Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 8, 2020 - David Icke

01:34:57

Law Of The Land? No, The Corporate Law Of Contracts - David Icke PLEASE SHARE

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	♪♪♪ ♪♪♪
	♪♪♪ Hello everybody. Well this is a very important video about
	a very important subject at a couldn't be more important time for humanity.
	I'm going to talk about the law and I know a lot of people just switch off at the thought of all that complexity that we perceive the law to be.
	But actually, what I'm going to describe is not only very simple, it is a deceit Imposed upon the human race, generation after generation, on a scale that beggars belief and defies the imagination.
	And no, I'm not exaggerating.
	And I'm just going to set out the basics in terms of a bit of background.
	And then I'm going to talk to an expert in this subject.
	He's made himself an expert over a long period of years, called John Smith of commonlawcourt.com.
	Common law?
	A lot of people might ask, what is that?
	Well, common law is the real Law of the land.
	Not the laws coming out of government, government agencies and the institutions of state in general.
	Not the laws administered by the police forces and other forms of law enforcement.
	Because people look, in general, why wouldn't they?
	It's the way it seems, that there is the law.
	And that law applies to everyone.
	Not true. There are two different systems of law.
	One they don't want you to know about, and the other one They want you to believe it's something that actually it isn't.
	And this understanding, which is a word that will be relevant shortly, this appreciation of the difference between common law and what is called statute law, all this stuff coming out of governments and institutions and all that stuff, Offers a way to disconnect yourself and it seems your business from the impositions of law imposed currently in all the COVID nonsense by governments and its agencies.
	So before I get into the nitty gritty, a little bit of background about where statute law, the law of government, actually came from and what it is.
	So common law, we'll talk more about that with John shortly, is a very simple system of law, which includes basically do no harm.
	And if you keep within the parameters of do no harm, then common law is all fine and dandy with that.
	But then there's another set of laws called statute laws.
	Where did that come from? Well, long ago, the system of law we now call statute Developed when countries started trading with each other and the merchant ships were and the sales ships were going around the world and commerce on an ever increasingly global scale began to emerge and they developed laws corporate laws Laws only applicable to corporations in this trading system.
	And the flag on the ship was, for instance, very important because whatever the flag the ship was flying indicated the law Countries law, whatever, that applied when you entered that ship.
	And this became known as the law of the sea, admiralty law, and it very much connects into the systems of Roman law.
	But there then came a time when the cabal, the global cult, as I call it, Wanted to usurp, override and effectively cast aside common law which is nothing to do with government and replace it with statute law which is the law of contracts.
	Statute law What was the law of the sea?
	Has to have two corporate entities, two or more, and they have to contract with each other for one to have jurisdiction over another.
	There has to be agreement.
	Well, that Is the law coming out of governments all over the world?
	It's the law of contracts.
	And if you don't contract with them, and they have any word tricks and mind tricks to make you do so, but if you understand it, you can stop.
	But if you don't contract with them, these laws have no jurisdiction over you.
	All become clear in this video as we go through it.
	So what they did was they took the law of the sea, the law of contracts, corporate law, trading law, and they brought it ashore.
	And they imposed it upon the population.
	Well, the population thought, oh, this is just governments making law.
	No, no. Because statute law, the law of contracts, Has to have contractual parties to have any influence or jurisdiction.
	What they did was they turned governments, government agencies, the police forces, I'm talking around the world, not just in Britain, Even fire services, local councils, social services, they turned them into corporations.
	Yeah. Your government is a corporation.
	Its agencies are corporations.
	Law enforcement agencies, including police forces in Britain, The courts are corporations.
	Private corporations.
	And they had to be made so because under statute law, law of the sea, it only applies between contracting corporations.
	So they use a lot of the Law of the Sea terms in their legalese for statute law.
	Why do you think that the accused person in a court stands in a dock?
	It's all a throwback.
	To the law of the sea, which has been brought to shore.
	I'll tell you a very quick story before I get into how they've made us contract with them and how we can disconnect from it.
	When I went to America, I've been to America before, but I went to America for the first time to talk about all this global conspiracy in 1996.
	And I traveled for three months, which is as much as I could, on the visa.
	I went all over America.
	Talking to nobody at the time, but I gleaned so much information.
	What I noticed was that if I went into a federal building or I passed a federal building, or I saw the scenes from a court, or if I went into a school, I spoke in a school once and there it was, and Then I would see the president making a speech and behind the president was the same thing.
	What? It was an American flag but with a gold fringe around it.
	What? What's this gold fringe deal on the American flag in all these places?
	Well, that question can be answered by What does the gold fringe indicate under the law of the sea?
	Law of the flags.
	A gold fringe means you're operating under corporate law.
	Some people call it admiralty law.
	The law of contracts.
	So the courts are not independent Organizations that administer justice to the people.
	No, it's a private corporation.
	And it's so well hidden that, you know, great numbers of judges don't even know that.
	And so you have this statute law.
	And I mean everything comes out of government, all these COVID laws, all of it, masks, all of the lot.
	There are corporate law needing contracts to apply.
	So they turned governments and agencies and all these things into corporations, private corporate entities, houses of parliament in Britain, corporate entity, because they have to have corporation to To contract with the people so that the law of the statute law applies to the people.
	So how have they done that?
	Well, this is where the level of deceit is extraordinary.
	What do they say? The bigger the lie, the more we'll believe it.
	You are born A living, breathing child who develops into a living, breathing man or woman.
	Okay. Well, that's bloody obvious, isn't it?
	But a living, breathing man or woman is not a corporate entity.
	Therefore, statute law coming out of governments and its institutions cannot apply to a living, breathing man or woman, because it's not a corporate entity.
	So there's no contractual basis.
	So this is what they do.
	When you take out a birth certificate on your child, the government It creates a fictitious corporate entity in your child's name, and it goes on for life, with little tricks.
	So, okay, my name is David Vaughan Icke.
	That is the name given to the living, breathing man.
	They create these fictitious corporate entities in our name by putting Mr.
	Mrs. in front of them.
	So my fictitious corporate entity will be called Mr.
	David Vaughan Ike.
	They also use the trick of putting the corporate entity overwhelmingly so often In all capital letters, you'll see you'll get official documents and stuff from various sources and your name will be in all capital letters.
	And they designate the corporate fictitious entity a person.
	So to disconnect from that, absolutely don't describe yourself as a person, because if you acknowledge you're a person, you acknowledge that you are this fictitious corporate entity.
	And there are many other tricks which we're going to be talking about with John Smith in this video.
	So what the trick is, the big trick, Is to kid the population worldwide that you, the living, breathing man or woman, is this fictitious entity, corporate entity.
	So what happens is, through various manipulations, They get you to contract via this corporate fictitious entity with the corporations of government and institutions of state.
	And that then gives them the ability to impose their will upon the person, yes, the person, the fictitious entity.
	Which the living, breathing man or woman also thinks is them.
	They think Mr. David Vorneich is the same as David Vorneich.
	It's not. One's a living, breathing person.
	The other one's a corporate entity created in our name.
	But they want us to make us think that they're one and the same.
	And what we're going to talk about in this video is how we end this crap.
	How we disconnect from that contractual connection.
	And thus, statute law no longer applies to us.
	And just one quick example, and then we'll go to John for the detail.
	Police officers.
	They, overwhelmingly, the ones you interact with, will have no idea that they're actually administering corporate law which requires a contract with whoever they're trying to impose their will upon.
	They won't know that.
	But they're given a spiel when they're laying out charges or laying out offences.
	They're given a spiel. They don't know why.
	You go up the hierarchy, they know exactly why.
	Because of this.
	Phrases that are used in the course of conversation by the population that have a certain meaning to them have a very different meaning in legalese See, this is another difference.
	Common law is lawful.
	Statute law is legal.
	These are different terms having different meanings.
	So you have all these law dictionaries Which give all these different definitions for all these different phrases in legalese.
	But to the population, they mean something else.
	I'll give you an example. When a police officer is telling you what you've done wrong and what you're going to be charged with or whatever, they'll say at the end, invariably, because this is the spiel, do you understand?
	Now to us, of course, it means do you comprehend what I've just said?
	That's not what it means in legalese, in the terms of statute law.
	What do you understand means is do you stand under me?
	Do you acknowledge my Basically, my power over you.
	Do you contract with me having power over you?
	Do you stand under me?
	So when a police officer says to you, do you understand?
	Absolutely vital, also getting this on video whenever you can, to say, no, I do not understand.
	I do not stand under you.
	Also to say to the officer and the council official, whoever it is representing this scam called statute law, to say to them right at the outset, you are dealing with a living, breathing man or woman You are not dealing with a corporate entity.
	I do not consent to what you are doing.
	And I do not contract with you.
	Because unless we, as the corporate fictitious entity, which we believe to be The living, breathing man or woman contracts with this system.
	This system has no jurisdiction over us.
	And from what John Smith is saying, if you go through a process, which we're going to talk about very quick, the process, you can run a business under common law Over which statute law, government law, has no jurisdiction.
	I wasn't kidding when I said and described the scale of deceit that all this represents.
	And it's a way that we can free ourselves from it.
	So I had a A chat with John Smith of commonlawcourt.com about the detail of all this.
	And it's not complicated.
	And how the people can take the world back.
	So this is how it went.
	Well, with me is John Smith from the Common Law Court website, who's made himself an expert in common law and all this statute law that we're conned by.
	And I want to talk to you later, John, about how you got into this and your background, so people have got that.
	But I want to cut straight to the chase.
	Common law and the law that comes out of governments, what's the difference?
	In a nutshell, simply put, common law relates to living men and living women.
	Believe it or not, many of your listeners or viewers will not have actually established a position as a living man or woman.
	If you ask the individual for identification or to prove who they are, they will pass on various documents to you, a bank card, a driving licence, a passport.
	Unfortunately, all these pieces of identification are for a legal fiction, they're not for a living man, and there is a distinction between both.
	Now, common law relates to the basic principles of cause no harm, cause no loss, cause no injury, and ensure that you're honourable in your contractual dealings.
	That's it in a nutshell.
	Statutory law and the law of the government, they operate under a maritime system, and basically it says they have laws statute acts, which are effectively not laws, They only become law if the people consent to them.
	If you do not consent, there are only rules and regulations, but they are applicable to the legal identity, the person.
	And when they relate to the legal system, that's the government system, they refer to the term legal.
	Now, under common law, when you actually operate in everyday life under common law, we only use the term lawful.
	Legal is obviously a statutory term and it relates to the person.
	It's got nothing to do with a living man or woman.
	So there is two distinctions.
	Legal for the statutory system in government, lawful for men and women.
	And again, the distinction is under common law, we only deal with living men and women.
	And under the statutory law, they cannot deal with living men and women.
	They can only deal with the idea of the fiction, which is literally a contractual agreement.
	Okay, so if they're operating with statute law, which is the law of contracts, maritime trading law, Basically.
	That means they have to create corporations to contract with each other.
	So what a surprise that it turns out that governments, government agencies, police forces, courts, etc, etc, etc, are corporations.
	That would stagger people who have never come across this.
	Believe it or not, I actually spoke to a judge earlier on this week, outside the courts, believe it or not.
	I was introduced to a judge who I spoke to, and they've been in the system for 20 years.
	They did not know that the court they were based in was actually a registered company.
	They actually believe that they are there to provide justice.
	Now, we can confirm every court, we're based in the UK just now, but it's applicable worldwide.
	Every court within the statutory system is a registered company.
	They're actually there for profit, and they're not there for justice.
	Justice does not exist in their system.
	It's all contractual deals, contractual agreements, and it's based on money.
	And again, they're also using that to detain the people and obviously keep them in order and obviously keep them in their houses.
	So they use this legislation when it suits them to control the people.
	Unfortunately, the people don't know that.
	Now, the same also applies to The police, believe it or not, are also registered companies.
	They're not there to protect the public.
	They are actually officers.
	Previously, years ago, decades ago, we used to see the bobby on the beat.
	The bobby on the beat was known as a constable, which is fine.
	They were there to protect or prevent a breach of the peace.
	That's changed now. You don't have constables.
	You actually have officers, the reinforcement officers.
	They're there to collect money, to charge you, penalise you.
	We've seen with this lockdown and even traffic offences, they're there to collect money.
	It's all about profit.
	And as I said, we no longer have a police force.
	It's all corporations.
	The same are applicable to the judges, the courts, the government.
	The government, believe it or not, even the House of Commons, they're all registered companies.
	It's nothing to do with men and women.
	We don't have men and women in Parliament.
	We have corporations. So you need to create all these entities as corporations because you're dealing with corporate law.
	But then you...
	To apply that law, you have to make a contract with the population and the individuals of the population.
	So you have to somehow...
	Make them a corporate entity.
	How do they do that?
	Well, just to clarify, a few hundred years ago, slavery was supposed to be abolished.
	William Wilberforce had went before Parliament to put forward annually a bill for abolition of slavery.
	Now, eventually, when it was passed, it was passed and they effectively said to the slave community, you are no longer slaves.
	What we're going to do now is you're now going to join our new society.
	We're going to give you privileges because you're part of society now.
	You're no longer a slave.
	What they've actually done has been really clever, because instead of actually holding these people, a small group of minority people, in slavery, they decided to enslave everyone.
	So they've actually taken this group, as it tended to be as colours, and in the past, they've taken them, added them to community, they've taken all the people together and said, right, you are now a citizen in our new community.
	So basically, you become a citizen of the UK or America or wherever it is.
	But in doing so, what they're doing is creating a cooperation for you.
	But when they do that, you're then bound to their rules.
	Their rules apply, and the privileges they give you were rights that you were entitled to anyway.
	However, they now charge you for the privilege.
	Now, to establish the position, when people are actually born in this country to keep this perpetuating, What they've done is they've said to the parents when they have a child, the parents must register the birth of a child.
	Now, it's not compulsory, but if you do not register your child, they will fine you.
	I think it's up to £1,000.
	So they basically push this issue.
	Now, when you actually record your birth for a child, what you're actually doing is giving consent to the government, and the government set up a legal fiction.
	For the child. Now, in my case, obviously my name is John Smith, but I have a legal fiction attached to me, which is Mr.
	John Smith. And that was created by the government at birth.
	So therefore, the government throughout my life will only deal with me as a contractual agreement and a legal title.
	They do not deal with a living man.
	But what happened is when the government set this up, if we look at the basic principles, There was a child involved, the parents were involved, and the state were involved.
	So if we look at this issue, and we use the statutory system, what actually confirms is there's a contractual agreement.
	Because they've asked you to submit a birth certificate, but it involves three different parties.
	So therefore, according to their rules, it is a contractual agreement.
	Now, if we take it that there's a contract there, again, the state rules stipulate that for a contract to be valid, there has to be various terms met.
	Now again, we don't have to bother with all the terms.
	If you pick the simplest one out of the lot, was there full disclosure?
	Which simply means, were you ever informed that a legal entity was created for you at Bath?
	Well, no, nobody was.
	Were your parents informed?
	No, they weren't. So therefore, on these grounds, it states that because there's no full disclosure, the contract is void.
	Now, if the contract's void, it means what we have now is a legal fiction floating about because it's on your bank cards, driving licenses, passport, but the fiction exists.
	The government use it in everyday life to penalise, punish you, or in their words, they provide privileges.
	But it's only done through this fiction, which they control.
	But we've already established, through their own rules, that the creation of the fiction was fraudulent.
	So what we do is we've confirmed with the setup of the Common Law Court, we've managed to set up a system whereby people can actually, by submitting a declaration, confirm in fact that they're living men or women, and having established this position, what they can then do is claim ownership of this legal title.
	It exists. If you go to a cashline machine with a card, you put your card in the machine, you want money out.
	If you do not have the fiction, you cannot get the money out.
	So the fiction does exist.
	But what we do with the Commonwealth Court is we ensure that the people are protected from attack and abuse by using the fiction.
	So if we establish the government do not have control, because it was created fraudulently, The government, sorry, the individual living men and women can actually apply for ownership.
	And by submitting an application online and declaring their position, they are then granted ownership of this fiction.
	Which means by claiming that, the government now have no control and no authority over you.
	So in relation to issues which we have currently just now with this COVID legislation, it is not applicable to the living man or woman, and it would normally be applicable to a fiction, but if you own the fiction and the legal title, without your consent, they cannot enforce it.
	So that's a difference.
	It was all created at Buff, and it was a deception created by the government.
	It's probably the world's biggest scam.
	Oh, yeah. They say, but they've done that and the people aren't aware of it.
	But until the people realise that the system operates and effectively, you are actually still in slavery unless you confirm your position standing under common law.
	He says, all they've did is they've turned around and says, well, look, we're going to abolish slavery.
	But they didn't. They were actually clever.
	What they did is instead of having a small group, they decided to enslave everyone.
	And that's the way it works. So, to summarize, they introduced this statute law, this corporate law, to override common law.
	They obviously marginalized common law, and I don't talk about that.
	No, no, no, it's not important.
	But because their law needs contracts to operate, they create entities like governments that are corporations.
	They then create this fictional entity corporation in our name using prefixes like Mr.
	The letters of your name in all capitals is very relevant.
	And what they do then is they trick us into believing that the fictional entity, which is the only one they have any control over, and the living, breathing man and woman are the same thing.
	I'll clarify a point here, which hopefully your viewers will see, especially the older ones.
	To clarify this point, if we go back to, I think it was the 70s, there was actually a television programme on the screens.
	It was a series called Roots.
	Now, it actually involves slaves, the story of slavery.
	But the key individual in the story was named Kunta Kinte.
	And what happened is this African was taken over to America and was sold into slavery.
	Now when that had been the case, he was taken to a plantation and the charge hand on behalf of the owner then had to explain to the slaves what was happening and he renamed them.
	So in the case of Kunta Kinte, the charge hand had stated to him, your name is now Toby.
	But the slave says, no, my name is Kunta Kinti.
	He wouldn't accept it. So what the chars had done is they took him, strapped him up, tied him up, and they actually whipped him.
	They lashed him, and every so often they would say, what is your name?
	Your name is Toby, tell me your name.
	But the slave kept stating, my name is Kunta Kinti.
	Now this continued, and he was literally hanging there and just about dead.
	But eventually, when the charge hander says to him, tell me your name, the slave eventually gave up and says, my name is Toby.
	Now, as soon as he accepted that name, he then became a slave.
	It means that he's then bound into slavery to the owner, and also the rules for the owner apply.
	Now, this is happening every day in this country or throughout the world.
	What they're doing is they're actually taking the slave name and attaching it to you.
	Now, in my case, when they go to any court in this country, when you go in, you can identify yourself or you're asked to do so.
	If you give your name as a living man or a living woman, and you actually express that you're a living man or woman, the courts can't deal with you.
	In fact, they will actually get abrupt, pushy, and find you in contempt of court, which they can't.
	But they will say to you, no, you need to confirm that you are Mr.
	John Smith. And if I say no, that I'm John Smith, the living man, they say no, you will accept you are Mr.
	John Smith. You need to confirm that.
	Now, Mr. John Smith is the slave name.
	Now, they're actually clever with it because unlike Kunta Kinte and Toby, there's a distinction between the both and it's easy to see.
	In relation to John Smith and Mr.
	John Smith, There's not much difference and you think it's the same.
	But what they've done is by changing the style of the text the way it's written and also adding a title, Mr.
	John Smith becomes a legal title.
	So if I accept Mr.
	John Smith, I then become the slave.
	If I stand as John Smith, the living man, I'm not a slave.
	Now, the courts will not accept that.
	But effectively, what they're doing every day in this country and every case in the courts in this country, they're binding the people in slavery, which is banned everywhere under any law that you want, including their statutory law in the United Nations.
	Slavery is banned in slavery.
	Any and all forms, but the use of the fiction is binding the people into slavery.
	Now, the courts know that.
	They know what they're doing, but they need to put you into this position to accept the slave name so that they can contract with you, in which case they can then penalise you, charge you, fine you, and enforce legislation that they have because it's all applicable to you.
	Because you've contracted with them.
	Yeah. Yes, because you've contracted and they've taken your implied consent, but you don't know what's actually happening.
	And this is a use of language.
	The language they use in court, it's a separate issue.
	But obviously what they're doing is they're using terminology to entrap you.
	And when they get the answer they want through your implied consent or tacit agreement, they actually then have established a contract and they will then bind you into their system and their rules.
	And if you don't comply, they will then punish you.
	Don't some judges say when they're confronted with this, they say to the person, or not the person, we'll come to that in a second, the person is the corporate entity, say to the living, breathing man or woman, I can't hear you, I can't see you.
	Don't they actually say that?
	You said that to me as well.
	Excuse me. What they actually mean, it doesn't mean if they say, I cannot see you, I cannot hear you.
	It doesn't mean they're actually blind or deaf, although many are.
	It literally means that they cannot deal with you, because a judge is a corporation, is part of a registered company, and they cannot deal with living men and women.
	The only way that they can actually interact with anyone or adjudicate in the matter before them is by having some sort of joiner with them.
	Joiner means a contractual agreement.
	And for that, it can only be with the legal fiction, which is an entity, the legal entity, in my case, Mr John Smith.
	If I actually turn around and say that my name is John Smith, And that I'm a living man, they can't deal with me.
	So if you present this to the judge, the judge will actually say, look, I'm sorry, I cannot hear you, I cannot see you.
	And then they actually turn away.
	Now, what that means is they cannot speak to you, because they're not allowed to, because you're a living man.
	They cannot see you either.
	It says, so they cannot see you, cannot hear you.
	They can only deal with the fiction.
	In my case, what they've actually done is, look, I cannot see you, cannot hear you.
	I'm going to proceed.
	Now, when they say I'm going to proceed, they just ignore you, blank you completely, and they continue by referring to the legal fiction, Mr John Smith in my case, and they just carry on and have a hearing without your involvement because you're a living man.
	They won't involve you and they'll just contain you and prosecute you.
	We've actually had someone in court He was actually taken away for a contempt of court, which they can't do.
	They took him for contempt of court and threw him in the cells because he would not accept the living man.
	Now, this individual had went to court and he was asked to identify himself, so he stated that he was a living man.
	The judge immediately jumped and he says, look, I need you to confirm you are Mr.
	So-and-so. He turned around and replied again, look, with respect, I am a living man.
	I've informed this court of my position.
	I'm here to deal with the issue before you, but I am a living man.
	The judge then turned around and says, look, I'm not having this.
	As far as I'm concerned, you will identify with this fiction, Mr.
	So-and-so. He says, if you fail to establish you're doing it, I'm going to issue a warrant.
	And the individual says, a warrant for what?
	He says, for your non-appearance.
	He says, but I'm standing here speaking to you.
	He says, I couldn't care less.
	I will issue a warrant for your non-appearance.
	I will ask you once and once only, can you confirm that you are Mr.
	So-and-so? And he said, no, I'm a living man.
	I'm here to deal with the issue before you.
	The judge turned around and he said, I'm going to adjourn this hearing for 10 minutes.
	He says, clerk of the court informed everyone to come back in 10 minutes.
	And he turned to the police and says, I'm now issuing a warrant for the arrest of Mr.
	So-and-so. Can you please enforce a deal with this issue?
	The judge got up, walked to a court.
	The police immediately got onto the radio and phoned for backup.
	And they called for seven or eight officers who then came to the court to try and arrest this guy.
	The judge was having a conversation with him.
	He would not accept the position of the living man, and because this individual refused to take the slave name, Mister, the judge said it was unacceptable and had him arrested in charge just for refusing to accept the slave name, but that's what it was.
	You had to become part of their system.
	He had to gain contract or what we call joiner.
	And if he didn't do that, the judge had no authority or jurisdiction over the loving man, which he couldn't accept.
	They had to punish someone and they had to dismiss a case because the guy had a really good case.
	He said, but they didn't want to go into court, so protect big entities, and obviously this is a big business.
	They actually decided they went rid of the case, and they then put pressure on this guy to accept the slave name in their system.
	Had he done so, they would have dismissed the case anyway.
	But because he stood as a living man, they would not allow the case to proceed.
	So the easy way to get out of it is by arresting him for not accepting the slave name, but that's what it is.
	Well, I mean, it's extraordinary.
	I mean, I know the world's bloody mad, but there's just another example of it, really.
	You've got a judge who's looking at a human being, but won't accept the human beings there, because the human being won't accept that they are a fictitious corporation created in their name without their knowledge.
	And And then gets the police to arrest the person standing in front of them for not being there.
	I mean, it's insane, but this is how you can tie them in knots once you operate as a living, breathing man and woman.
	And of course, the man was standing in a dock, which is relevant, isn't it, to the law of disease?
	Well, basically, the system that they operate is a maritime system.
	We refer to, obviously, the distinction between the two types.
	The corporate side, the corporate structure, which is maritime law, and the common law one.
	Now, the common law you can use, it's applicable to everyone.
	It is a race-coloured religion, because it adopts various names.
	It can be common law, it can be natural law, law of the land, universal law, the creator's law, even God's law.
	The same terms and conditions apply for each one.
	Now, in relation to maritime, they use different things as well, based on maritime and Roman law and things like that, but the terminology they use is the same.
	It's all down to shipping. Hundreds of years ago, the only laws they had effect between countries was the shipping, maritime laws, because they actually traded with other countries.
	And because they had something set up there, they then tried to use this on the land and enforce it on the people.
	But what they did is they actually used the language through maritime law in everyday life.
	So, for example, you have something like a ship, a ship or a vessel.
	They say, well, come in to dock.
	No, it comes in to dock, which is obviously the dock you have in court as well.
	So you come in to answer, and obviously you come in to dock and birth in a key.
	Now, when they birth, what they do is they command birth, and then they unload a cargo.
	Well, that is the terms that's used for delivering a child.
	Because the mother will go into birth, and when she goes into birth, she will then, obviously, deliver a cargo.
	The cargo she delivers is the child.
	It's property. It's treated as cargo.
	And when the cargo, seemingly like they're on a ship or a vessel, when they actually deliver a cargo, there's a manifest.
	So they actually drop the manifest for the cargo and a note is taken.
	When a mother goes in to give birth, she goes into a buffing suite.
	She then delivers the cargo, which is a child.
	This property is delivered and it's treated as property.
	And then there's a buffing manifest.
	Well, that's the birth certificate.
	So the child becomes the property and it's all registered through the buffing manifest, which is the same as the shipping manifest, is delivering a cargo.
	So they're delivering a cargo into the system.
	That's the way it works. You have other issues.
	This is everyday life.
	It's just a terminology. You have the banks.
	The banks use it. Now, if you look at maritime laws, this is in relation to banks.
	Well, banks, you have banks on the river.
	It is also you have a water flow.
	You have a current. Current becomes currency, which is money.
	So to control the current, the currencies, you have the banks to prop them up either side and keep an eye on things.
	Well, that's the same with the banking.
	They actually have, they've adopted the term bank, so they're then restricting control of the flow of money in this case.
	So they use the same terms as it's from maritime law in everyday life.
	And it's only when you actually find out about it and how they use it, you then understand how they work.
	But the distinction is, if they're doing that, it's to know that this exists, to know that they operate it, and then it comes down to the basic principles.
	You have a choice.
	Is this acceptable?
	Do you wish to use it?
	Or do you wish to establish yourself as a living man?
	In which case you can claim this is common law or maritime law or even the law of the land.
	This is why I mentioned that the terminology for common law, it's applicable throughout.
	Common law, as we've said just now, you've got natural law, universal law, the creator's law, God's law.
	It is also the law of the land, which is the opposite of maritime law, because it's for land dwellers, which takes you back to living men and women.
	So this is how it works.
	But there's two distinctions here.
	Okay, so what we're going to try to avoid then, and Obviously, the terminology needs to be watched very carefully because, you know, the trickery is all over the place, is to avoid making contracts with the corporations of law enforcement and governments, etc. What do we avoid, John?
	I mean, first of all, Mr, Mrs, these prefixes.
	I understand, you know, I was told this years ago when I Looked at this in America back in the 90s, you know, upper capital, uppercase letters for your name, and also person.
	Never refer to yourself as a person, right?
	You made an interesting comment as you were discussing that there.
	He says, look, I understand.
	Yeah, I understand.
	That's another one. Yeah, literally, he says, when you're looking at things, there's certain phrases.
	Now, I learned something from an individual a number of years back, early on.
	It was actually quite good and it was something that your viewers should actually think about and listen.
	Now we're not here as conspirators.
	We're basically here to point you things and to ask them to think.
	Now, if we say to your viewers just now, look, if we use the English language, Now, we can use the English language, but for clarification, what we will do to obtain the meaning is we will go to a dictionary, take the Oxford Dictionary.
	So we will go there, and they have a list of all the words you use.
	Now, every so often, they take out a new word, so they've just added to it, right?
	So if we have an English language, and we have the Oxford Dictionary, and we also add on new words occasionally, why is there a need for law dictionaries?
	We have loads and loads of law dictionaries, far more than the Oxford Dictionary, and there's new additions all the time.
	The reason for that is the words that we use, and we refer to understand just now, which you mentioned, under the Oxford Dictionary, understand basically just means do you comprehend something.
	Now, under the system that they use, under the legal system, the legal dictionaries, the language is called legalese.
	It's completely separate from English.
	The words are identical, but the meanings are different.
	Now in relation to the word understand, whereas in everyday life to men and women, it means comprehend, do you comprehend?
	Under their system, when a police officer is asked you if you understand, if you actually say yes, You've actually then became a slave.
	Because what the legalese term states is if you're confronted by an officer, when they say, do you understand, it literally means in their terminology, do you stand under my authority?
	So therefore, if you say to the constable, yes, I understand, that allows them, it creates joined up, which is a contractual agreement, it then allows them to prosecute you with their rules and to find you a punishment.
	If you turn around and say to them, well no, I'm sorry, I don't understand.
	The reply will come back, what do you mean you don't understand?
	I've just explained. You've breached some act of parliament.
	He said, do you not understand?
	What you should do is turn around and say, no, I do not stand under your authority and I don't consent.
	Now that keeps you out of their system because it confirms that you're a living man or living woman and you have nothing to do with them.
	They therefore cannot enforce the legislation.
	That's the way it works. But it's all about names.
	Now the term you also refer to, the term person.
	Person Is literally a legal entity.
	So you don't use that.
	You are either a living man or a woman, or obviously you can adopt the positions that they have within their system, and that comes down to things like legal entities, the person, and various other things.
	But these are all legal terms to give them authority.
	You will note that I've mentioned twice, I've mentioned a couple of times, I'll do it again, The common law principles are basically cause no harm, loss or injury to others and ensure your honourable and contractual dealings.
	That is common law in a nutshell.
	It could be God's law and universal law, everything.
	They're all the same. They operate under key principles and these are the principles.
	That's it. Under their system, they have hundreds of statutes, acts of parliament legislation, and they've just introduced COVID legislation.
	Wonderful, we've got new legislation.
	But the point is, they are all rules and statutes and acts, but they're only applicable to a person.
	They're not applicable to living men and women.
	You'll note when they look and they refer to and write up the legislation, they will refer it always to a person.
	The person does this, the person must do this.
	It's a legal entity.
	It's not applicable to living men and women.
	So therefore that's it. So you don't use the terminology they've got and you can stay out of the system.
	But they don't like that because they use this camouflage, they use trickery and they use legalese to try to obviously entrap you and get Joinder, which is create a contract.
	They've actually stuck in their system because a basic principle like your documentation, everything you have to identify yourself is in their system.
	It's to do with the person.
	So that gives them your disadvantage straight away because if you produce ID or they ask you for ID and you produce it, it gives the legal fiction.
	So if they confirm, is this you?
	And then you look at your bank and say, yes, straight away, you've got to join that.
	So you have to be very careful with what you do.
	It's all about trickery and it's all about contract.
	So let's apply this to current events and all these statute law, corporate law, contractual law in positions over COVID-19.
	The Covid pandemic hoax involving businesses, employment, loss of freedom, wearing a mask.
	So say a police officer comes up to you and says you're not wearing a mask and that's breaking the law.
	Give us an idea of how people should then respond.
	First of all, just to clarify something, to let your viewers understand the difference.
	Although they go through various sittings in Parliament, and they put forward legislation which is proposed, and it goes through various sittings in both houses and then gets royal assent, even if that's the case, it doesn't mean that it's law.
	For it to become law, the people have to consent.
	So if you believe that you're a living man or woman, you actually have a choice.
	It is the government and the state will actually say that they govern by consent.
	The police say that they police by consent.
	Now what that means is as a living man or woman, if you do not consent, it's not law.
	So this COVID legislation and any other legislation they have, when they take it out, it only becomes a law with your consent.
	So with you consenting to the legislation, it then carries the full force of law.
	If you do not consent, it's not law and they cannot enforce it.
	So when the police approach you and say, look, you're required to wear a mask.
	No, you're not, because there's no law.
	And if they refer you to statutory legislation, that is only applicable to the person, which is a contrastial agreement, the legal entity.
	You state, no, I'm sorry, I do not stand under your authority.
	I don't consent.
	I'm a living man or a living woman.
	It doesn't apply to me.
	And you can say to them, well, where is the law?
	The states, I, as a living man, have to wear a mask.
	There's not a law. They'll refer you to a Statutory Act of Parliament and they'll say, according to this legislation, and they'll give you the definition, the number, and the statute.
	Say, well, that's fine. It's not applicable to me as a living man, which it's not.
	It's applicable to the legal entity which they created at birth, which is legal fiction.
	And if they can get Joinder and trick you into accepting the position of the legal fiction, you're then bound by their rules.
	As long as you're careful with what you do, do not get involved with them and try not to talk too much.
	If you get into a detailed conversation with them, they will trick you and they will try to establish Joinder.
	The less you say, the better.
	The basic principles are Can you confirm what law states I have to wear a mask?
	Ask him if that's a question.
	If they reply with legislation, they say, I'm sorry, it's not applicable to a living man.
	I stand under common law.
	I do not stand under your authority and I do not consent.
	And that's it. And if they say anything else, they say, sorry, I do not answer questions.
	And that's it. Leave it.
	Say nothing else. They cannot do anything to you because they have not established, joined them in a contract.
	The point is important to make that most of these police officers will have been given the spiel of what to say in the situation, but they don't understand themselves or appreciate themselves what their language means.
	To be fair, to defend a lot of the police as well.
	And again, I've met police. When I went to court before, I was a great police officer who met in Paisley.
	He was in Scotland.
	We actually have the police in court instead of security.
	But we'd actually been called for hearings and I got to know the police quite well.
	But I like them. They're okay. A lot of the police, look, they're like everyone else.
	Now, you get good and bad in every job.
	And it's the same with the police.
	So we're not trying to defend or stick off the police because there are some dodgy police as well.
	But the point is, they have a job to do.
	Now, unfortunately, they are not told about all this.
	They do not understand this.
	Comprehend? They do not understand this, but what they are doing is giving clear instructions from their superiors, and they're not told why.
	And they actually believe that they're enforcing laws.
	They don't understand that.
	They do not understand the significance.
	It's the same with judges I spoke to earlier in the week.
	They could not believe some of the things I was telling them.
	And I actually happened to have some information and I spoke to this judge.
	And when they couldn't believe that they were a registered company, I actually emailed through later on information to confirm the company registration number.
	He says, which surprised them because they actually believed that they were a court of law.
	It's not. It's a corporation.
	He says, effectively, not to bust a bubble, he says, but effectively, he says, the company I referred to is a court.
	It's a registered company.
	Effectively, it has the same status as McDonald's or Tesco's.
	He says, and what they do, it's like having, if you have a court there and they say they're enforcing rules and regulations and guidelines, that's the same as Tesco's laying down rules for their car park and they're holding you accountable and fining you and punishing you.
	So you're called in front of the court manager or the Tesco's manager who says he's going to prosecute you for parking the wrong way in his car park.
	It's a law and he's going to punish you.
	Well, that's what the courts do.
	It's exactly the same as McDonald's.
	This is a further enforcement team.
	This is we operate with police constables.
	It says McDonald's has Ronald McDonald in the uniform there on the staff.
	It's the same thing. They have a uniform.
	We're being silly just now.
	But the point is to get across the idea that these courts and these companies are exactly the same as any other company.
	There's no difference. It's just that because of the people's presumption and because they've managed to contract and they actually believe that they are lawful courts of law and that the police are there to protect them.
	They're not. They're registered companies there to make a profit.
	And again, they're there to hold people in position and to bind them into slavery.
	They dictate where, you tell me where in the world just now, in any civilised country, you can actually take the people and lock them up in their houses.
	And keep them there.
	It says, you're finishing off not only their livelihoods, it says you're looking at business, the amount of businesses that will go under and the effect it has on the economy is disgusting.
	And yet, it says they're doing that on the rumour of this COVID. Now, it says we're not getting the issue of COVID. It says there's other reasons, like 5G, various other things.
	But the point is, they're laying legislation down and effectively controlling the people Hold them into slavery and dictating what they can and can't do.
	Even during the war, the Second World War, it says you're not confined to your property.
	It says they're doing that. We have, because of the effect it's having just now on the economy and families, people are losing houses, they're losing jobs, they're losing children.
	We have people who cannot feed their families because they have no money.
	People are actually using food banks because of the position the government are putting them in.
	They know exactly what they're doing, and how a government can treat the people like that is disgusting.
	And it should not happen, and we're supposed to be one of the most civilised countries in the world.
	The UK just now will probably be, in my opinion, which I'll say, in my opinion, it must be the most corrupt government in the world.
	It is just now.
	Without the UK, we hear about people.
	People go up and they're dragged in front of war crimes.
	The United Nations, they're prosecuted for war crimes against the people.
	Well, through the use of the legal fiction, what the government are doing to the people in this country is disgusting.
	And they've known about it and it's been going on for years.
	They know exactly what they're doing.
	The whole system is to control the people.
	And effectively, with what they're doing just now, it's actually getting worse rather than better.
	So the people have to understand that there is a choice here.
	There's two different systems at play.
	There's a commercial system, which is run by the government, and then you have, obviously, common law, which is down to the people.
	Now, you don't have to change your life, you don't change your day-to-day routine, but by confirming that you stand under common law and that you do live and exist as a living mara woman, it gives you the opportunity then to protect yourself and your families, just by adopting this approach.
	Well, I mean, these people have to go to jail for the rest of their lives.
	I think they ought to reincarnate a few thousand times to complete the sentence, given what they're knowingly imposing on the population, all the suffering and deprivation that's gathering all the time.
	And from the perspective that we're coming from here, John, that which is put under house arrest That which is told that business must close is actually a fictional corporate entity which the living, breathing men and women have been tricked into associating with and identifying with.
	And so the living, breathing men and women go under house arrest and close their businesses Simply because they think the entity and them are the same thing.
	When you accept the position of the entity and the system, they're closing down these companies just now, which is horrendous.
	If you think about the effect it has on the people and obviously their families and the community, they're closing these businesses.
	But what you've got to remember is these individuals are accepting the legal title, the Mr, the Miss, the Mrs or so on.
	Not only that, the companies that they have are actually registered under the statutory system.
	So they're registered with Companies House.
	Now, what that effectively means, Is it their legislation and rules apply to the company?
	Their legislation and rules apply to the legal entity, the person, the man or the woman.
	Now with that, you find it very, very difficult to then argue.
	Although you have rights under common law as a man or a woman, because you operate under the trading name, when you register a company under their system, you give the name of effectively the owner of the business.
	That will be the legal entity.
	As soon as you put the legal entity down there, you're in commerce and their rules apply.
	Now, while obviously it's difficult, you can take them on and challenge them and you may end up with a fine or something, but when push comes to shove, the government can enforce anything they want because you are in their system.
	They have joined them because of this contract through Companies House.
	If you stand under common law as a living man or woman, you can actually trade a business under common law as well, which means that the rules are not applicable to you.
	So there's a way out of it.
	It's simply by doing that.
	So you've got all these people who don't want to shut their businesses down because they know where that's going to lead.
	And it has for so many.
	So they don't want to go into these lockdowns.
	They don't want to shut the business down.
	Using common law, how can they continue to trade, John?
	Well, with common law, the simple thing, it's basically the system's set up for protection only.
	So it doesn't actually affect your life just now, but by making a simple declaration of your birth on the website, that confirms that you exist as a living man or woman.
	Now, as soon as you establish this fact, it changes things completely.
	Because as a living man or woman, you have the right not to suffer harm, loss or injury, And obviously, in contractual dealings, people have to deal with you honourably.
	Now, the state do not do that.
	So therefore, by establishing a position, and all you're doing is making a declaration of your birth, a public declaration to confirm that you are born, when you are born, where you are born, and your parents' names.
	So that's it. That's all it is.
	It costs nothing to do.
	But having done that, What you can then do as a living man or woman, you can do things like claim ownership of the legal title to further protect yourself.
	But not only that, if to obtain money to support your family and yourself, you're required to run a business to earn a living, what you can do is you can do that through common law.
	Now, common law only deals with men and women.
	So we don't deal with corporations.
	But if you wish to obviously earn a living and you're required to do so by trading and using an entity, what we do is we give men and women the opportunity to confirm that they wish to run a business to make money.
	Now in doing so, they identify themselves as the individual responsible for the company.
	So the living man or the living woman will go down as being the individual responsible for the company.
	They will then give a trading name under which they wish to operate.
	Now, the trading name could be the same as the existing name they have for their business under the statutory system.
	It doesn't matter. Or they can create a new name.
	But having done that, what they then do is they then receive a new registration number under common law when they do that.
	And by having that, they've then confirmed that they are trading under the common law system.
	Now, if the council employees The licensing authorities or the police come in and they say you have to comply with legislation, you have to wear a mask, you have to social distance.
	It's not applicable. It's not applicable because they stand as living men and women under common law and also it's not applicable because the companies that they're operating are run under common law, which means that their rules and regulations are not applicable to them.
	It's only for statutory companies and as they're operating under common law and a common law company, the rules don't apply and they cannot be enforced.
	So people can do all this through commonlawcourt.com, right?
	The site was set up.
	What we've got to remember is the first case was actually convened.
	The Common Law Court is set up literally to provide a lawful remedy for the people, and that's it.
	That's all it's about, to protect people.
	Now, it's protecting them by establishing their position as a living man or woman.
	So, many of your viewers have never heard about this before, but will start to understand, look, there is two systems here, but unfortunately they have nothing to confirm they exist under Common Law.
	When they make the declaration on the Commonwealth Court signed, it's free of charge, but when they do so, they're given a registration number.
	Now, when they use that number to the authorities, it confirms their standing and that the statutory rules are not applicable to them.
	No, they can do that. The website was set up initially because when we convene the court, there has to be a public record.
	So we set up initially with four pages.
	But when we set up the site, as a number of us done this, what happened is people throughout the UK spoke to us and says, can we use this as well?
	And from there, and then developed and developed, and then internationally we've got that.
	We're actually sitting now with people submitting declarations from 138 countries.
	Yeah, well we actually have quite a few people helping out just now.
	Obviously because of the amount just now and what's currently going on worldwide, we're obviously getting more people helping.
	So obviously we've had a backlog with applications coming in, but we're working our way through them and we're nearly getting there.
	But it's not that.
	We find that people are contacting us about things like running a business and they're receiving complaints or fines or they're being threatened by the state, the authorities or the police.
	They contact us daily.
	We're dealing with people that are actually dealing with other issues, crime.
	We've got people losing houses, losing children, various other things.
	So we deal with these cases.
	We have convened our own courts as well.
	We've prosecuted various people, including seven judges.
	I'd be glad to hear.
	In fact, on that point, you have seven judges operating just now, four in Scotland, two in England, and one in France.
	These judges are all convicted criminals.
	They're convicted by the people, and yet the state have been informed about it, and yet the state have them operating in the courts, convicted criminals.
	So it's ludicrous.
	But this is what happened.
	The whole system's run by...
	An important point there, John, which will affect, of course, a lot of parents and their concerns.
	Social services, presumably, is a corporation.
	Yes, yeah. So the same applies when they're trying to take your kids away.
	Well, on the point there, I've actually lodged, this is on behalf of the people, because we have many, many people obviously have an issue with social services.
	We've obviously been waiting for a suitable case to come up, but the people stand around and say, we want to do something.
	So as it happens, what we've done is we've took on a case.
	Now, the case we've took on regards five children that were removed from home.
	Now, there's no doubt whatsoever that there's no reason to remove these children.
	It's a long, complicated story.
	Obviously, many people who are aware of this situation say, it's disgusting, we need to do something.
	So what we've done is we've actually lodged papers in their court.
	We do not accept their co-ops because it's a registered company and it's not a co-op.
	So what we've actually done is we've submitted papers to the co-op against an individual employee for social services.
	Well, it's actually in Scotland, so they're called the children's reporter.
	But this children's reporter was involved in removing five children.
	So what we did is we've actually spoken to the parents.
	Now, the parents had actually recorded the births for the children under common law.
	But what they do is to protect the children, we need to have the legal title.
	But what's happened is, in doing this and recording the births, it was decided to protect the children that I was given permission and consent to apply for ownership of the legal fiction for the children.
	So effectively, what that meant is priority lies with the individuals, the parents, because anyone under 16 cannot own their fiction.
	It's just what's been decided and accepted by the people.
	So once you're 16, you can take ownership of your legal title.
	But up until 16, the parents are giving prefect or first claim on the title.
	The parents decided that they were happy for me to obtain ownership of the title.
	So I obtained the ownership of five titles.
	Now this is legal titles.
	It's names that I own.
	However, the government had actually went to court with this children's reporter and obtained an order and removed the children.
	Now, effectively what they've done is if you have, we've got five children, and they have a birth certificate under common law to state that they're living, they're living children.
	We then have legal fictions which exist.
	Now the legal fictions have been claimed by me.
	I own the legal fictions and I have certificates from a court carrying the authority of the people to confirm that I own the fictions.
	So effectively I have them.
	I have documents for them as well confirming that I own them.
	So I'm separate.
	I live in a different city.
	I have these documents.
	These titles are mine. However, The social services went to the court and used these titles without my consent.
	They then fraudulently obtained a court order and then they then wanted to enforce the order.
	But the order was issued to remove the legal titles.
	They're my legal titles.
	But the point is, they decided to go to a household and they selected these five children and they've taken them in.
	The titles are not attached to the children.
	They have nothing to do with the children.
	I own the titles.
	I have ownership. I have the paperwork and ownership.
	But they've decided, because they got this order, they wanted these children, so they have said, these titles are attached to your children.
	We're going to take your children.
	And they just took them. So effectively, what they've done is kidnap the children, and they're unlawfully detaining them.
	He said, now I then got involved, so we wrote to the court.
	When I wrote to the court, the court didn't want to deal with it.
	So we actually persisted for a couple of weeks.
	And when we did that, eventually the court says, well, we're not dealing with you.
	You're not on the court papers.
	I said, yes, I am, because my legal titles are referred to in the court papers.
	They said, we're not accepting it.
	He said, you can have your paperwork back.
	I said, I don't want the paperwork back because it's lodged in court and it will stay as a part of the court record.
	So they kept the paperwork and sent back a letter saying, we don't want to deal with you.
	So I then went to the police to report it and we walked into the police station headquarters to report it to the police.
	They didn't want to speak to me. I then gave them a copy of the paperwork for the Chief Constable they didn't want to pass on.
	But I ensured that they took a statement.
	So they took the statement from my report.
	They then said they'd investigate it.
	I think the children have been questioned, but that's all that's happened.
	The paperwork was sent and served on the Chief Constable the next day, and the Chief Constable has ignored it.
	It's been signed for, so I've proved the receipt.
	They have the paperwork. After a week, I emailed them on his personal email address, which I got from the police.
	He's not responding.
	They've just totally ignored it.
	They've done nothing, so I then took a personal action for money, a monetary award against this individual, the children's reporter.
	We put the paperwork in, and it was signed for into court, so they've received it, which it should be lodged.
	And then what happened a couple of days later, when I phoned up to confirm the court reference number, they told me that they'd lost the paperwork, surprisingly.
	It had been signed for, and therefore have provided service within their own system, so they've been served with it.
	But when I pointed out that what they're doing was criminal, they took a couple of days and then decided that they've actually found the paperwork.
	So after finding the paperwork, they said, well, we have to pass on to a judge.
	Well, it doesn't involve a judge, because when the paperwork's submitted, all they have to do is check that it's laid out in the correct format, which it is.
	But they couldn't deal with it, so they passed on to the sheriff, the judge.
	So I left it. A week later, I phoned back.
	I said, look, I'm still waiting to hear what's happening.
	They said, well, we can't find your paperwork.
	I said, but you had the paperwork last week.
	You confirmed that you had it and you're passing it to a judge.
	He said, well, I've lost that again.
	So it took another four days to find it.
	And when I insisted that we prosecute, they've then admitted they found the paperwork.
	But again, they're saying that they have to pass on to the judge.
	So I left and I said, well, why are you passing on to the judge?
	And there was email correspondence confirming this.
	I said, well, why does this affect the judge?
	He says, at no time should this be put before the judge because all it's required to do is, as an administrative procedure, all they have to do is check the paperwork's laid out correctly.
	It doesn't involve a judge.
	They said, well, we can't deal with it, so we've passed on to the judge.
	I said, well, you can't do that.
	He said, but while we're on it, he says, can you provide me a copy of your statement, your internal statement for the company that confirms your policy regarding the Slavery Act 2015?
	So basically, they have to ensure that they're complying with the Slavery Act, and they have to have a clear policy laid out.
	So I asked them, as the requirement, to give me a copy of that.
	They roll back and say, no, no, no.
	He says, we're okay, we're sorry, we don't have to comply with the Slavery Act simply because we're not a company.
	At which point I wrote back to me and said, well, I'm sorry, you are a company, here's your registration papers.
	And I gave them registration papers with the company reference, and I've not heard since.
	And they've not dealt with the paperwork.
	And they've not dealt with this issue at all.
	And the children are still there.
	But they don't want to deal with it.
	And yet, they have actually removed the children by kidnapping.
	Because if you have children...
	It's like taking, go to your next door neighbour or the next few households, pick five children randomly, right?
	If they register their birth under common law, you've established a living, and then the government decide they want these children.
	So what they're going to do is take a random name, a legal title, and they then turn up in the house and say, right, we're arresting you, we've got a court order for this title here.
	You are being attached to this title so we're going to kidnap you.
	They take you away. That's what happened to these children.
	They've attached a slave name onto the child and removed the child as kidnapping.
	But not only that, I've actually confirmed that I own these titles and they're ignoring that.
	Now, they know that they're a sticky wicket because this is the first time this has been tried.
	Now, we're not going to the courts, but what we've done is put in a claim for damages.
	Now, the damages is based on the length of time that these individuals have been removed from the house.
	And also, this is given, I think, there's eight pieces of legislation or eight crimes that have been committed against the people.
	So for each crime, we've put in an award for that as well.
	Now, the money that comes in from this will be used to assist with the setup of a common law court enforcement, which is constables for the common law court.
	So the money goes there, so nobody benefits from it.
	But the children will be released.
	Now we've put this in and we've put this claim in but we're not asking for a hearing.
	We've stated to them that they are required to ensure as a service provider and a registered company, this is a court, they are only there to ensure that we're paid the money that's due and that the individual we refer to is dismissed from our job.
	However, if this individual wishes to object to this, or if she wishes to dispute this position, we're quite happy to attend a hearing for clarification purposes only.
	So if we turn up a hearing, we do so, but it's only to clarify our position.
	They don't have joined up, they don't have a contract with us, we're quite happy to turn up, only to explain why they've got to comply with what we say.
	Now there is another issue we've added, a final part we've added, which I'll explain just now to your viewers.
	We refer then to the appointment of an individual to deal with this dispute if it goes to one of their courts.
	This individual would normally be a judge.
	So we referred to that and explained our position and then left it.
	Now we've served that paper on just now.
	We're waiting here in court and we're actually going to escalate this also in relation to COVID as well.
	The people have decided we wish to take on a case against Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon.
	So the papers are being drafted out just now.
	They're near completion, but that will be served within the next week, probably a week to 10 days.
	And because this is of public interest as well, it will also go up on the internet because it's a public record, and it's the public who are actioning this case under common law.
	But if we go back to the point I was making just now, which I will explain a little bit more, it's showing you how stupid their system is.
	When we're going to a court, we deal with a judge.
	We refer to it earlier on that the judges do not like the position of a living man or woman.
	And when you actually go into a court, they will actually bully you to accept the legal fiction and they will threaten you as well.
	Now, what they will also do, and it's happened many times, they will go in and if you actually stand and say you're a living man, they will actually question your mental stability.
	And we have had actually people removed from court and sent for a medical examination.
	This is because they've obviously questioned their standing.
	Now, what we've done is we had a guy who's been in court before and has a case which is 100% he's won.
	There's not an issue about that, what's happened to him.
	But they will not deal within court.
	Now, he's introduced himself as a living man on each occasion.
	And we're going, it was the fourth time we're going, and we knew what the judge was doing.
	He was actually, he was literally implying that he was in a stable, and he wouldn't accept the living man.
	So what we did is we said to him, look, play it this way.
	So what happened is the individual went down to court and he was asked who he was.
	So he explained he's a living man.
	Now we got him to engage in conversation for about three minutes on this issue.
	So he said, well, I'm a living man, but I'm quite happy to deal with the issue before you.
	I actually own the legal fiction.
	And he spoke for a couple of minutes.
	So there was a conversation between the judge and the individual.
	Eventually, the judge turned around and said, well, look, I've had enough, I'm sorry, I'm going to proceed.
	And this is where it kicked in.
	So what the guy did, he turned around and said, well, I'm sorry, look, before you proceed, I'd like to express to the court that I'm concerned.
	At which point the judge looked at him and said, concerned?
	What do you mean concerned? He says, well, I'm concerned about you.
	In which case the judge is concerned about me.
	What do you mean? What do you mean?
	And he says, well, we've actually been having a conversation for two or three minutes.
	We've had a chat. We've spoke to him on that.
	Somehow, you seem to lack the mental capacity to determine that I'm a living man.
	In fact, you've actually stated to me, if I was to accept the position of a person, which is a lifeless entity, a dead entity, if I was to accept that position, you've effectively told me that you'll speak to the dead.
	If I spoke to the dead, I'd be locked up in a loony bin.
	He said, but you've actually stated you can do that.
	He says, so therefore, if you cannot recognize a living man in front of you, having spoken for a number of minutes, He says, I'm questioning your mental stability.
	He says, not only that, you've openly confirmed that you will speak to the dead.
	He says, for your safety and the public safety, I believe you should be mentally assessed.
	And until such time as we've established that you have a mental capacity to deal with this, you should remove yourself from this case and dismiss it.
	The judge says, I'm not dealing with this just now.
	This is ridiculous. I'm adjourning this for two months.
	Bang! And he got up and walked out of court.
	So what we're doing in the paperwork is we're putting into the judges now into the courts.
	If you require a hearing to deal with an issue, We're quite happy to attend, but any individual that is appointed to deal with this issue or to adjudicate must be of sound mind.
	As with any reasonably minded man or woman, they would be able to accept the position
	of a living man or living woman, having spoken to them for a number of minutes.
	And not only that, a reasonable minded living man or woman would not be able to speak to
	the dead.
	Therefore, if an individual adjudicating this matter cannot establish the living man or
	woman before them, and they openly speak to the dead, they will have established that
	they're not of sound mind and they should not be dealing with this issue.
	So therefore, that means no judge in the country can actually sit and adjudicate over you.
	So we've put that into the paperwork just now, and we've actually got some more cases going in shortly on behalf of the people.
	But needless to say, they haven't gone back to this yet.
	Halle-bloody-lulia, I say.
	You should know how stupid it is.
	Oh, absolutely. Stupid and corrupt.
	So, thanks for your time.
	We've taken enough. But just very briefly, how long have you been researching this and how did you get into it?
	Excuse me. When I left school, I studied electrical and electronic engineering.
	Now, I happened to be in Aberdeen at the time, and I wanted to work offshore.
	But before I could work offshore, I had to do a survival certificate, and they were only running them every three or four months.
	So I had to wait three or four months.
	But having left college and with qualifications, I didn't want to sit and do nothing.
	So I decided to take on a job.
	And coincidentally, looking in the paper, there happened to be an advert for, believe it or not, trainee croupiers.
	In a casino. I thought, I've never seen that.
	I still quite fancy that.
	So I went and enjoyed and I loved it.
	I actually ended up staying.
	It was 21 years.
	I ended up with a really good career and the industry has various grades of license and you progress through the ranks.
	I obtained my highest ranking certificate.
	I ended up a general manager and also a company director.
	I worked for large PLCs and had a very, very successful career.
	Unfortunately, after 21 years, the PLC that I worked for had informed all the general managers that they were selling the company.
	So there was only realistically two potential buyers, which I wasn't really keen on working for a PLC, these PLCs, and I thought, no, I'll go elsewhere.
	So I decided to go work for a private club, a casino, with a couple of directors who I found out after a year were criminals.
	They were failing to comply with things, and as my license was in danger as a general manager, I had to leave.
	So I left to protect myself.
	Now, the industry was regulated at the time by the government, and if a general manager leaves, we had to explain why I was leaving, and they had found out that for several years they had been incompetent, Because they had allowed these directors to break the law.
	Now, at the time, they were trying to increase the industry and take on these super casinos, and the Cabinet Minister who dealt with it was Tessa Jowell, who's since passed away.
	But she dealt personally with my case as well, and she basically hung me out to dry.
	They were aware that the government were negligent.
	They were aware that there was crimes being committed, but they could not let the public know.
	So they actually covered it up.
	I lost everything, career, job, everything, money.
	I lost everything, including bankruptcy.
	But to overcome that, I decided to use what I had left savings to go and challenge these directors for the remainder of my contract, which was fixed term.
	I went to the court, obtained a solicitor, as you do, you think you require a solicitor.
	That was the biggest mistake I ever made.
	But when I went to court, I found out how corrupt the system is.
	And then when I'd run out of money, I ended up bankrupt.
	I had to wait till my bankruptcy had been obviously finished.
	And I went back to the court to fight with this as an individual, took on the judges, and I realised how corrupt the system was.
	I then studied and found out with this, spoke to lots of people, done a lot of research.
	It took me 10, 11 years fighting this, and I found out that you will never, ever in their system beat them.
	Ever. Now, we're not here to knock the system, because I like the system.
	The system has actually been set up over centuries, and it's great.
	The problem we have with the system is the individuals who run it.
	They're corrupt, and they're criminals.
	Simply put, that it is.
	If we had the right people operating in the system, the system will protect the people.
	But if you allow criminals to run the system, it will never work.
	Now, because they don't even comply with their own rules, they'll just do whatever they want to protect big business, vested interests, big companies.
	Now, they're not there for the people.
	Now, having decided that obviously you can never beat them, I've spoken to many people and we looked our way around it and said, well, can you do this?
	And we came up with ideas and said, well, we have a right to convene our own courts, which means you're removing yourself from the system and you can set up.
	Now, by doing that and then taking the ownership of the legal title, it's great.
	They can't do anything to you.
	So we set that up and from there it's just escalated.
	It's grown arms and legs.
	Everyone uses this, but the crucial point is by setting this up, it's only set up to provide a lawful remedy.
	And the thing is, even when we highlight the crimes that's been committed with the birth certificate, we've actually went into court and offered the judges and prosecutors the chance to dispute ownership of the fiction and to explain what's happened, but they can't answer it.
	They actually turn away. They won't do it because it confirms that the government are committing crimes against the people every day.
	In the courts with birth certificates they confirm it.
	The system is so well rigged but the common law court is the only one that can actually obtain ownership of the fiction and that's what sets us apart.
	And because we've set up a system for registration for base leases, living births, for the births and the declarations, that then gives us a database.
	This is centrally for worldwide and countries can use this and it's applicable to everyone.
	So as I said, I came from a casino background initially.
	I was successful there.
	But then probably for the last 16, 15, 16 years, I've been dealing with this issue.
	We've had many, many people helping us over the time ago.
	We deal with people internationally as well.
	But basically, Commonwealth Court effectively is the people.
	It's not an individual.
	It can never be an individual because the common law court is a court and it's a jury of 12 people.
	Always. So therefore the jury dictates the decisions of the court and dictates what they're going to do.
	So it's all about living men and women.
	You can't have one individual.
	It's all about that. So effectively we don't have...
	It's not a company. It's not a company or anything.
	It's a lawful process and it's something that exists for all people.
	Anyone can use this.
	So when you refer to the state and we convene cases and we're taking on the state, it's always the people.
	We the people. Because the people are the common law court.
	And that's what sets it apart and that's why the government don't like it.
	Because they have to challenge the people and they will not do that.
	Well, thank goodness for the work you're doing, John.
	And commonlawcourt.com is the place to go.
	I'm sure a lot of people have learned a lot of things in the last, what, hour or so that we've been chatting.
	Well, hopefully they've picked it up and made it as simple as possible, but it's down to basic principles.
	As I said, cause no harm loss or injury, and it's there to protect the people.
	So if the people are looking for a solution and they're looking for help within the system, it's not going to change their life, their day-to-day lives, but it will offer them the protection simply by establishing their position as a living man or a living woman.
	And it's open to everyone.

▲