John Harris TPUC on Common Law (Video's)

English Freeman John Harris TPUC (The People's United Community) discusses common law in this excellent series of video's. He mention's such thing's as..........


Parliment- from the French Parli (to talk, discuss) mentir (to tell lies)

The Legal System- In Latin the word for this is Bollock's

Most people think the Magna Carta is ice cream!!!

Acts of Parliment

Statutes

CONstitution

United Kingdom is an for profit Corporation of which David Cameron and all MP's are director's

Everyone with a national insurance number is an employee of the corporation

Alister Darling is the trading name of the Labour Party

53% of your earning's are paid in tax!!!

Company policy require's you as an employee to pay tax


This guy really know's his stuff..............Enjoy!

This guy really know's his stuff

No he doesn't.

reply to post by Mike_A


No! why? Can you give me any information on where he is wrong? I will be waiting with eager anticipation.

reply to post by Uncle Gravity


In the middle of part 4 so far; but…

First he defines statute and then says that this definition proves that statutes are not law. That’s circular reasoning. Find me an actual, none TPUC/freeman, legal argument that sets this out in law; I’ve asked other freemen to do this countless times and no one ever has, even on the TPUC forums.

He doesn’t understand the reason for corporate status, where he sees a massive conspiracy most normal people see a need for an entity to exist to accept liability. For example an MP needs a trading name because he/she needs to be able to employ people (office staff etc); this would not be legally possible without a trading name to which one can attach liable. Similarly the UK having a legal personhood (UK plc or whatever) does not make us its employees, it has this status because if it didn’t who would people hold to account when the state does something illegal?

He makes the worn out claim that the law (he will only call them statutes) now says that we can’t film police officers, that’s just rubbish.

In general, rather than me showing where he is wrong can you or anyone else show me where he is right? Because as far as I can see he is presenting no independent evidence to back up his claims aside from noting that MPs have a trading name.

Still on part four;

Now he’s on to legal fictions and natural persons. This whole bit is nonsense, he attaches strange significance to titles, and how this is supposed to create a legal personality.

In law “person” refers to people like you and me, i.e. humans, natural persons, and this status provides certain rights and responsibilities; for example a person can be taken to court. This status is conferred automatically; you will find no evidence for the notion that one must have this status applied to oneself via a birth certificate; since Harris doesn’t provide any, can you? Otherwise how do you think people without birth certificates (immigrants for example) operate in the UK?

What Harris is doing is confusion the idea of a legal person which is a status given to non human entities in order to confer similar rights and responsibilities to natural persons. For example a company with X shareholders needs this status so that one entity can be held liable for its actions; if it did not have this legal personhood who would be liable for its debts for example? This problem does not arise with regard to individuals so the need to confer a legal identity, separate to the natural person, does not arise (except, for example, where one wants to trade as a business).

He then talks about natural law as being inherent; this is taken as self evident when it isn’t. Everything from that point on is flawed for that reason alone. As Harris says, “You know what’s right and wrong” but even a cursory look at world cultures will prove that false, whether it is western acceptance of money lending vs Islamic disapproval or the UK’s detestation of racism vs India’s caste system; what is right and what is wrong is vastly open to interpretation.

He then says common law is basically two values; do not cause harm or loss. Actually common law is a system whereby laws are developed by precedent in courts as opposed to statute law which is developed by the deliberation of a legislative body. It has nothing to do with any specific values.

Part five;

Harris claims that statute rules apply to the person only when the man or woman consent to represent the person.

Bollocks. Statutes apply to whomever the statute says it applies to; I challenge anyone who buys into this stuff to prove otherwise; Harris doesn’t.

Now he’s just going off on a pseudo-philosophical rant about ego!

I’m on part six now and he’s banging on about birth certificates and capitalisation, all without any evidence. I can’t go on with this; I can feel my brain cells dying!

Anyway, this idiocy is exemplified in the sentence at 8:20 in part six “what does a bank do? A bank directs the current, the current-cy, what do you do, you deposit on the bank, the current deposits things on the bank, it withdraws from the bank, so bloody obvious.”

If you listen to that and think “yes! It all makes sense now” you need to stop taking those pills!

reply to post by Mike_A

First he defines statute and then says that this definition proves that statutes are not law.

If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains, if this where not so they would call them Laws, let's make no mistake about that.

He doesn’t understand the reason for corporate status, where he sees a massive conspiracy most normal people see a need for an entity to exist to accept liability

It is a massive conspiracy perpetrated by the United Kingdom Corporation to enslave it's "Employee's". If you cannot see this fact then im afraid there is not much hope for you. What does "most normal people" mean? This implies that people who believe this are abnormal in some way! A tactic used by various government's to undermine conspiracy theorists.

He makes the worn out claim that the law (he will only call them statutes) now says that we can’t film police officers, that’s just rubbish.

I think you will find that the Police have used anti-terrorist laws to combat this.

It is an offence under the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to publish or communicate a photograph of a constable (not including PCSOs), a member of the armed forces, or a member of the security services, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. There is a defence of acting with a reasonable excuse, however the onus of proof is on the defence, under section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000. A PCSO cited Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to prevent a member of the public photographing them. Section 44 actually concerns stop and search powers.[8]

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...

There are two types of legal entity- natural persons and artificial persons. Natural persons are human beings and artificial persons are usually a Limited (Ltd) company, a public limited company (plc) or a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). Artificial persons require a legal documentary basis for their existence to bestow upon them the attributes of a legal person. In this context, the legal documentary basis of existence would be a Certificate of Registration together with its Memorandum and Articles of Association. Only legal entities can enter into contracts, sue, be sued or be prosecuted.

SOURCE:www.caa.co.uk...

Two types of legal entity natural (human being) artificial (piece of paper).

Otherwise how do you think people without birth certificates (immigrants for example) operate in the UK?

1. Because most are illegal.
2. They do not know the law.

He then talks about natural law as being inherent; this is taken as self evident when it isn’t

NATURAL LAW DEFINITION:
natural law (a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society)
SOURCE:wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

If it is inherent in your very being it will be self evident............if you look hard enough!

reply to post by Mike_A


I'm still learning this approach, and I am still on the fence about it, but I can tell you one thing for certain. The Florida Bar is taking it seriously. There are people that are successfully using this strategy to confound and clog the court system fighting everything from Foreclosure to Child Support.

I don't know how it will pan out in the end, but for now, at the very least, it is an excellent stalling strategy, and with many states in a budget crisis, they are often choosing to only pursue the easy victories. If someone used this strategy correctly, in Florida, at this moment in time, I guarantee that it would at least buy them a few years time to get their ducks in an even better row!

The state is not going to throw a lot of time and money at someone that is navigating the legal system in such a way as to be difficult to pin down, or costly to prosecute.

I'm not saying the strategy is correct, but I am saying it is effective at this moment in time.

reply to post by Uncle Gravity

If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’

Why? That’s a totally arbitrary distinction, you might as well say if a Doctor was meant to heal people they would be called healers and since they’re not then they’re not really trying to heal you.

It doesn’t make a difference what they (statutes) are called, they are laws.

It is also the case that an act of parliament does not always create a law, an act of parliament can condemn the action of another nation for example, and therefore to call them laws of parliament would not always be correct.

It is a massive conspiracy perpetrated by the United Kingdom Corporation to enslave it's "Employee's". If you cannot see this fact then im afraid there is not much hope for you.

It is not a fact, facts can be demonstrated, can you demonstrate this conspiracy?

What does "most normal people" mean?

People who don’t want to believe.

Do you deny that this is the reason for the existence of the legal fiction personality?

www.gillhams.com...

I think you will find that the Police have used anti-terrorist laws to combat this.

Not successfully, the fact of the matter is that the law does not state that it is illegal, in of itself, to film a police officer.

Granted, it’s a badly worded law, but it doesn’t make it illegal to photograph a police officer. If you dispute this then why are there so many videos on youtube, not to mention the media, of people filming the police?

Two types of legal entity natural (human being) artificial (piece of paper).

As I said, fair enough I used the word legal person when I should have said artificial but the point is the same (legal person is usually only used for artificial person*).

You and I are natural persons, we have the legal status of a person as a matter of course, and we don’t need a birth certificate to confer this status upon us. As your link states, only an artificial person requires any form of registration.

Harris’ claim is that statute law only applies to those with legal status and that this is only given via a birth certificate but your link makes it clear that natural persons (i.e. human beings) has this legal status by default.

*en.wikipedia.org...

1. Because most are illegal.
2. They do not know the law.

1. I don’t think they are but it’s immaterial because…
2. They’re still subject to the law, which according to Harris can’t be the case without a birth certificate.

NATURAL LAW DEFINITION:
natural law (a rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society)
SOURCE:wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

If it is inherent in your very being it will be self evident............if you look hard enough!

I know the definition, it still doesn’t mean it exists in practice and an American university’s definition certainly doesn’t mean it has any weight in English law.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I’m sure some are taking it seriously, not because it’s correct but because, as you say, people are using it to clog up the legal system. And that is all it is, a stalling strategy.

Anyone can do that in any number of ways but it doesn’t make it sound legal theory.

Common Law = Sharia Law with a Christian twist.

Same thing, different book.

It doesn’t make a difference what they (statutes) are called, they are laws.

A statute is Legal but not Lawful, therefore it is not a Law (Lawful). Lawful is Common Law and Legal is Corporate Law there is a big difference!

It is not a fact, facts can be demonstrated, can you demonstrate this conspiracy?

Can you demonstrate there is not?

New laws set to be passed in England and Canada would make it illegal to use bad language or take photographs of police officers, moving us further away from the idea of police as public servants and more towards the notion of cops assuming God-like status. According to the British Journal of Photography, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which is set to become law on February 16, "allows for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'." The punishment for this offense is imprisonment for up to ten years and a fine

SOURCE:
www.propagandamatrix.com...

Under section 76, eliciting, publishing or communicating information on members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" will be an offence carrying a maximum jail term of 10 years. Marc Vallee, a photojournalist who specialises in covering protests, said photographers were frequently harassed by police using stop and search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The new powers would be too vague to prevent abuse. He said: "They will now be able to arrest you if a photograph could potentially incite or provoke disorder. But isn't that any protest?" Justin Tallis, a freelance, said although legislation did not necessarily mention photographers, they were often targeted. "I moved to London six months ago and it's already happened to me two or three times."

SOURCE: www.guardian.co.uk...

Clearly the Police are treating this as an illegal act!

These acts shouldn't be lawful in our common law court's.

A statute is Legal but not Lawful, therefore it is not a Law (Lawful). Lawful is Common Law and Legal is Corporate Law there is a big difference!

You’re making that up.

Where do you get this distinction outside of freemen sources?

Can you demonstrate there is not?

Can you demonstrate that there isn’t a pink teapot on the moon?

You make the claim that there is a conspiracy so the onus is on you.

Clearly the Police are treating this as an illegal act!

It doesn’t matter if the police are, it matters if the courts are and they aren’t.

The Counter Terrorism Act 2008 states;

76 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc

(1)After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) insert—

“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc

(1)A person commits an offence who—

(a)elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—

(i)a member of Her Majesty's forces,

(ii)a member of any of the intelligence services, or

(iii)a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b)publishes or communicates any such information.

(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

www.legislation.gov.uk...

That does not make it illegal just to take pictures of the police.

As I said, it is badly worded and there is scope for the police to misinterpret or abuse this law but the law itself does not make photographing the police illegal.

But this is all a minor aside, I think the main points are statutes are law; a birth certificate does not confer an artificial personhood onto an individual nor is one needed for one to exercise right or responsibilities as per statute law. Neither you nor Harris has demonstrated that to not be the case.