship with the Justice; son, son-in-law, daughter, daughter-in-law; and anyone else who is a companion or employee living in the Justice's household. It is for the Justice to inform himself or herself about his or her personal financial and fiduciary interests and to take reasonable steps to be informed about the interests of members of his or her family.
3.13 A significant financial interest could arise, not from an interest in the outcome of the particular case, but where the decision on the point of law might have an impact upon the Justice's own financial interests. The Justice will have regard to the nature and extent of his or her interest and the effect of the decision on others with whom he or she has a relationship, actual or foreseeable.
3.14 Previous participation in public office or public debate on matters relevant to an issue in a case will not normally be a cause for a Justice not to sit, unless the Justice has thereby committed himself or herself to a particular view irrespective of the arguments presented to the Court. This risk will seldom, if ever, arise from what a judge has said in other cases, or from previous findings against a party in other litigation.
3.15 If circumstances which may give rise to a suggestion of bias, or the appearance of bias, are present, they should be disclosed to the parties well before the hearing, if possible. Otherwise the parties may be placed in a difficult position when deciding whether or not to proceed. Sometimes, however, advance notification may not be possible.
3.16 Disclosure should be to all parties and, unless the issue has been resolved before the hearing, discussion should be in open court. Even where the parties consent to the Justice sitting, the Justice should refuse himself or herself if, on balance, he or she considers that this is the proper course. Conversely, there are likely to be cases in which the Justice has thought it appropriate to bring the circumstances to the attention of the parties but, having considered any submissions, is entitled to and may rightly decide to proceed notwithstanding the lack of consent.
APRIL 17 2016 Visiter No.629752 to www.opg.me APPLICATION BY SISTER ANGELA AND BROTHER KEVIN WITH STATEMENT
APRIL 17 2016 Visiter No.629743 to www.opg.me LORD HARDIEs REPORT 3 YEARS AGO ON THE MANCAP ACT “We were very concerned by what we heard about the safeguards. The evidence suggests that tens of thousands of people are being deprived of their liberty without the protection of the law, and without the protection that Parliament intended. Worse still, in some cases the safeguards are being wilfully used to oppress individuals and to force decisions upon them. The Government needs to go back to the drawing board to draft replacement provisions that are easy to understand and implement, and in keeping with the style and ethos of the Mental Capacity Act.”
Lord Hardie, House of Lords Mental Capacity Act Committee report WHAT HAS CHANGED
APRIL 17 2016 Visiter No.629740 to www.opg.me FACEBOOK CHIT CHAT by ANNA VON REITZ click to enlarge
APRIL 14 2016 Visiter No.629595 to www.opg.me THE ALL NEW E.U. BENT COURT SYSTEM by TERRORISTS
Guy documents on video the terrorist ordeal of what is going down in United Kingdom courts systems.
APRIL 14 2016 Visiter No.629590 to www.opg.me MY LIFE IN UK COURTS &/OR SPANISH?
APRIL 14 2016 Visiter No.629580 to www.opg.me JEWDICIAL HYPOCRISY
APRIL 13 2016 Visiter No.629540 to www.opg.me THE LIES TO GET ELECTED WE WILL NEVER FORGET
APRIL 13 2016 Visiter No.629526 to www.opg.me COURT TEAMS UP WITH THE THEIVING DAUGHTER TO HELP THEM COMMIT MORE CRIME UPON MUM In this order from the court it shows how the court will use relatives to back their objectives which is especially easy when ''birds of a feather flock together''. I have previously documented my sisters actions of theft upon her own mother. Here I will document in more detail.
APRIL 12 2016 Visiter No.629500 to www.opg.me UK COURTS OF DISHONOUR
APRIL 11 2016 Visiter No.629460 to www.opg.me TODAYS KIDNAP OF GUY TAYLOR by COURT CLERK SNAKE
APRIL 10 2016 Visiter No.629425 to www.opg.me OUR BUILDERS VIEW ON MUMS PROPERTY to JUDGE COPY To: Mike: Clarke
Date: April 10, 2016 at 8:41 PM
My name is Steven Power and as well as being a long term friend of the Clark family I'm the Builder charged with maintaining the property at 31 Cherry Tree Road Blackpool.
Being aware of the dispute between family members regarding the sale of the property I felt as the Builder I should inform you of the current situation.
About 8 months ago Mr Michael Clarke asked me if is as a friend and due to his lack of funds I would be prepared at my expense to bring the property up to a saleable level and then market it on their behalf.
I agreed to do this on condition that my bill would be paid out of the proceeds of the sale.
At the time the property has stood empty for approximately 18 months and was in a very poor state, slates and come off the roof and rain water had brought some of the ceilings down amongst numerous other defects.
I estimated it would cost approximately £15,000 to put the property back to a habitable condition in any event I carried out all the very basic repairs I deemed necessary to make it saleable at a cost of £2,000
After numerous viewings an offer of £180,000 was received this was reduced to £170,000 after receipt of the survey paid for by the perspective purchaser.
In spite of a very thorough Surveyors report highlighting all the problems with the property the purchasers are still very keen to buy it with a cash offer of £170,000
In my view this is I a extremely good offer and is unlikely to be repeated in the future as the property is slowly deteriorating.
Having discussed the deteriorating state of the property with Angela Clarke she informed me that she has no problem with selling the bungalow provided the funds are put into the court for distribution as the court sees fit.
Having known the family in excess of 35 years and being fully aware of the family's dispute regarding Ann Clarke it is my opinion that she will never be returning to the UK and in the unlikely event that she does would not be able to afford to bring the property up to a habitable standard.
Furthermore the property is currently uninsured and has been for some years. There is an ever increasing council tax liability, and the longer it remains empty the more maintenance it will require.
In short a financial liability. I have attached the surveyors report to give you some insight to the reality of the situation.
THE BUILDERs view.
ON THE ABOVE FAO the foreign office via British Consulate Dominic for select committee or a LORD or MP that will ACT!
TAKE NOTE: from email@example.com
AS PER THE TERMS OF THE INVOKED LIVING WILL EXECUTOR
i man firstname.lastname@example.org do strongly object and demand in the highest possible terms that the court of protection play absolutely NO FURTHER future role in mums affairs.
THEY have failed to address FRAUD, THEFT, MAL ADMINISTRATION, PERSECUTION AND SUBSTANTIAL LOSSES from forced STERLING LIVING whilst in IMMIGRATION.
THEY have attempted to take us as UK prisoners. ALL documented on our website www.opg.me
OUR suffering continues daily.SURVEYfor31.pdf
APRIL 10 2016 Visiter No.629410 to www.opg.me SHOW ME THE LAW
APRIL 10 2016 Visiter No.629400 to www.opg.me UPDATE ON THE PETER HOFSCHROER CASE
GRANDMA B FACING DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY ORDER
Grandma B's only wish was to spend her remaining years living in her own home in peace and safety in the care of her loyal son Peter.
Sadly, a criminal gang centred around North Yorkshire Police and York Social Services had a different future for her in mind. They seized and attempted to fraudulently sell her house. She fought this through the due process of law. To prevent her from litigating, her abusers kidnapped her in May 2014. When her son Peter went to court to get her back in his care, he was ambushed in the court doorway and has been held unlawfully in jail ever since.
Grandma B's house has now been fraudulently sold. The sinister and secretive Court of Protection now plans to issue a Deprivation of Liberty Order to prevent her friends from contacting her. The next court hearing is on 13th April 2016 at York County Court. (Case No. 12530345.) Please attend to show your support of Grandma B - and be prepared to insist on getting access to the courtroom.
APRIL 10 2016 Visiter No.629390 to www.opg.me THE PLUNDER & EXPLOITATION of the VULNERABLE
APRIL 9 2016 Visiter No.629385 to www.opg.me VIEWPOINT OF Amanda Walls
There are 350,000 freemasons in Britain. If you get to the 33rd degree like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or David Cameron you are then in the running to be a Bilderberger.
Bilderbergers are a higher, international, more exclusive level of freemasonry, only 140 strong, and their agenda is to build the EU dictatorship. Every Prime Minister since Edward Heath has been a Bilderberger, and they have controlled the leadership of the Conservative party since the late 1960's.
The Rothschilds and the Queen are members of the top two levels; and our German Royal Family (real name Saxe-Coburg Gotha; Windsor is an adopted name) has always been head of freemasonry.
Nearly all British judges and Law Lords are Freemasons; so are most barristers, which is why miscarriages of justice are the norm in our now utterly corrupt British Courts.
Judges and Freemasonry barristers usually decide the outcome of a case to suit their own agenda beforehand. That agenda is often implementing the Frankfurt School subversion technique of "trauma through injustice," particularly in our now secret family courts, where they snatch 4,500 children annually from good parents for forced adoption. The Daily Mail covers a tiny number of those cases.
Our corrupt freemasonry Law Lords refuse to rule the EU wholly illegal under our British constitution, which it is. They lead the pretence our written British constitution is unwritten, to render it worthless.
Current Conservative Bilderbergers include Francis Maude and Ken Clarke, apparently a DVD agent too; David Cameron, William Hague, George Osborne. Lib Dems: Nick Clegg. Labour: Ed Balls, David Millliband (DVD too), Peter Mandleson, John Sainsbury, Philip Gould; Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. These evil men are deliberately destroying us every day.
Newspapers are censored for legal reasons by freemasonry lawyers or Common Purpose members; and the BBC has 400 Common Purpose staff censoring out anti-EU news, which is why they didn't report that Westminster gave up the last 20% of its power in January 2009, and now only exists to help the press conceal what has happened, until the EU dictatorship has consolidated its power.
APRIL 9 2016 Visiter No.629363 to www.opg.me MORE VICTIMS WHILST THE UK GOVERNMENT DOES ZERO
APRIL 8 2016 Visiter No.629320 to www.opg.me REPLY TO BRITISH CONSULATE FOREIGN OFFICE FAO FOREIGN OFFICE & PARLIAMENTARY SELECT COMMITTEE & HOUSE OF LORDS
Thank you Dominic of the consulate
In you I trust.
I can further confirm that as of yesterday mum has been released from hospital and is back in my care.
Having said that she is still quite delicate and I am hoping that her release is the start of a full recovery.
Our situation is still of course very precarious and the lack of action from our MP on this matter is very troubling.
More recently mums disability benefit has been stopped and my carers allowance, providing even more added pressure daily.
I am of the understanding that if this matter is put before the parliamentary select committee that any MP so willing can take up the case.
Might it be possible that this matter can be raised by the FOREIGN OFFICE to the select committee??
Alternatively I am also of the understanding that if a LORD takes up the matter he can instruct an MP to ACT!
THE situation is an in depth one which stems as previously told from corruption being covered up by court of protection officials and judiciary whom are not wishing to deal with the allegations to hand and thus forth rely on a fraudulent court setting of harassment, in order to silence the carer for whistleblowing, into prison or he is coerced into apologising for a sworn on oath statement of truth 'COMMERCIAL LIEN' notarised, of which I cannot do, as I would be in contempt of such truth.
I cannot be in contempt of the court and of the truth??
JUDGE JACKSONs responsibility to the 7 principles of PUBLIC LIFE he has failed on all counts.
APRIL 8 2016 Visiter No.629317 to www.opg.me RESPONSE FROM BRITISH CONSULATE TODAY
From: mike rake.net [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 07 April 2016 17:29
To: Dominic Jackson
Subject: FOREIGN OFFICE
Are my emails being forwarded to the foreign office and MP
because as of yet there has been absolutely NO RESPONSE from anyone?
from firstname.lastname@example.org Dominic BRITISH CONSULATE MALAGA SPAIN
Rest assured I am forwarding all the emails you are asking to be forwarded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to colleagues in London and I have asked them to ensure Gordon Marsden MP is informed.
I will endeavour to follow-up with them and find out if they are able to reply.
Regards, Dominic BRITISH CONSULATE
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.
JACKSON - PUBLIC ARE INTERESTED IN THE TRUTH 2. Integrity
Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.
JACKSON ACTED TO GAIN FINANCIAL BENEFIT FOR FRIENDS 3. Objectivity
Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.
JACKSON is NOT IMPARTIAL OR FAIR he is BIASED 4. Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.
JACKSON RECUSE FAILURE SHOW NO ACCOUNTABILITY 5. Openness
Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.
JACKSON DELIBERATELY SPREAD MISINFORMATION 6. Honesty
Holders of public office should be truthful.
JACKSON has DIFFICULTY DEALING WITH THE TRUTH 7. Leadership
Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.
JACKSONS LACK TO CHALLENGE CoP CORRUPTION All demonstrating clearly that his honour Mr Justice Jackson has a BIASED streak that runs right through his body that clearly is violating all the basic principles of holding public office.
APRIL 7 2016 Visiter No.629280 to www.opg.me 8 WEEKS OF INTENSIVE CARE SEES MUM WELL AGAIN
APRIL 6 2016 Visiter No.629237 to www.opg.me TODAYS SUBJECT IS HIGH TREASON by the HIGHEST
To: Undisclosed Recipients
Sent: Tue, Apr 5, 2016 09:43 AM
Subject: FW: THE KILMUIR LETTER - THE PUBLIC NEED TO KNOW
This is a vitally important matter. Please forward to every person you know.
1960, the Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir wrote to Edward Heath advising
him that if Britain joined the European Economic Community, it would
be contrary to English Constitutional Law.
Heath went ahead anyway and in 1972 signed the European Communities Act
(ECA) in full knowledge that he was treasonably committing Britain to foreign
rule over the heads of the people whom he had deceived with lies that no
sovereignty would be lost.
signing the ECA was the most grievous act of high treason in British
history. But it also rendered his
government an unlawful assembly with no effect in law (as treason can have no
effect in law) and as all subsequent parliaments have failed to reverse his
treachery, they too have been unlawful assemblies having no legislative power,
incapable of any lawful act of government.
Successive EU Treaties are therefore of no effect and Britain’s
“membership” of the EU has been null and void from the outset.
seeks to bring Lord Kilmuir’s letter out into the open so that its content
would be debated in Parliament and be discussed openly in public as it has
considerable bearing on Britain’s relationship with the EU, the billions of
pounds we waste daily on the EU and the many thousands of illegal foreign
“laws” with which we are unlawfully burdened every day. Lord Kilmuir’s letter to Heath appears below
with comments in red by Joan Martin, Editor of S.O.S -
Save Our Sovereignty.
Though the petition has a deadline after the date
set for a British EU Referendum, there is no guarantee that the referendum
result will reflect the people’s true intention or indeed the best outcome for
Britain and our future generations. The
possibility of bringing this momentous issue sufficiently to the public’s
attention rests entirely upon the willingness of the people themselves to
forward it to everyone they know when every person has the right to be aware of
such a serious matter effecting their lives but which has so far been
deliberately withheld from them.
PLEASE send this email to your MP drawing particular
attention to the following, ask his or her thoughts and let me know their
response. Please also forward this very
widely asking recipients to do likewise.
Sent: 31 March 2016 14:03
Subject: THE KILMUIR LETTER -
THE PUBLIC NEED TO KNOW
The following was passed to me by the Editor, Joan Martin.
Save Our Sovereignty
The ability to rule ourselves and make our own laws.
In short, Parliament would have to transfer to
the Council or other appropriate organ of the Community, its substantive powers
of legislating over the whole of a very important field. There is no
constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount
to a total abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and
In answer to a letter
from Edward Heath written on the 30 November 1960 Lord Kilmuir, the Lord
Chancellor, makes it plain that there are very real problems with the
constitutional limitations imposed on Government that prevent our joining the
EEC. He goes on to mention some ways in which the Constitution will
conflict with Heath’s plans but also indicate ways of subverting the conflict.
The comments in red, interleaved in Lord
Kilmuir’s letter, clearly show that the Heath Government was fully prepared to
commit acts of sedition and treason in order to take the UK into the
EEC. Unfortunately we do not have a copy of Heath’s original letter
to Lord Kilmuir.
wrote to me on the 30th November about the constitutional
implications of our becoming a party to the Treaty of Rome. I have
now had an opportunity of considering what you say in your letter and have
studied the memoranda you sent me. I agree with you that there are important constitutional issues involved.
no doubt that if we do sign the Treaty, we shall suffer some loss of
sovereignty, but before attempting to define or evaluate the loss I wish to
make one general observation. At the end of the day, the issue
whether or not to join the European Economic Community must be decided on broad
political grounds and if it appears from what follows in this letter that I
find the constitutional objections serious, that does not mean that I consider
them conclusive. I do, however, think it important that we should
appreciate clearly from the outset exactly what, from the constitutional point
of view, is involved if we sign the treaty, and it is with that consideration
in mind that I have addressed myself to the questions you have raised.
He is clear that if we do
sign the agreement with the EEC we will suffer some loss of
Sovereignty. This is clearly an act of Treason because our
Constitution allows no such surrender of any part of our Constitution to a
foreign power beyond the control of the Queen in parliament. This
is evidenced by the convention which says:-
(Parliament may do many
things but what it may not do is surrender any of its rights to govern unless
we have been defeated in war). And the ruling given to King Edward
3rd in 1366 in which he was told that King John’s action in
surrendering England to the Pope and ruling England as a Vassal King to Rome
was illegal because England did not belong to John, he held it only in trust
for those who followed him. The money that the Pope was demanding as
tribute was not to be paid because England’s Kings were NOT vassal Kings to the Pope nor was the
money legitimately owed.
to the Treaty of Rome would, in my opinion, affect our sovereignty in three
a) Parliament would be required to surrender some
of its functions to the organs of the community;
b) The Crown would be called upon to transfer part
of its treaty-making power to those organs of the Community;
The English Constitution
confers treaty making powers on only the Sovereign. The Sovereign cannot
transfer those powers to a foreign power nor even, to our own parliament
because they are mere servants of the Monarch. Sovereignty itself cannot
be given away as it resides with the people who entrust it to the Monarch for
his/her lifetime and the Monarch is obliged by law to pass that sovereignty on
to any successor as it was received.
c) Our courts of law would sacrifice some degree of
independence by becoming subordinate in certain respects to the European Court
It is a Praemunire to
allow any case to be taken to a foreign court not under the control of the
Sovereign. The European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human
Rights are foreign courts not under the control of our Sovereign.
Praemunire is a crime akin to Treason.
position of Parliament:
clear that the memorandum prepared by your Legal Advisers that the Council
could eventually (after the system of qualified majority voting had come into
force) make regulations which would be binding on us even against our wishes,
and which would in fact become for us part of the law of the land.
are two ways in which this requirement of the Treaty could in practice be
It is a Praemunire to
allow any laws or regulations not made by the Sovereign in parliament to take effect
as law in England. This is illegal under the 1351 Treason Act, the 1351
Act of Praemunire (which was introduced by King Edward III because he believed
it was an affront to his honour and dignity as King of England to have laws
imposed upon his Kingdom by a foreign power, to have any of his subjects to be
taken out of England to be tried in a foreign court or for his Bishops to
excomminicate any of his subjects on the orders of the Pope), the Act of
Praemunire 1392, the Act of Supremacy 1559, the Declaration and Bill of Rights
1688/9 and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
could legislate ad hoc on each occasion that the Council made regulations
requiring action by us. The difficulty would be that, since
Parliament can bind neither itself nor its successors, we could only comply
with our obligations under the Treaty if parliament abandoned its right of
passing independent judgement on the legislative proposals put before it.
parallel [to the position of Britain and the EU] would be, for instance, the
constitutional convention whereby Parliament passed British North American
Bills without question at the request of the Parliament of Canada. In
this respect Parliament here would have in substance, if not in form, abdicated
its sovereign position and it would have pro tanto, to do the same for the
No such power exists for
parliament to do this. This would be an act of treason under the 1351
Treason Act, a Praemunire under the 1351and 1392 Acts of Praemunire, an act of
treason under the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of
Rights and the Treason Felony Act 1848.
would in theory, be possible for Parliament to enact at the outset legislation
which would give automatic force of law to any existing or future regulations
made by the appropriate organs of the Community. For Parliament to
do this would go far beyond the most extensive delegation of powers even in
wartime that we have ever experienced and I do not think there is any
likelihood of this being acceptable to the House of Commons. Whichever
course were adopted, Parliament would retain in theory the liberty to repeal
the relevant Act or Acts, but I would agree with you that we must act on the
assumption that entry into the Community would be irrevocable. We should therefore have to accept a
position where Parliament had no more power to repeal its own enactments than
it has in practice to abrogate the statute of Westminster. In
short, Parliament would have to transfer to the Council, or other appropriate
organ of the Community, its substantive powers of legislating over the whole of
a very important field.
There is no
constitutionally acceptable method of doing this because it would be tantamount
to a total abrogation of their duty to govern us according to our laws and
customs. And it would be an act of treason under the 1351 Treason
Act, a Praemunire under the 1351 and 1392 Acts of Praemunire and treason under
the 1559 Act of Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason
Felony Act 1848.
proposition that every treaty entered into by the United Kingdom does to some
extent fetter our freedom of action is plainly true. Some treaties such as GATT
and OEEC restrict severely our liberty to make agreements with third parties
and I should not regard it as detrimental to our sovereignty that, by signing
the Treaty of Rome, we undertook not to make tariff or trade agreements without
the Council’s approval. But to transfer to the Council or the Commission
the power to make such treaties on our behalf and even against our will, is an
entirely different proposition.
seems to me to be a clear distinction between the exercise of the sovereignty
involved in the conscious acceptance by us of obligations under treaty-making
powers and the total or partial surrender of sovereignty involved in our
cession of these powers to some other body. To confer a sovereign state’s
treaty-making powers on an international organisation is the first step on the
road which leads by way of confederation to the fully federal
state. I do not suggest that what is involved would necessarily
carry us very far in this direction, but it would be a most significant step
and one for which there is no precedent in our case. Moreover, a
further surrender of sovereignty of parliamentary supremacy would necessarily
be involved: as you know, treaty-making power is vested in the Crown.
sanction is required for any treaty which involves a change in the law or the imposition
of taxation, to take two examples, and we cannot ratify such a treaty unless
Parliament consents. But if binding treaties are to be entered into
on our behalf, Parliament must surrender this function and either resign itself
to becoming a rubber stamp or give the Community, in effect, the power to amend
our domestic laws.
This is a surrender of our
Sovereignty, a clear act of treason under the 1351 Treason Act and a Praemunire
under the 1351 and 1392 Acts of Praemunire, it is treason under the 1559 Act of
Supremacy, the 1688/9 Declaration and Bill of Rights and the Treason Felony Act
of the Courts
is no precedent for our final appellate tribunal being required to refer
questions of law (even in a limited field) to another court and as I assume to
be the implication of ‘refer’ -- to accept that court’s
decision. You will remember that when a similar proposal was considered
in connection with the Council of Europe we felt strong objection to it.
I have no doubt that the whole of the legal profession in this country would
share my dislike for such a proposal which must inevitably detract from the
independence and authority of our courts.
those three objections, the first two are by far the more important. I must
emphasise that in my view the surrenders of sovereignty involved are serious
ones and I think that as a matter of practical politics, it will not be easy to
persuade Parliament or the public to accept them. I am sure that it
would be a great mistake to under-estimate the force of objections to
them. But these objections ought to be brought out into the open
now because, if we attempt to gloss over them at this state, those who are
opposed to the whole idea of our joining the Community will certainly seize on
them with more damaging effect later on.
said this, I would emphasise once again that, although those constitutional
considerations must be given their full weight when we come to balance the
arguments on either side, I do not for one moment wish to convey the impression
that they must necessarily tip the scale. In the long run we shall have
to decide whether economic factors require us to make some sacrifices of
sovereignty: my concern is to ensure that we should see exactly what it
is that we are being called on to sacrifice, and how serious our loss would be.
It is a Praemunire to
subject Her Majesty’s Courts of Law to the domination of a foreign court
outside of Her Majesty’s control.