All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 28, 2021 - David Icke
01:32:51
Common Law Court's John Smith talks with David Icke about how businesses can reopen under common law
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, let's get started.
Many thanks!
I hope you enjoyed this video. If you did, leave a like and subscribe. Thanks!
Hello everybody, I'm going to talk to John Smith again at thecommonlawcourt.com
When we chatted a few weeks ago, it got tremendous interest and feedback.
And so I'm going to get some updates and some expansion on what we talked about before.
For those who are new to this, I'm going to put...
The first interview and all the background to common law with this video on davidlake.com.
But just very briefly, there are two types of law.
One's called common law and one's called statute law.
And they're not the same. Statute law, and I go in the first video into its background and so does John.
Statute law is the law of contracts.
It has to contract between consenting corporations.
And this is why every government, government agency, council, council department, The Houses of Parliament, the police, the courts, and so on, are all private corporations.
They don't want us to know that, but they are.
You can prove it.
They're private corporations, and they have to be.
Because statute law, which is coming out of governments in legislation and regulations and all this stuff, that is the law, like I say, of government.
Contracts between contracting corporations and so they have to make all these things like the police etc corporations for statute law to operate and so how do they contract with people well they turn people into corporations so when you take out a birth certificate or your parents do The government creates a fictitious corporation in your name through that birth certificate.
And as my common-law, living, breathing man name is David Vaughan Icke, so the corporate fiction created in my name through my birth certificate is called Mr.
David Vaughan Icke with the name overwhelmingly used in capital letters.
So the idea is to trick you into thinking the living, breathing David Vorneich is the same as Mr.
David Vorneich. And so you are...
You are...
Standing guarantor if you like with the corporation and you think the corporation is you so when these various institutions that are all private corporations try to impact upon your life you think that they can because the corporate entity which they're actually interacting with is you the living breathing man or woman and it's not so common law works Living, breathing men and women.
And basically, it's do no harm, cause no loss, cause no injury, simple things like that.
Basic human decency.
And as long as you stick to that, common law's okay with you.
But you can't control the fine detail of people's lives with common law.
So they've created the statute law in a way that I and John talk about in the first video so that they can introduce legislation, rules and regulations over every aspect of your life.
But it's not your life.
It's a fictitious corporation they claim is you.
It's utter fraud on an extraordinary scale.
So The police cannot have jurisdiction over you the living breathing man and woman unless you contract with them and there's various tricks which again John and me talk about in the first video that they use to make you contract even though you don't realize you are which is fraud in itself but if you don't contract with them They have no jurisdiction over you.
And all this COVID law and all this other statute law, it's not applicable under common law to living, breathing men and women.
And since we talked last time with John, There has been a massive expansion in the number of people who are going down this route of operating under common law and not contracting with the state, not contracting with The police.
Because all the police, like I say, are private corporations.
I live on the Isle of Wight, just off the south coast of England.
So you have Hampshire and Isle of Wight police.
That is a private corporation.
So the police are actually the equivalent of private security guards employed by a private corporation.
And if you don't contract with them, They have no jurisdiction over you.
And it just opens up a whole massive possibility for people to disconnect from the fascism of the state.
So, like I say, lots of things have happened.
There's been an enormous expansion in the operation of the common law court.
And more and more people are supporting this route.
to disconnect from the state.
So I talked to John earlier and let's see what's going on.
Well, John Smith, welcome back.
A lot's happened since we last chatted.
And you mentioned in that interview about the fact that you were seeking to use common law to get children, I think it was five children, out of, shall we say, captivity by the state.
And you've managed it.
So let's start with that story.
Yeah, well, this one's the first for the UK, as far as we're aware.
It's certainly the first using this argument.
But what had happened is five siblings were removed from a family.
Now, I think when they were first taken, the ages range between four and fifteen.
Unfortunately, these children had been brought up together and were self-schooled at home.
They'd never been to the state school.
The two youngest didn't have state certificates.
And the long and short of it was the social services in Scotland, they're actually called the Children's Reporter, that they got wind of this and removed the children.
It was a bit messy, and under no circumstances should have these children been removed.
So the parents can actually contact themselves to find out basically what they can do about it.
Now, all the children were actually registered under common law.
So simply put, that means that every one of them is a living being, a living child.
Now, having done that, the state will have attached a legal title to them, a legal fiction.
Now, when they'd done so, the state had committed fraud.
Now, the use of the legal fiction is also fraudulent.
Because it's fraudulent, we are allowed to obtain ownership of the legal title because contract law within their own system states that if fraud has been committed, it voids everything.
So the state birth certificate is void and that meant that the legal fiction they created was also void.
So therefore, the state cannot use it without committing fraud.
And crimes against the people.
So when we'd actually set up the Common Law Court, we spoke to many people, it was decided that the rightful owner of a legal title should be the individual that was given the birth name.
Now, to confirm yourself as owner of the fiction, what you would need to do is confirm, first of all, that you do exist under Common Law, which means that you are required to make a birth declaration.
So in doing so, They then confirm that they are in fact living, and once they've confirmed that fact, they can then make an application for ownership of the legal title on the site.
And because they have preferential ownership rights, they would automatically be given the ownership of the legal title.
Now, that's the way the system works on the common law.
So effectively, You have a living entity recorded under common law with the birth declaration, and then you have the legal title.
Now, what had happened is the children's reporter, the state authorities, decided to remove the children.
So they actually took the five children away.
But the very next day, they went to court and they presented or they requested orders from a judge in Scotland, which is called a sheriff.
So the sheriff was presented with information by the social services and the sheriff then made an order for the removal of each child.
But when the sheriff made the order, what he did is he made the order not against the child, the living child, he made the order against a legal title, which was a contractual agreement.
So effectively, he completed the order, issued the order through the court, but it's only for a legal title.
Now, the social services, the children of Porta, then took that paper and attached the title to a living child, which they're not allowed to do.
That's slavery. But they then use that to keep the children.
Now, when I spoke to the parents, they had actually recorded their children's births.
But because of the concern of what had happened with the state, the father was taken away and put in prison.
And the mother had never been to court before, never dealt with anything like this in the past.
She didn't know what to do.
So we decided after discussing with the parents that both parents were prepared to give up ownership of the legal titles to myself.
So I made the appropriate application in the Commonwealth site.
And I obtained ownership of the legal titles.
So effectively what we have now is you have five living children who exist under common law and separate from them you have myself in a different city completely miles and miles away.
I have ownership of five legal titles.
So what we did is I actually wrote to the children's reporter and I lodged a case within their own system for damages and I confirmed that they had used my property, my personal property, which is illegal titles.
They've been using that without consent.
They've been committing fraud and to make it worse, they were trying to attach my property onto five children.
Now, in doing so, they were also breaching the Slavery Act, because they were consigning these people to slavery.
They were attaching a slave title, binding them into the system under their authority.
Now, with this letter, I had pointed out that I was the owner of these legal titles.
They were not attached to the children, and therefore, the fact that they've done so, they've breached various pieces of their own legislation, Not to mention common law, but obviously they've bound these children to slavery.
So therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they must cease immediately the use of my legal titles.
I'm aware that they've tried to attach the titles to children and they've removed them.
So therefore, the children must be returned immediately and no further action taken against them.
But I did point out the fact that they've actually taken these titles and tried to attach it to the children He says it is slavery.
However, because the titles remained with myself, the ownership, what they have as a court order, which is not valid, so they cannot remove the children.
And the fact they had done so, I pointed out that that was actually kidnapping.
So we have sort of guaranteed evidence that the state were kidnapping children, which never went down very well.
So what had happened, they decided how to try and get out of it.
It took them about two or three months, and they tried to engage with the parents, but the parents had stuck to their guns, and eventually they returned all five children.
So I think it was four weeks ago.
They were actually all returned. So the family is now complete and all at home.
The children, two in particular, had a difficult time while in care.
They were all split up and they did get some bullying from older children they were in care with.
So they're a bit of a difficult time, but they're now all delighted to be home.
And this is the first time that this has happened.
For your viewers just now, the thing to point out is the state were trying to obtain a fraudulent court order which the co-op were actually happy to provide.
Now, in doing so, it means they're both complicit in kidnapping children, and when they had issued the court order, the court order was issued only for a title.
It was literally a contractual agreement.
They had no authority or no valid order to remove a child, but that's what they did between the courts and the children's reporter.
They took them away. As soon as we took the title away from the children, And someone like myself owned it, it confirmed that the court order was not applicable to the children.
Because the court order they had was for my property, which I had.
It had nothing to do with the children.
And when that was pointed out, it was also confirmed that what they were doing was actual kidnapping.
So they didn't like it.
So as I said, it took them two or three months, but they have returned the children now.
So, I mean, I've written about this in my books for decades, the scandalous number of children that are stolen by the state, as you say, kidnapped by the state, social services, etc.
And not just in Britain, but around the world.
But every time they do it...
They're using the legal fiction, and they're not actually referring to the living, breathing child.
So every time they take a child away from their parents, that's fraudulent, right?
Yeah. It's fraud, it's slavery, and it's kidnapping.
Effectively, as we use, I use many occasions, as I'm not sure if I've told you before, if we look at, to make it easy for your viewers, I'm at a certain age just now, which many of the people will be, they may recall a program in the 70s, which was Roots.
It was based on slavery in America.
But the lead character in the story was a slave called Kunta Kinte.
Now, what happened, he was bound into slavery, he was taken over from Africa, and when someone had purchased him for the plantation, they took him back to the plantation and in the charge hand, then issued them all with new names.
Now, when they issued the lead character, the name Kuta Kinte, they said to him, your name is now Toby.
Now, he wouldn't accept it.
So, while there was a bit of discussion as to whether he would accept the slave name, he says no.
So, they strung him up, tied him up, and they lashed him with a whip.
And eventually, they kept saying, what is your name?
Tell me your name. To which the slave would reply, Kunta Kinte.
So, they would continue beating him.
Now, eventually, when he was near death, and he was hanging there on the rope, being whipped, the charge-handed says to him, what is your name?
Tell me your name. The slave tambourine said, Toby, my name is Toby.
As soon as he did that, he became the slave.
Now, that meant that obviously he was bound to the slave owner.
The slave owner was in control and the slave rules apply.
Now, this is exactly what happens to children.
So what happens is they were given a birth name by the parents.
So they have a birth name.
However, the state wants to bind them into slavery.
Remove them or do anything they want to them.
So what they do is the state will give them a slave name.
It's capital letters, it's supper case letters, they will do that as they get older, they obtain titles as well.
But this is illegal fiction.
So when they wish to remove a child, they use the legal fiction to issue an order And then what they do is they take that order and the slave name and attach it to a living body.
They then say, right, you are this body, so we're going to remove you.
But they can't do that.
That's slavery. And you'll hear that many people go into co-op and try to stand and argue in co-op.
And when they ask their name in a co-op in the statutory system, the judge will say, or the clerk will say, can you confirm your name, please?
They will ask you to confirm your name.
And if you were to turn around and say, For example, my name is John Smith.
I'm a living man. They can't deal with living men.
They have no authority to deal with living men.
So the courts are only dealing with corporations.
They cannot do that. Now, while they may accept the fact that they cannot deal with a living man, they immediately change to say, no, that's not acceptable.
We need you to confirm, are you Mr.
John Smith? And they will ask me to accept the title.
It has been known on many occasions, I've seen it myself in co-op, if you refuse to accept the title, they'll either kick you out of co-op, they'll find you in contempt and throw you in the cells, they'll charge you, or they'll just dismiss the case, get rid of you, they'll make a ruling in your absence.
They do this because basically they can only deal with the legal title.
And as I said, when people have stood up in court and said, no, I'm not accepting that, The judge won't like it.
So he will penalise and punish individuals for not accepting it.
So this is where the legal title comes in.
They need you to accept the legal title so that they can obviously issue a judgement against you or penalise you.
And it's the same with the removal of children.
They needed to attach the title to the children.
But if I had left it and says that the children do not have a title, but their parents have them and it remains in the family, It's very easy for the state to say, well, of course you have it.
It's a family, so your family are here.
So what we wanted to do is exaggerate it and show them exactly what we're doing.
So we took the titles from the children, removed it completely, and I stay approximately 100 miles from where they stay.
So I took the titles away.
So I'm in a different area altogether.
I have ownership of the title, and I'm now not connected with the children.
So there's a clear break, and it's got nothing to do with the family.
So when I put in a claim saying that they're attacking my property and they're using my property without consent, they then panic.
Because not only is it fraudulent, which is what they're also doing, is they have no valid order to remove the children, which proves kidnapping, which is why we've done it that way.
So let me get me head around this bit.
You go to court.
The judge asks you to accept that you are The name of the legal fiction so that they can proceed in their corporate contract system.
And you don't.
You refuse.
If they prosecute you for standing by the fact that you're a living, breathing man or woman, that prosecution's unlawful, surely?
Yes, without a doubt.
Unfortunately, what you'll find is when the prosecution and the The system that they're in, they will get the backup of their superiors.
So the whole system does not exist for justice.
It's basically there for profit, and the judges all stand together.
So when you take an argument, because it's clear as daily, when they do not have authority over you, authority of jurisdiction, which you've proven as a living man, the decision they make is void.
It doesn't stand. Now if you were to challenge that and go up to a higher court, because it's exposing the system, the judges will not accept it.
So we'll just try to dismiss it and we'll get rid of you all the way along the line.
They just use the system against you.
That's the way it works. So let's look at the impact and the reason here for lawyers and barristers.
You are told you need legal representation in a court.
That you can't represent yourself and all that.
You need legal representation.
So the lawyers and the barristers, they are part of a system, the very system that works with legal fictions and not living, breathing men and women.
And so once you are represented by a lawyer or a barrister, you are accepting jurisdiction of the system, right?
Yes. The solicitors, barristers, the QCs, they're all appointed and worked through the Bar Association.
And because they're there, their first most aim is to protect the existing system.
That's their priority. You would think, because you're employing them to represent you, they have to protect you, but that's not the case.
First of all, they protect the bar association, the court system, and then what they do is then protect the public, and only after that do they then protect you.
So you're third in line.
Their foremost authority is to protect themselves and the system.
To make sure that it's intact and nobody can harm it.
So if you're employing somebody within the system, it's a complete waste of time because all they will do is they will obviously use the system to give them the result that they want.
Now, if it's in your benefit, fine.
Chances are, most occasions it won't be.
And even if you were successful enough to obtain a decision in your favour, chances are, if it's financially linked, You'll probably only get a fraction of what you're entitled to.
So basically, the system decides how they're going to operate, how they control the system, and what they will do for the people.
If you stand out with the system, they cannot deal with you, and this is what they're having a problem with now, because many, many people are now standing up within the system, and the judges are being found out.
Not only that, but the solicitors embarrass us as well.
Yeah, I mean... There's so many mums and dads and parents who've been represented by lawyers, executive barristers, in the family courts who can testify to the fact that they weren't representing them and their child, they were representing the state.
Now the big thing obviously now is People losing their businesses, losing their employment.
How can common law be used, John, to open businesses outside of the fascist regulations of, quote, COVID? Yeah.
Well, we've got a couple of examples to highlight.
There was an individual I saw recently over the last week or so, happened to run a gym in, I think, Liverpool area.
Now, to be quite honest, I don't know who the guy was.
It was just someone had followed me a video just so I can watch it.
But the guy was actually quite good, so I was impressed with him.
He was at his gym and there was many clients using the gym.
Now, what had happened, there was four police officers that came in.
Three of them stood in the background and one of them, I believe, might have been a sergeant.
He actually spoke to the gym owner.
There was also two council employees But only one of them spoke, again, to the owner, the gym owner, who was a female.
Now, these two individuals spoke to the gym owner, and he basically stood up and said, look, my gym, my business, I'm the sole owner.
I don't have a contract with you.
He says, you can't do anything.
I'm not owning my business.
That's it. I'm doing nothing. I'm causing no one any harm.
I'm allowed to open.
I stand and look on the law.
Now, there's a slight difference.
If the police had actually been a little bit more clued up, he would have actually lost.
And it's the same with the council employee.
But what he's actually done is he stood up and put forward a good argument.
But it all hinged on one thing.
And the one thing he said, and he kept repeating, I do not have a contract with you.
There's no contract.
I have no contract.
I'm allowed to open. Well, that's actually false.
Because what had happened is the individual consound has a registered company with Companies House.
And when he registered his company with Companies House, he stated they will conduct business within their system.
And he signed off to state that he's a company director.
So that binds him into a contract.
Now, as part of that contract and a director of a company, he has to engage with the authorities.
And the statutory rules apply.
So if he was to push this, he would lose the argument because he has contracted with him in the system.
So it was not quite good, but the end result was they left him.
And the council employee wasn't having it, but she said she'd go away and she'd send them a letter the next day to point to exactly where he stood and what his obligations were.
So that was fine, but I don't know what happened after that was about a week ago.
But the guy will lose because he's still in their system.
You cannot stand up and say, I don't contract with you, I don't have a contract, if you're already in the system, because he has a registered company there and the rules apply.
Now, if we look at a second situation here, we have a company who had previously been in the statutory system, was aware of what was going on and decided to remove themselves from it.
So they removed themselves a company from Companies House.
They registered the company with the Commonwealth Corp.
Now what they then did is they continued operating, but they run a takeaway shop.
They've had multiple views online as well, and they've done quite well.
But what has happened is the husband was a takeaway shop.
The husband was serving with his staff and they had no masks.
There was no social distancing.
The customers came in, stood for the one who didn't have any masks, and they were okay.
So they continued. The authorities didn't like it, were aware.
I think there may have been one or two complaints from the public about what he was doing, and the police had come in as well.
But each time they came in, he stood up and said, I stand under common law.
I have no contract with you.
I'm not consenting with you.
I do nothing wrong.
I do not fall under your legislation.
And when the police asked him, he said, I do not understand.
He left it. Now, they couldn't do anything to him.
This went on every second day they were coming in.
And he had four, five, six visits.
Now, he kept sticking to his guns.
They couldn't do anything to him.
They couldn't actually close him down.
They couldn't do anything because he was out of the system.
And then they resorted then, because they couldn't do anything, they resorted to issuing fines through the post.
So the fines were coming in through the post.
I said, it doesn't matter. So we left it.
And then what happened is they then came in for a visit, the health authorities and the police.
So they served them with various notices and they came in to try and throw their waiter out, but it didn't stop them because they're still opening.
Which is fine. But then what we've done is we've prepared some paperwork.
Now, the paperwork on LinkedIn is actually quite good.
And having been at the court recently in London, I'd spoken to quite a few people to point to one or two things about the lockdown.
And these individuals concerned decided the very next day to use the information that were given in situations that were approached by the police.
And it worked on both occasions, and they couldn't believe it.
But if we go back to the shop owner, what we've said to the shop owner is if someone comes in, when they first come in, the police, when they first come in and they are starting to speak to you about COVID and various other things, regardless of whether it's in a shop or even outside, the first thing to do is stop and ask them to produce their warrant card.
Politely, so you can say, look, I'm sorry, before we start chatting just now, can I see your warrant card?
Now, most police will not give you the warrant card.
Occasionally, what will happen is when you ask for a warrant card, they may nod their head and say, yeah, yeah, certainly, it's not a problem, and they'll turn like that and they'll show you their lapel and they'll point to the badge number.
That's not the warrant card.
They're trying to obviously con you.
So you have a right to say, no, no, no, I need your warrant card.
Now, if they're in uniform, they have at all times to carry their warrant card.
If they don't, it's a serious disciplinary matter, and it could be a striking offence.
Now, under normal conditions, they have no right to refuse to allow you to inspect their warrant card.
If they are dealing with a riot with 20 people, not a fight, they're not going to take out their warrant card in the middle of a fight, but provided it's a reasonable request and there's not an issue, they are required to show you the warrant card.
Now, the thing about the warrant card is quite good.
Because when they show you the warrant card, they may take it out and flash it quickly and take it away.
Say, no, no, I didn't see that.
Can I see that, please? Make sure that they open and you get to read it.
But basically, it's simple.
It shows the photograph of the individual.
And then up at the top of the card, it will say Police Constable.
And then underneath, it will tell you the police force they're connected to.
Now, the good way to do that and just to establish your position is when you see the warrant card, thank them and say, thank you very much.
Constable, right?
So that's it. How can I help you?
Now, the next thing we'll do is say, right, we're here about COVID or not wearing a mask or whatever.
You can then stop them and say, hold on a moment, before we proceed, I would just like to clarify a couple of points.
I'm not sure if you're aware.
You've identified yourself as a constable.
Unfortunately, you're now impersonating a constable, which is a criminal offence.
You're enforcing statutory legislation, which you cannot do as a constable.
And therefore, if you're enforcing statutory legislation, that is a criminal offence.
If you look at the Police Act 1996, section 90, it covers impersonation.
And that means if anyone is wearing a uniform or pretending to be a constable, but they're not acting as a constable, it's a criminal offence.
So they can be prosecuted within their own system.
Now, with this, you can face, I think it's up to a six-month prison sentence, and also obtain a fine.
So that's within the Police Act.
So you can say to them, look, you cannot, obviously, impersonate a constable and get away with it.
You cannot enforce statutory legislation.
You can only do so as an officer, is when you've identified yourself as a constable.
Now, if they turn around and refuse to give you the card, you can say, that's fine, well, what do you want to see me about?
They will then go on about COVID again.
So the first thing you do is say, look, sorry.
He says, as far as I'm aware, he says, you're a constable and therefore you're refusing to show me your card, which is a lot of legal requirement.
You're now enforcing legislation as an officer.
That means that you're impersonating a constable, which is a criminal offence.
Not only that, in relation to the impersonation, if we look at the Criminal and Justice Act from 2015, basically under Section 26, it says that the individuals concerned, if they fail to act according to the requirements, it's an offence.
So if they are guilty of impersonating a constable, this is to assist in a situation, they can be found guilty.
Now, not only guilty under this section, But under this section, it carries a prison term not exceeding 14 years.
So therefore, when they've identified as a constable, they cannot act as a police officer.
They cannot enforce legislation.
And if you point out to the constable, look, I'm sorry, I believe you're making a mistake.
You've identified as a constable, you're now acting as an officer.
Constables cannot force legislation.
And if this continues, I'm going to lodge a complaint.
Now, if you lodge a complaint, a crime report, they will be prosecuted themselves under their own legislation.
And as I said, under the Criminal Injustice Act, they could actually be facing 14 years in jail.
So it all comes down to basically who you're dealing with.
Are you dealing with a constable or are you dealing with an officer?
And if obviously they haven't identified that, what you need to do is identify who you're dealing with because you can catch them out that way.
Right, so a constable is about common law.
An officer is about statute, corporate, contract law.
And so if they are operating as a constable, they can't do statute law.
If they're working as an officer, they have no jurisdiction over a living, breathing man or woman.
So it's like, which way do you want to lose?
Yeah, yeah.
But the thing is, you have to be aware that there's a difference between the two, and you have to be aware that even within their own legislation, they will be prosecuted.
But if you point out to them that you're aware of the legislation, just say, look, you've identified as a constable because of senior card.
Therefore, you cannot act as an officer and you're not allowed to force legislation.
If you do so, I'm going to lodge a complaint.
In fact, under this act, it carries up to a 14-year prison sentence.
So that would get them to back off.
The other way to do it is if they don't show you the card, the warrant card, which they don't like doing, because it confirms the constables, so they'll try not to, and you say, no, no, I'm entitled to see it, I would like to see your card.
If they turn around and say no, you've got them straight away, because they're not acting as a constable.
So therefore, they will act as a police officer, and as a police officer, they have no authority over you unless you consent to it.
But the point is, if you've asked them to confirm with a constable, that's what they're employed and that's what the card says.
So the fact that they're refusing to show you the warrant card is a crime in itself.
And again, you can use the fact under the Police Act 1996, they are impersonating a constable.
Because they're wearing a uniform, they're leading you to believe they are a constable, but they're refusing to show you the card, so they're actually an officer, which is a criminal offence.
Okay, so if you are a registered company with a system, you're in the system.
How do people go about, and from what I understand, talking to you on the phone a few days ago, this is quite a simple process.
How do they go about setting up their business as a common law business?
Well, common law, the simple basics of common law is you need to establish that you're living, so therefore there's a declaration of your birth.
Once you submit the declaration of birth, that confirms that you're living entity.
Now, what we also advise, you don't have to, but what we advise doing is claiming ownership of the fictitious name, which is the legal entity.
It costs nothing, but in making the application, you then take ownership of the legal title that's attached to you.
Now, once you've confirmed these two things, What you can do on the site is you can look under the headings at the top.
The section you're looking for is deeds.
And under deeds, you'll find all the forms that you complete.
There is one for a company register.
So if you look down to that, follow that, it gives an explanation as to what's required.
There's a link at the bottom of the page that takes you to the required form.
And then all you need to do is input your personal information, click select at the bottom of the page, and that's it.
You're a registered company.
With the company just now, there's various invocations.
For example, With the company, you're out with the statutory system.
Now, technically, that means you're no longer applicable for paying tax because you're out of their system.
So if you choose to operate out of the system, you don't pay tax.
Now, what we also say is, bearing in mind, I would say that the common law court and common law is more stringent than the statutory system.
The statutory system is all about money, but when you act and behave under common law, it's based on honour.
So if you're running a business under common law, you have to look after the public and make sure they're okay and they're protected, and you have to protect your employees.
Now, their employees cannot be worse off than they would in the statutory system.
So they're looking for certain benefits, which they already have, and you have to pay them at least a minimum wage.
They say you have to do that, but bearing in mind if you're not paying tax, you can actually look after your staff and pay them more.
But you have to do certain things, and you operate in honour.
Now, when your viewers say, well, hold on a minute, there's a problem here, because we're speaking about companies, and we're speaking about common law.
Surely that doesn't work.
Well, no, it doesn't work. Because common law, we don't deal with corporations.
However, that's not what we're doing.
What we're doing is saying that you say yourself, you wish to operate a company.
You have confirmed that you're a living man.
And as a living man, you need to earn a living.
If you choose to earn a living by operating a business, you can then make that declaration on the common law co-op.
So what you actually do is you confirm that you are the responsible individual for the company.
So you put your name down.
So it's your company.
What you then do is you then identify a trading name for the entity.
So you can use any business name you want.
You can use that and establish what the company is.
And then you complete the rest of the form.
You'll then be given a trading name, a reference number, a company number under common law.
So therefore, you can operate companies under common law.
But technically, it's the responsible individual which held accountable because they're operating it.
But the same rules apply if you can form any sort of company under common law.
It's just obviously we need someone to be accountable for the company.
So, if you move your company to common law, this COVID, well, destruction of business no longer applies to you?
No, it doesn't. Statutory legislation is not applicable.
So anything that they have within their system is not applicable under common law.
It doesn't count. And you don't have to comply with it.
And they can't enforce it.
This is what we said earlier on when we spoke with the gym owner in Liverpool.
He had a good argument.
He stated he wanted to stand under common law.
But you cannot stand under common law when you're operating a company under their system registered to company's house because you're part of the system.
It's only when you remove yourself and come out and do operate under common law and make your declaration for the company that you trade under common law that you're okay.
Unfortunately, he's still in the system and he's still held accountable to their rules and regulations.
Common law companies are not.
It is basically the basic principles of common law is ensure you cause no harm, no loss, no injury and ensure you're honourable with contractual dealings.
And that's it in a nutshell. So providing you remain honourable and that you're causing no harm, no loss or injury, you can trade in any sort of sphere you want.
Obviously, bearing in mind you're dealing with the public and possibly employees, so providing you're not causing harm and do what you want, statutory legislation is not applicable to you.
So, what are some of the main mistakes that people make that people should be aware of?
They're trying to go down the...
Well, they are going down the common-law route.
I mean, you've mentioned one, which is your company's registered in the system.
What are some of the maybe individual mistakes that people make that stop them being successful?
I think one of the things you do is if you stand and argue...
I've done this myself when I was learning years ago.
I stood there and said, I stand under common law.
But I was an idiot.
I stood in front of a judge and said, I stand under common law.
And he wasn't interested at all.
In fact, he actually says that I'm not interested.
Now, the judge wasn't interested because I was one individual.
And the point is, there was nothing at all anywhere to prove that I was a living man.
Now, if they turn around and say to me, well, prove who you are, I said a student under common law, I would take you a bank card, I would take you a driving license, a passport, I would have a national insurance card, I would take you a letter and address.
Everything I had was for the legal title.
There was nothing to prove that I was a living man.
Apart from the fact you can actually prod me and say, right, okay, you're a living man.
No one else knew that I existed.
I didn't exist under common law.
So what we've done when we set up the Commonwealth Court, we decided, well, we have to confirm that men and women do exist.
So you have a right to make a declaration to confirm, look, I'm living, I'm here, I do exist.
Confirm when you are born, and we then created the setup.
Now, when you've done that, we have then many, many people applying and making similar declarations.
In fact, just now, because we seem to be quite popular just now, we have declarations from people Thousands and thousands of people from 159 countries in the world.
So there's a huge amount of people using this.
But when you go back in front of a judge now, if I went into a judge, I say, look, I'm a living man.
He'll stop immediately, he paused, and then I hand a birth certificate.
Now, the birth certificate has been issued from a court, which carries with it the authority of the people.
It's a lawful court document bearing a court stamp.
They cannot ignore it.
Now, if they cannot ignore it and it's accepted as a lawful document, it confirms I'm a living man.
So therefore, there's now not a problem.
Unfortunately, many people, when they stand and they take on the authorities, they say, I stand under common law.
I'm a living man. Well, that's fine, but they can't prove it.
The difference is they're standing up and saying I'm a living man without one individual.
They'll never take on the state.
If they submit a declaration and stand with the people, They can say, not only am I a living man, but I can confirm that with my registration number.
Now, if they do that with the common law court, they then stand not as one individual, but they stand with a community under common law of like-minded people, and it runs into tens of thousands of people standing together.
The government will never take on the people.
Then that's the difference.
If you haven't done that and made the submitted your declaration, The same is, you have many groups.
Now look, there's loads and loads of people coming up with ideas and trying to put forward various arguments.
It's quite good. There are many, many good people who have a lot of ideas, but unfortunately for various reasons, Some could be with egos, some could be financial.
They all run these groups for various reasons.
There's a lot of bickering in different groups as well, and at the end of the day, they're not there to help the people.
Now, if you have a system that's working just now, you can use that and you can develop it with other people joining on board, but you then come up with something that works to protect the people.
And again, if you're doing so, you only use the relevant arguments.
There's too many people giving conflicting information, and it's causing a lot of harm, and it's not protecting the people.
Also, you have people using things just now, which is pointless now.
By that, I can refer to something just now.
In relation to, if we look back at Magna Carta, now, the original Magna Carta stands permanently, perpetuities 1215.
It says it's still applicable, can never be changed, can never be altered.
Shortly after 1215, They made amendments to the Charter, and they came out with a new Charter.
So it was varied with a couple of improvements in it, or so they thought.
However, the state had not liked that.
So what the state done over years and centuries, they decided to change the second Magda Garta.
So because it wasn't the original one, and it was something that was created through statute and government later, after the original one, They then started changing the second Magna Carta with statutes and acts of parliament.
So much so that if you say to a judge now, referring to Magna Carta, they will all, without a doubt, say, no, no, it doesn't exist now.
It's been replaced with statute legislation.
No, it hasn't. Not the original one.
It still stands to this day.
Now, with that, there was an article in there whereby it was Article 61, The Barons, if the Crown were crimes against the people of treason, 25 Barons can invoke Article 61, which meant they can stand in lawful rebellion.
Now many people stood with them.
Now that's a brilliant argument, and it's applicable, and effectively the Barons served notes in 2001, which was great, so we're in lawful rebellion.
That does work, it's okay, it's in Magna Carta, it's lawful, it stands, but it's useless.
The reason it's useless is that they will not accept it within their courts.
They say it doesn't exist.
And they stand together, and there's not one court in the country that we've come across will ever accept this.
Magna Carta, the original one, stands in Article 61 as relevant.
It doesn't work. No court will accept it.
And the argument is, no, no, no, it's been replaced with statutes.
Now, Magna Carta was invoked in 2001 with 25 barons.
They signed the petition and put it in.
However, these barons, after signing them out of the carter, have done nothing at all to the people.
I don't know why it was done.
Obviously, we know the reasoning behind it, but they've done absolutely nothing at all for the people.
Many people sign up under their oath and submit a copy to the barons to say that they stand with them.
So what? The barons don't do anything.
The fact you write to the baron, you may as well send a letter to Elvis Presley to tell him, for all the good that he'll do, Basically, the point is the Barons are not interested.
They have never done anything apart from invoking Article 61, and it does not protect and help the people.
So, if you take Article 61 and go into a co-op in front of a judge and say, And lawful rebellion under Article 61 of Magna Carta, they'll just look and shake their head.
They won't accept it.
And if you try to push it, they'll say, well, it doesn't matter.
It's been changed. Statutory legislation to feel this.
It's not. But that's what they say.
And the thing is, you'll never change their opinion.
So if they're going to take that approach, why would you go into court and use that argument?
Because if you go into court with that argument, you're going to lose.
They'll never accept it. And unfortunately, you can't hold them accountable for their decision.
Because you have to go to a higher co-op and they will side with the judges.
So when you go into the co-op or you take on the authorities or you speak to the police or someone, you do not use arguments whether they're right or wrong if you know you're going to lose.
So if you stand and spout off about Article 61, you would be correct and I agree with you.
But if they will not accept it, it makes you look stupid and you're not going to achieve anything.
It's like going in, I keep using the scenario.
It's an easy way to understand it.
If you're in the Wild West and you go into a gunfight, I don't mind going into a gunfight, but you have two guns.
I'm quite happy to hand a gun to the opponent for a gunfight, providing there's no bullets in it.
I'm happy with that.
He says, as soon as you put in a bullet, Your odds shrink.
The more bullets you give them, the more ammunition you have, the less chance you have of coming alive.
It's the same with the co-op. If you go into co-op and you have nine arguments, or 99 arguments under common law, and every one of them is valid and you'll win a case.
Out of the 99, this is on addition to the 99, you have one argument and it's about Magna Carta and Article 61.
The judge will look at your 100 arguments.
He will say, well, look, I've had a look at this.
It's quite lengthy.
I'm not happy about it.
However, he said, look, in relation to Article 61, it's ridiculous because it's been repealed.
Statute legislation repealed it.
So, therefore, it doesn't stand.
The rest of the paperwork is a waste of time.
I'm not accepting that your case is dismissed.
I'm ruling against it. They will not do the 99 arguments.
But you gave them one argument that they will not accept, and that gives them a result.
If you don't give them the Magna Carta argument, and you give them just common law arguments, they can never win that.
And this is what we do at the Commonwealth Court.
Do not give them an argument that they will win.
Even if we're right with Article 61, it doesn't matter.
They have proven they will not accept it.
So if that's the case, don't use it.
But many, many people in public stand up and say, right, I stand under Article 61.
Well, so what? It's not going to do you any good because the state will not accept it, and even if you prove that they're wrong, nobody holds them accountable.
So there's no point in wasting your breath arguing about it.
Okay, so give the Magna Carta a miss and go down the other avenues for common law, you say?
Yeah. Right, now, since we last chatted, a lot of things have happened, and I know the common law court is...
It's really expanding into many things.
I'm just going to read some here.
Common law court healthcare, a common law court medical body, common law constables, and common law money, and common law education.
So what's all that about then, and how will it work?
Starting off with simple ones, I was made aware of a case over the last couple of years.
I didn't actually meet them before, but I'd heard about a couple that were being prosecuted by the state.
They came up with something.
It was a protein scientist who came up with something to develop that can be used to assist in the immune system.
And they had claimed, and rightly or wrongly, that it cured things like cancer.
Now, As far as I'm aware, this thing will tackle about 40 or 50 ailments.
It's basically something called GCMAF, and it's used to develop the immune system and to assist.
Now, rightly or wrongly, what had happened is these individuals had went to the MRHA in the UK and tried to get it backed and licensed.
Now, they didn't have to do that because GCMAF is basically a natural protein.
It's something that everyone has in them, within their body.
It's like part of your body's system to protect yourself.
Now, everyone, I didn't realise, that everyone seemingly gets cancer six times a year.
You never find out, because it's cured all the time, with this GCMAF. Now what happens, it's like the equivalent of a car battery.
So you have a car battery, and your car is performing really well because you've got a fully charged battery.
If your battery in the car is working at half power, your car does not operate correctly, so you start getting problems with the car.
Now what you do to improve the performance of the car is you give it a boost, charge the battery, you then get the battery fully functioning, your car performs well.
The same with GCMAF. GCMAF performs and it will create and boost your immune system, which allows you to fight everything disease in the body.
When, for some reason, Your immune system is failing.
GCMAF is not working properly.
What you can do is boost it.
Now, this girl came up with a scientist, came up with a protein that actually done that.
Now, for that, they were having huge success in treating various people.
And as I said, it covers about 40 different diseases.
But because they tried to take on the state and obviously use this, Big Pharma did not like it.
So they then attacked them, closed down the business, and said they're both in jail in France.
Now, it was only after they were sentenced that I found out what was going on and was asked to help.
So I got involved.
And then because of what they were doing, and the amount of people that we know were obviously feeling and having problems health-wise, we looked at the situation, and now when you see COVID, you cannot, if you have an ailment, you cannot go into a hospital for treatment.
This has been happening.
Many people are dying. You cannot get into a doctor's surgery.
This is to be treated.
Now, bearing in mind, even if you do go into a hospital or a doctor's surgery, they're bombarding you with vaccines and drugs, which are killing you anyway, from the big pharma.
So basically, they're not using natural products.
They're not healing the patients.
It's all about money.
Now, when we spoke to the individuals, actually, during consent, I said, look, this is obviously how it should be working.
So we basically spoke to a few people and decided, no, the people need this.
What we're going to do is set up under common law.
So common law, it's not accountable to their rules and regulations, and you can operate this.
So we've actually set up something called GCMAF. It's a supplement that actually is producing exactly the same now over the last few weeks.
It's only been up a matter of weeks.
But we've actually had a child, a six-year-old child, which is heard about, has literally stopped taking this.
And the child was autistic, never spoke in his life for six years.
The parents give him this, and within two weeks, he's chatting away normally.
He says, you would think, he says, they've never seen it before.
I'd never spoken in six years.
Less than two weeks of this treatment, you're now talking.
And it basically has similar boosts in other ailments as well.
It's basically just a boost to your system.
Now, unfortunately, this has actually cost pennies in relation to chemotherapy.
A course of chemotherapy costs £40,000 for one course.
You normally get three or four courses at £40,000 each.
And then according to government statistics, it will kill 97 people out of 100.
The only three people would actually be cured.
97 would die. They may actually get, they may come through cancer, but what you'll find is it will come back the next year or the year after.
So they will never completely get rid of it.
Whereas, to treat people with GCMath, the official figures they have, based on actual figures, I think they've done about 14,000 people.
They've obviously run all the tests and the papers, they have to back up everything.
Out of this, they were dealing with stage 4 cancers, and it was curing about 82% of people with stage 4 cancer.
So therefore, if you do something like this, and you have It's just the immune system, and it will allow people to live healthily and to combat diseases.
Why should it not be available?
So we've obviously set up, and it's now obviously on our site, we've set up a company, clc.healthcare.
If you go on there, you can actually see that.
But what we've also done as well is that many other people have Other products as well.
So we've started adding one or two other people on there as well.
For example, you can purchase CBD through there as well.
It's all basically natural remedies, but it's not currently available to the people.
Under common law, it is available and you can purchase it through there.
Now, that initially is getting the door open in relation to healthcare because people Are not getting the health care that was required just now.
Under common law, they will be able to do this.
Building on from that, in the near future, what we hope to do is open up clinics, CLC clinics.
So the clinics will be equivalent to doctor surgeries.
Whereby we will have doctors, we'll have medical practitioners in there, nurses and the like, and we'll treat it as a clinic so when people go in for treatments, they can do so under common law and they'll be treated by the doctors.
We won't be dealing with big pharma, but based on natural remedies.
And again, this will be free to the public as well.
So these are the sort of things we're looking at just now under the healthcare of developing the system and making healthcare available to the public.
I mean, it's extraordinary when you look at it that people are not allowed to make their own choices on how they treat a problem, a health problem they've got.
I mean, it's fascism.
I mean, it's just ridiculous.
Well, we did, Gerald, we're jumping subjects.
You did mention there are things which we'll go on to speak about.
You mentioned, obviously, something like education earlier was one of the things we're looking at.
To let people know and understand about education, I'm probably one of the first ones that will step forward and say, look, I had a comfortable lifestyle, I was okay, up to 2001.
And then basically everything went pear-shaped.
So I took on the wrong people, I took on the government, and I suffered for it.
But we said, look, we can't do this.
So we started to fight, and we found out about the legal system.
Up until about 2004, I did not know anything about how the system worked.
And the fact that it was illegal fiction, Those corporations, the police were corporations, the courts were there as a corporation, they weren't there for justice.
All these things I never knew about.
I never had to think about it.
I didn't know. Now obviously, I've then found out and studied and worked with a lot of people and found out, so we've developed a system here.
However, if you look at what's currently happening just now, the majority of people, including adults, haven't got a clue of what's going on.
They don't understand. Now, if you speak about things like what's currently going on, this is right, we're coming out of lockdown, we'll be okay in a couple of months, everything goes back to normal, we'll be fine.
This is here for years.
They speak about vaccines as well, not about vaccines and wearing the masks and things like that.
It's ludicrous what they've done through obviously the media, the state media and what they're rolling out and the people are actually, the line they're feeding them of what they have to do, it's actually killing people.
They're killing people just now with what they're doing.
And again, people are actually having problems just now, it says health problems anyway, let alone vaccines and COVID and things like that.
They're actually having health problems, but they now no longer have anywhere to be treated.
And again, prior to that, if you were looking for treatment, you're going in, but the only treatments they're giving is through big pharma.
When they treat cancer, it's either radiotherapy or chemotherapy.
I had, I lost a cousin within the last few years, had a very, very difficult time for four years fighting cancer.
She left a young family as well, and the last year in particular, with the chemotherapy, it was disgusting, the way she was treated, what happened to her, and she was in pain.
She lost all her hair, she had no energy, and she struggled for a year really, really badly.
That's ridiculous, and yet, if something else available you can use, It costs a fraction of the price and it causes no pain, no harm.
So you should be having access to this.
Big Pharma and the government are saying you're not allowed these things.
They take what you can and cannot use.
It's the same when it started off with Rockefeller in America.
They basically created the system there by taking over the hospitals, setting this up and using Big Pharma to establish that.
So they set up the system there, Big Pharma, and they controlled the doctors and that.
And the doctors basically were told what they can and can't do.
And it happens now.
If the doctors speak up and it's against state policy, they lose their job and their license.
Yeah, that's why so many doctors and medical staff have been so silent on what's actually happening with this COVID scam, rather than telling the truth of what's actually happening.
On that point, John, We're obviously moving towards, well, they'd ideally want mandatory vaccinations, but they're going as near as dammit anyway with this vaccine passport.
If you don't have a vaccination passport that says you've been vaccinated with a vaccine that's not a vaccine and it's going to manipulate your DNA, then you can't do this, you can't do that.
I mean, you know... People like the foreign secretary in Britain have even played the idea out that it's possibly going to be compulsory to go to the supermarket.
So how do these vaccine passports and their ideal mandatory vaccinations, how do they play out from a common law point of view?
Well there's a couple of points to make for your viewers just now as you think of it.
When you have If you ask a simple question, who protects the people?
Well, the answer is nobody.
Because there's nobody here.
You would think that we have MPs, Parliament and politicians, are there to protect the people and look after our interests.
Parliament is a registered company.
The politicians are registered companies.
If you ask your MP and you're having a problem, it could be vaccination or anything, if you speak to your MP and ask them a question, Never ever will you see an MP giving you a straight answer.
They don't answer. They just give you the spiel, which is obviously coming from headquarters, the company spiel.
They don't answer questions.
They're not held accountable for anything they're doing, and they're harming people.
Now, if these politicians are in a position to be given the position by the people And they're not doing what they should be doing and they're not answering and they're not held accountable.
Why are they there in the first place?
They shouldn't be there. They're doing nothing to help the people.
Now, Well, these politicians, they're putting out things like, they've told us before, there's not going to be these vaccine passports.
Excuse my French, but...
We know they are, though. Yeah, they are.
I said, but the thing is, that's just people I've given you, but it changed us.
That's what I'm saying. They just lie permanently.
But the point is, it is coming.
Now, what you have to think about is, look, how are you going to stop this?
Now, under their system, this is what they're doing.
But what we're actually doing is one of the other things with the Commonwealth Co-op.
Is we actually are very, very close to setting up and having our own enforcement, which will be equivalent as constables under common law.
Now, we're dealing with people just now on the edge.
We have substantial numbers, and I'm not speaking about even a few hundred, I'm speaking about thousands.
We have, they're willing to take the position.
Now, we have training sorted out, which is only a 2-day training course.
But bearing in mind, the majority of these people that are using are either ex-army Ex-police as well, because we have many police coming to us, and even members of the public.
So basically they're trained to a certain degree anyway.
Some of them have been in the forces of the police service for years.
They're joining in just now, so we're obviously polishing them off, giving some additional training in relation to law, and after a course they will then be appointed and they will have a uniform.
So what we're hoping to do is get these out throughout the UK. So wherever you are in the UK, you will see these constables out on the streets with a uniform.
They'll be trained up and they'll be everywhere.
Now, the constables will be acting as constables.
They're not there to enforce legislation.
They're not there to work for the government.
They are there only to assist the people and to protect the people.
So therefore, This is when people are struggling in relation to an issue, say something like vaccination, and there's a problem, they have no right or authority to vaccinate anyone.
So therefore, if someone is struggling or being threatened, they can call on a constable, and a constable will come out to confirm the position and support them under common law.
So they will be there, and we'll have them all over the country.
Now, we're actually speaking just now, we're well down the line, the training's open now, We've actually got the numbers, so we're just a way to try and arrange this in the near future.
When we do that, we'll be notifying everyone, including government, the politicians and the chief constables from various forces, what we're doing, we'll work with them, this is why we're here, this is what we're doing.
Now, bearing in mind these constables will be appointed by the people and will carry the authority of the people and the answer to the people.
They don't answer to the state.
They have nothing to do with the state.
They're there for the people and it's the people that carry the authority in this country.
So this is going to be happening in the near future.
Now it's based on what the state are doing and what they're actually trying to roll out.
It's not only in this country but worldwide, the way they're treating people.
There is a system here and you don't have to break away.
You can work, this is within a country, and still work with the existing system.
But what you need to do is obviously have something set up so that people can stand together.
In relation to constables and enforcement, we have a system here, we have the training, we have the expertise.
It's just a matter of putting it into place, and I don't think it'll be that long.
We're only speaking a few weeks away, and we will have these constables on the streets in the UK. Wow, fantastic.
Vaccine passports, if they go down that road, mandatory vaccinations, that again is statute, corporate, contract, law.
So just as an example, you want to go into a bar and the bar says you can't come in without a passport.
They are acting unlawfully, right?
Yes. Under common law.
Yeah. The choice is there, you too, is you can either make an issue about it and get support through the common To hold these people accountable.
Now, it means if they are breaking a law and they're committing crimes under common law, they will be held accountable.
So they can be prosecuted as well under common law and even under their own system because under their own system, many of the things they're putting out just now are not actually laws.
They take you to the COVID Act.
The COVID Act, they keep referring to and say, right, okay, under the COVID Act, X, Y, and Z, and we'll go to penalisation.
It's not a law. It's not a law.
It only becomes law with your consent.
If you do not consent, it's not a law.
It's a rule, and they can't enforce it.
So that's the way it works, and that's how silly it is.
And the courts can't work.
If we have continually judges in courts refusing to protect the people and failing to comply with the law, the judges will be held accountable as well, like anyone else.
The thing about common law, regardless of your position or title or anything else, if you cause harm, loss or injury, you will be held personally accountable for your behaviour.
That's it. That's the way it should work.
Nobody's above the law.
Everyone's treated the same.
Unfortunately, within the statutory system, if you have someone who can hold a prominent position with an authority, a local authority or something, They have been found out occasionally to be inept at their job, maybe even criminal, negligent, This has been found out and the individual concern, maybe a CEO or a director, have been removed from the position.
But when they remove them, what they do is they give them probably something like three or four hundred thousand pound payoff.
They give them a part and a buck, a huge pension, and then six months later they'll get a part in some sort of consultancy position with the council as well.
Now, while they're causing harm, loss and injury to the people, The people are not given this.
The people are not protected.
Yet these idiots are rewarded for criminal or negligent behaviour.
Rewarded, given a part and a back, and protected.
That should not be the case.
If they're committing crimes, and they're committing, obviously, well, they are negligent, they should be removed immediately.
They should not be rewarded.
He said, but in reward members, the people suffer.
Common law doesn't do that.
It says if somebody's not doing their job properly, they will be held accountable for committing crimes against the people, which is the way it should be.
Great. So, another one.
Common law court launching a new backed currency called the CLC Sovereign.
What's that all about, John? Yeah.
Well, basically, For those of your viewers who are aware of the money system and the banking system, it's basically just a fallacy.
It says we have something, fiat money, which is non-existent.
It's not worth anything.
Hopefully it's not worth the paper it's written on.
But the point is, it's non-existent.
It's basically, it's all about fraud and it's what the banks do.
It's just to obviously keep everything in control.
It went out, the gold standard, years and years ago, but basically what we've decided is because of what the banks are looking to do and the governments are trying to change from From a money system that we have now, whereby you've got cash, a cashless society, and they are trying to make everything digital.
Now, if it goes down this route, what you're going to find out is that you have the banks, the government with full control, so they already dictate how much money you can deposit into your account, how much money you can take out of your account, And if you put in too much or take out too much, you've got to answer a dozen questions before they will even consent to allow you to deposit or take out.
There's limits on, obviously, what you can have in, because everything else, if something would happen, there was a crash, you'd lose all your money.
It's basically the whole thing is rigged in their favour.
Now, if you have families just now, this is who are on the breadline, people rely on cash to shop in local shops.
They need money for food and things like that.
And many, many occasions, people have been wanting, obviously, struggling for food.
Many are on benefits, and yet I've heard loads and loads of occasions when the government, through their fault and their negligence, have actually stopped someone's benefits, or there's been a change in circumstances.
So instead of being able to sort it immediately, what they do is say, right, there's a change in circumstances.
What we're going to do is we'll have to stop our money now and we'll sort it out and we'll start it again in six weeks' time.
Now, how are the people supposed to live for six weeks?
The families to feed, young children to feed.
I enjoy sports.
I've not played sports in years.
But he says there was a football player just now, Marcus Rashford.
I quite like him. He's a good player anyway.
But the fact that he's actually trying to take on government and argue for food for the children, he says, is brilliant.
The fact is, when he was a child and brought up, he actually struggled to eat because his mother couldn't provide for him.
Now, when mother went without food, and he struggled, and he ended up obviously a star football player, but he's actually standing up and letting people know that there are children in this country starving.
And yet, the government couldn't care less.
We're in supposedly one of the biggest economies in the world, A Western country, civilised, and yet we have thousands of children starving in this country.
We have many people and pensioners who can't keep themselves in the winter.
They can't go under electricity, they can't keep a roof over their heads, and they're going without food.
This is ridiculous. And if any government is in charge of a country like this, they want shot, block them.
He says given what we have resources and the fact that they're allowing this to happen in this country is disgusting.
The politicians should all be ashamed of themselves.
Now obviously when people stand up and do this it's good but looking at the banking system we say no one should ever be in this position.
So the principles of this is someone should have access to a bank.
They should be able to put in what they want.
They should be able to take out what they want if it's their money.
There should be no blocks for it.
For example this is It's not like somebody come down the council saying, we've got to put a block on this and we're taking money out of your bank account.
Or the bank saying, no, we're going to stop this and freeze your account.
None of that will happen. It's basically your money to your account and that's it.
But there's no point in having money if it's not worth anything.
So what we're doing is we're actually buying gold with it.
So we're going to have the money that's coming in, we'll be used to purchase gold.
And then what we'll do is we'll use that.
Now, they can use this daily through the system.
It's not attached to the existing banks.
We've actually used some, we've been approached, Three or four times in the last, well, three and a half years since we've been operating, many people have come up and said, look, we like the Commonwealth Co-op, we like what you're doing, we like X, Y, and Z, we'll join in.
But they have an OTVA motive, and it normally is monetised.
So they say, we'll do X, Y, and Z, but it's not protecting the people, and it's not for the people.
So we've actually said, no, we're not doing that.
I said, but what happened recently?
We had, when I look at the system, the way it was going to say no, and we came across somebody, a couple of guys, that were responsible for setting up a really, really good system.
So we're coming away from the banks at all, so there's no bank control.
We're not dealing with them. You'll have a separate entity, a separate account here that will be backed as well so the money's secured.
And then what these guys have done is set up something whereby they have an operating system now If you look at someone like MasterCard or Visa, when they process payments, they can process payments roughly, I think it was about 25,000 to 30,000 transactions per second worldwide.
This system that's been developed now will handle four times that.
So they're looking at handling 130,000 transactions a second.
Now, while obviously a lot of the security now is based on this blockchain, this guy has been developing this saying, no, no, no, it's not good enough.
So they've actually come up with a new improved security system which makes it harder to hack into and it's actually far more secure than what's currently available.
So this is actually all built into the system.
Now what they were doing is they were using this by way of a sort of reward system.
This is where they were going with that logic.
But they used this and they've been developing it and it would have taken two or three years To achieve the result they wanted by breaking away from the banks.
However, what we've done is focus them engaged and over a period of two or three months, we've got them to amend it slightly and to jump in sooner.
So what we're doing now is we're actually setting this up.
We have effectively set up a system on the site for the Commonwealth Co-op and also for the CLC Health Care site.
We've got the ARB to take payments just now, and that's what the accounts are for.
However, literally in the next two or three weeks, we're actually going to open up the account in full, which means it can then be treated as a bank account.
So people can then put their money into the account and use it as a bank account as well, and it will be back.
So obviously it's secure, it's fine.
So this is what we're doing.
And again, remember, because we're using this to do the common law court process, it's completely separate from the state.
So the state, we've got nothing to do with the state.
They have no control.
They cannot hack into it.
They cannot block it. They cannot stop the account.
They can't take your money.
It's basically it's the people's money and it allows them to use it as a want.
It offers far more protection and it will keep everyone happy.
So if people do have money just now and using this for banking, it's not as if you're panicking because the state are going to come in and stop your account or close it or take your money or penalise you.
That won't happen under this system.
One of the ways they attack alternative people and what I call pushbackers is through the payment system.
If you've got something where people pay a subscription, for instance, they can pull that.
I got pulled by PayPal and nobody can bloody use it.
I don't know how that works out.
But This is also a payment system that can override that, you're saying?
Yeah. Yeah. Well, we're not involved.
We said this system is completely standalone.
It's separate from anything they use.
It's simply a standalone system just now, but they developed the system, so it's so secure and it's a lot faster.
It's a separate system completely, and basically what people do is they open up their own account, as it's done online, They're given a 17-digit number, and the first digit is number 9, because that confirms it's an online account.
And then what happens after that?
They can get a card with their account, and the card will then take off the number 9 of the front, and will give them a 16-digit code for their account.
So they have their own cards.
They can use that as well.
Deposit money. Make online payments as well.
They can use it as a normal account.
And again, it's secure. It's got nothing to do with estate.
It's standalone. They can't touch it.
Which is obviously the benefit of doing this and why we are doing it.
We're looking at that just now.
While predominantly it will be based on obviously internet and cards, the use of cards, it's still sort of cashless.
We actually have And we can set up a cash version of this as well in the coming months.
So it's something else that can be used.
The options we're looking at is obviously using, which is available just now, is using notes with actual gold in them.
So when they put the value of the note into actual gold in the notes, which is okay, but if you're carrying about, say, £1,000 notes and it's actually gold in your wallet, it makes you an easy target.
Whereas obviously this is just keeping it away on the banking side and internet it's easier.
But we can do that and there's also a fact we can actually monetise it and have coins as well.
But doing this, if it takes off, it can be in quite a large scale.
And obviously it means setting this up with all the relevant notes to go with it.
So initially we're trying this on the internet side of things.
So everything will sort of predominantly be done either online or with a card.
But the point is, With the system, the attractive thing about the system is if you put in money, you're putting in effectively fiat currency.
So when you put in fiat currency, say the pound or the dollar or the euro, you're putting something in there, but what you're doing is you're buying the equivalent sovereign, CLC sovereign.
So you get the CLC sovereign, effectively you then use the CLC sovereign.
If you then want to take out money or you want to use your card and you wanted to purchase something in say dollars, You would actually make the purchase with your card and when you go to click on to make the purchase, the card immediately transfers the sovereign or converts it from the sovereign into the dollar immediately at the current exchange rate.
So it's done. So you can actually make payments in any currency you want in the world and it can be converted instantaneously through The cards that we have in the account.
And again, even if you wanted to use cryptocurrency, you can put in money just now, a fiat currency.
You obtain a sovereign.
This is obviously the CLC sovereign.
You can operate here and use it and spend it.
If you wanted to spend something and purchase online, you can have it converted back into any currency in the world at the current exchange rate.
Or if you wanted, you can even convert it into cryptocurrency or Bitcoin or anything you wanted.
It's all done instantaneously because of the speed and the power of the processing of the clock.
So when are all these things going to be up and running?
I know some of them already are.
Well we've got the CLC Healthcare and that's on if your viewers wanted to visit that it's clc.healthcare.
That's actually currently operating.
The clinics we're looking it says We would probably take about six weeks or so to get the first clinic up and running.
We've actually had about seven or eight people wanting to open clinics in the UK, well, predominantly down south in England, but we can actually roll these out.
So there's a little bit to it.
It's not just straightforward. We have the staff.
We can get them. We're quite confident.
But they will start opening, and we're confident they'll open all over as soon as we get them up and running.
But that could be certainly six weeks away from we'll start.
Now, in relation to that, we're working with people just now, including Dolores Cahill just now, but we're setting up a new regulatory body for healthcare workers.
Unfortunately, within the system just now, all healthcare workers are registered through the state.
And yet, if you cross, as you mentioned earlier, if you don't pull the party line, so to speak, you lose your license, you lose your job, you lose your career.
But the point is, they've done nothing wrong.
They're still qualified. So what we're doing is allowing them to register through the common law court.
We'll keep a registry here and we'll set up a regulatory body.
So it's similar to where they operate, but it will be under common law and they'll be answering to this body.
But what that will allow these medical practitioners, it will allow them to operate under common law.
They say, so we'll do that.
So that's been set up and may actually be able to We'll have a regulatory body for the constables that we're setting up as well.
The constables should be running about four weeks down.
We'll see the first batches out.
And again, we have substantial numbers, so it's just a matter of training.
I think we're looking at about 20 different locations.
We've got 20 trainers penciled in to do the training, and we can do them in large groups.
They're only TD courses.
So, providing we can get them out, we'll be able to see them Very quickly as well.
So that takes care of that.
In relation to the monetary system, the monetary system's actually been completed just now, and they're actually just finally testing everything.
But the monetary system, to a degree, does actually work just now because we actually use this on our site to process payments.
So it does work, but the full accounting or the full bank account facility will be up probably within the next couple of weeks.
So that's not that far away as well.
And in relation to education, the thing you touched on earlier on, While we're looking to educate people and adults, we'll continue putting up information on the site and offering training materials.
But what we've also done is we've thought about young children, because it's a young age when the children are educated at school.
Unfortunately, many, many teachers have came to us, university professors as well, who came and said, the education of this company, we're struggling with it.
It's not suitable.
It's not fit for purpose. So they wanted to look at that and decide how we're going to go about it.
So we were looking at setting up educational facilities, but that may take probably three or four months before we can get them up.
However, we were beaten to the gun because one of the girls had worked for the NHS for many years, decided 22 years ago to leave to set up a preschool nursery for children.
So she's been doing that successfully for 22 years.
It's quite a large building and she has over 40 staff.
So it's quite good.
They're a good record. She's just been informed because of COVID, if she does not have her staff all vaccinated, they've got to close her down.
So she's aware of the Commonwealth Court.
She's signed up anyway. She's spoken to us in quite detail, went through it, and I think it was two weeks ago she signed up under Colonel Law, so she's changed her company over.
So we have a preschool nursery that's been going for 22 years and just converted and are now operating under Colonel Law.
So with that, we can change the teaching syllabus as well, do who want.
So we are actually starting to teach and educate correctly for the future.
So we've already started that a little bit too soon, but there will be more to come later on.
Well, I'm sure there's a lot of awake teachers and awake nursing staff and so on that will be jumping at a chance to operate in this kind of environment.
Don't forget the Isle of Wight with your constables, John.
We've got a couple of margins to score here.
And it's kind of appropriate, isn't it, when the medical profession is told, do no harm, of course it does, And common law says, do no harm.
And from the medical health side, we kind of tell very nicely, do no harm.
And you can't go wrong if you come from that perspective.
So it's commonlawcourt.com.
That's the place to go to find out about all of this.
And I've got my common law birth certificate in there and ownership of the legal fiction and stuff.
I'm going down this road big time because it does offer a great opportunity to withdraw from the system.
So, John, thanks for that.
I'm sure we'll talk again. Yeah.
Where we go from here, because I became aware of common law, natural law, when I was invited for goodness knows why, but I was to a constitutional lawyers conference in Reno, Nevada in 1996.
But for a long time, the circumstances weren't there really to grasp the interest.
But since the turn of 2020, a lot of people are going down this road.
We have, and a final point, we have many, many people joining up on a daily basis from all over the world.
And the thing I would like to point out just now is people, certain people, again, bear in mind I'm a Scotsman, the term common law doesn't sit easy because it's English.
It's funny, but it says people are like that.
We know it's when we speak to the French.
They're not keen on the term common law simply because it's predominantly English.
That's not the case.
This is what we'd like to point out to everyone listening, is this follows basic principles, which is cause no harm, cause no loss, cause no injury, and ensure your honourable and contractual dealings.
Now, if you take that, this is basically the basis behind common law.
However, it's all the basis behind other things.
For example, the law of the land, natural law, universal law, the creator's law, even God's law.
So you can use whichever position you're in, wherever you are in the country, this is still applicable.
Because of race, colour, religion, it doesn't matter.
It's applicable to everyone, which is why it works.
Now, we may not use this as the same terminology throughout the world, but the principles are still applicable.
So regardless of obviously your background or where you are, The culture is applicable to what you do, and it will cater for everyone, which is I think many of the people are starting to understand that, which is why we have a following in 159 countries.
So it's not predominantly, it's not something that's specifically English, it appeals to everyone regardless of where you are, because it follows the basic principles, which were enshrined under common law as well in this country.
But basically, it covers everyone else.
So if you're thinking about this now, it's not a matter of something that's unique to the UK or even England.
It's not. It's applicable to everyone, possibly under a different title, but it's still the same principles.
Well, it's actually basic common human, isn't it?
That's the whole thing. Well, John, thanks very much, and see you next time.
Yeah, thanks a lot.
▲
Export Selection