THE STORY OF YOUR ENSLAVEMENT

From the time your parents listed you on the Crown Birth Register. You become the chattel property of the Crown Corporation

“The Crown Corporation has copyrighted the birth certificate legal name and "assigned" it back to you so you can act as the SURETY for any debt..."

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [John 1 KJV]”

God created Man: “There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. [John 6-7 KJV]”


Man then created Government to Act in the Capacity of “Fiduciary Trustees” who are PUBLIC SERVANTS, to carry out the Will of the People and manage service tasks such as building roads and maintaining public services etc and who write Legislative Acts and Statutes that are the by-laws of that CORPORATION and apply to ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES;

 

The CORPORATE GOVERNMENT created Legislation called: The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1874

That was: “An Act to amend the Law relating to the Registration of Births and Deaths in England, and to consolidate the Law respecting the Registration of Births and Deaths at Sea” That stated at Par’ 1:


[1] Information concerning birth to be given to registrar within forty-two days

“In the case of every child born alive after the commencement of this Act, it shall be the duty of the father and mother of the child, and in default of the father and mother, of the occupier of the house in which to his knowledge the child is born, and of each person present at the birth, and of the person having charge of the child, to give to the registrar, within forty-two days next after such birth, information of the particulars required to be registered concerning such birth, and in the presence of the registrar to sign the register”.

The Same “Act” further stated at Par’ 39:

[39] Penalty for not giving information, complying with the requisition, &c

Every person required by the Births and Deaths Registration Acts, 1836 to 1874, to give information concerning any birth or death., or any living new-born child, or any dead body, who wilfully refuses to answer any question put to him by the registrar relating to the particulars required to be registered concerning such birth or death, or fails to comply with any requisition of the registrar made in- pursuance of those Acts, and every person who refuses or fails without reasonable excuse to give or send any certificate in accordance with the provisions of the said Acts, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings for each offence; and the parent of any child who fails to give information concerning the birth of such child, as required by the said Acts, shall be liable to a like penalty; and a person required by the said Acts to give information concerning a death in the first instance, and not merely in default of some other person, shall, if such information as is required by the said Acts is not duly given, be liable to the same penalty.

So (just to be clear) if any “person” required by the “Act” wilfully refuses to answer any question put to him by the registrar relating to the particulars required to be registered concerning such birth or death, or fails to comply with any requisition of the registrar shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding forty shillings for each offense…

Of course, times change and now if any “person” required by the “Act” wilfully refuses to answer any question put to him by the registrar its now Level 1 on the standard charges (pursuant to the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953); [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/1-2/20/contents]


The wording on the various Government Acts and Statutes are all willfully ambiguous and open to interpretation and as most people are beginning to realise these various Acts and Statutes are actually written in legalise that looks and sounds like English but is completely different in interpretation…


REQUISITION means A demand in writing, or a formal request or requirement. Atwood v. Charlton, 21 RI. 568, 45 A. 580.
The taking or seizure of property by government. Benedict v. U. S., D.C.N.Y., 271 F. 714. – [Black’s Law 4th edition]


So now we see that they are: Demanding, taking, and seizing property under threat of financial penalty… a.k.a under duress;

But… What Property are they taking?


Your God-Given Name aka Your Title, Your Property and Rights…


What do they do with it? well, if you read the birth certificate and it says: I, Registrar of Births and Deaths for the Sub-district of [name of sub-district], in the LONDON BOROUGH OF [NAME OF BOROUGH] do hereby certify that this is a true copy of the entry No. in the Register of Births for the said Sub-district and that such Register is now legally in my custody;

CUSTODY means: The care and keeping of anything; as when an article is said to be “in the custody of the court.” Also the detainer of a man’s person by virtue of lawful process or authority; actual imprisonment. 59 Pa. St. 320 – [Black’s Law 4th edition]


So now we are beginning to see the bigger picture…


The Government wrote an act of Requisition taking or seizing property under penalty ie. under duress and then taking the property (the name of your offspring into their custody).


Then using your offsprings God-given name ie: John Henry and John Henry’s family name ie Doe, they then create the Crown copyrighted LEGAL PERSON: Mr John Henry DOE/ JOHN HENRY DOE (and other derivatives thereof), which is now done pursuant to the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, which says at section 163:

163 Crown copyright


(1) Where a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties—
(a) the work qualifies for copyright protection notwithstanding section 153(1) (ordinary requirement as to qualification for copyright protection), and
(b) Her Majesty is the first owner of any copyright in the work.

So lets break it down… Where a work is made by Her Majesty or by an officer or servant of the Crown in the course of his duties…

The “work” in question is the creation of the LEGAL PERSON aka LEGAL FICTION/ Strawman/ Ens Legis Person… by an officer (the Office of Registrar General) or servant (the LEGAL FICTION of the child’s Parents) of the Crown and “Her Majesty” aka the Crown “is the first owner of any copyright in the work


OWNER means: The person in whom is vested the ownership, dominion, or title of property; proprietor. He who has dominion of a “thing”, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, which he has a right to enjoy and do with as he pleases, even to spoil or destroy it, as far as the law permits, unless he be prevented by some agreement or covenant which restrains his right. Bouvier – [Black’s Law 4th edition]


As previously shown: The PERSON is taken into “Custody” and is then copyrighted by an officer or servant of the Crown (Registrar General) and the “work” aka the “thing” becomes the property of the Crown where “Her Majesty” aka the Crown is the “first owner” of any copyright in the work”

Where property is taken into custody, this creates an act known as “Bailment” where the offsprings mother and/or father become the Bailor’s (the parties bailing the property) and the Registrar General (part of the CROWN CORPORATION) become the bailee, which might go some way to explaining the name of one of if not the most famous courts in the land: The Old Bailey…


Just to be clear on the matter, anyone who creates a “Register” puts a list of their property on it to demonstrate that its their property.

 

REGISTER means: An officer authorised by law to keep a record called a “register” or “registry” as the register for the probate of wills.
A book containing a record of facts as they occur, kept by public.; authority; a register of births, marriages, and burials.


REGISTRANT means: One who registers; particularly, one who registers anything (e. g., a trade-mark) for the purpose of securing a right or privilege granted by law on condition of such registration.


REGISTRAR GENERAL means: In English law. An officer appointed by the crown under the great seal, to whom, subject to such regulations as shall be made by a principal secretary of state, the general superintendence of the whole system of registration of births. deaths, and marriages is entrusted. 3 Steph. ComIll. 234.

So the Registrar General is “entrusted” with the property aka the “work”, aka the “thing” (In Rem) that is held in custody and the thing that has now become copyrighted is now the property of “Her Majesty” as “Her Majesty” is the “first owner of any copyright in the work

So one thought that might spring to mind is: If you are the owner of a dog and that dog bites someone. Then aren’t you the ‘owner’ the liable party? – YES…

So far we have seen that the act of registration has created the LEGAL PERSON a Mr John Henry DOE, that is copyrighted and owned by “Her Majesty” (aka the Crown) because the mum and/or dad were forced by an act of requisition under duress to hand in their offsprings property (Title, Property and Rights) into “Custody” to be held on the Register by the “Bailee” (Registrar General) in Trust… and this created the “thing”

So let’s take a closer look at the “thing” aka LEGAL PERSON/ STRAWMAN…

PERSON means: A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. [1 bouv. Inst. no. 137.]

A human being considered as capable of having rights and of being charged with duties; while a “thing” is the object over which rights may be exercised.


Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial.

Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; Artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called “corporations” or “bodies politic”. 1 HI. Comm. 123. – [Black’s Law 4th edition]

So if “Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial” then the closest in law to the living man/ woman is the Natural Person (even though its an oxymoron as a PERSON is man made, so how can something thats man made be natural?), and

We can now clearly see that Artificial Persons are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called “corporations” or “bodies politic.”

In other words: The LEGAL “ARTIFICIAL” PERSON is [a] “corporations” or “bodies politic.”

This fact can be clearly demonstrated in the Representation of the People Act 1983:

202 General provisions as to interpretation

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires—


Schedule 1 to this Act;

person” includes (without prejudice to the provisions of the M1 Interpretation Act 1978) an association corporate or unincorporate;


When the word “Includes” is used it means: Anything not included is excluded, or the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other. In other words: If its not included then its excluded. So “person” includes an association corporate or unincorporate;

In other words: [a] CORPORATION thats either incorporated or unincorporated.

So the LEGAL PERSON aka STRAWMAN aka the “thing” (In Rem) is the “COMPANY” that is owned by “Her Majesty” aka the “Crown” and is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Crown and shall be governed by statutory legislation. When the Government introduce legislation such as the Coronavirus Act 2020, it applies to LEGAL PERSONS and NOT living men or women.

ORDER YOUR ID

However, from an early age you were “schooled” into believing that John Henry of the Family/ House of Doe, was JOHN HENRY DOE, and every time the “Registrar” was called with the teacher calling out: JOHN DOE, poor little John Henry was forced to answer yes Miss/ Sir.

To recap on the order of things:

In the beginning was God, God made man in his image and likeness. Man made Government to carry out its “Fiduciary Duties”, Government created LEGAL PERSONS aka CORPORATIONS, either incorporated or unincorporated. And these LEGAL PERSONS are under the jurisdiction (control) of the Government

So with what you have just read and now that you know the difference between the “Natural person” (living man/ woman) and an “Artificial Person” (which are called “corporations” or “bodies politic”).

Do you think that statutory legislation such as the Coronavirus Act 2020, applies to the living man/ woman or to the LEGAL PERSON? Hmmm…

As most people are becoming only to aware the POLICE are acting in two (2) capacities. One (1) as the Peace Keepers who have sworn an Oath to uphold and keep the Queen’s Peace and two (2) POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, who enforce policies (Statutory Legislation) that applies to Government employees aka LEGAL PERSONS.

Thats why when the POLICE stop someone they always ask for the name. If for example John-Henry got stopped and the POLICE asked his name and he said his name was: John-Henry, they would say: JOHN HENRY… WHAT?

You must have a Surname?

So what they are really fishing for is the name and SURNAME [Title]. In other words they are trying to get you to confess to being: MR JOHN HENRY DOE, the LEGAL ARTIFICIAL PERSON that is under their jurisdiction and the one that is subject to the various statutory legislation, in “Joinder”.

JOINDER means: Joining or coupling together; uniting two (2) or more constituents or elements in one (1); uniting with another person in some legal step or proceeding. – [Black’s Law 4th edition]

How is this possible?

For the answer to that question we need to look back at the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, that says:-

163 Crown copyright

(2) Copyright in such a work is referred to in this Part as “Crown copyright”, notwithstanding that it may be, or have been, assigned to another person.

notwithstanding that it may be, or have been, assigned to another person

Assigned to another person???

Yes… They took your God given name “Joined” it to your family name, created the ARTIFICIAL PERSON called JOHN HENRY DOE and then “assigned” the name back to the living man and schooled (brain washed) him into believing that he is MR JOHN HENRY DOE, the LEGAL ARTIFICIAL PERSON.

This deception is necessary because the LEGAL ARTIFICIAL PERSON, hasn’t got any arms, legs, body, head, etc, so can’t go to work, earn money to pay any fines given out for the enforcement of “POLICIES”.

Furthermore, the reason the LEGAL PERSON is refereed to as the “thing” (in Magistrates courts) is because the “thing” has a cleaver trick it can do.

It can morph from the CORPORATE ENTITY into the DECEASED LEGAL ESTATE, that is being held (in custody) by the Crown which is in Administration by the “Trustees” who hold the LEGAL TITLE to the Crown copyrighted “work” and as such, they are the liable parties!

However, given the fact they don’t want to admit it and don’t want to pay up. They want the living brainwashed man to step in, in joinder and act in the capacity of the SURETY.

SURETY means: A surety is one who at the request of another, and for the purpose of securing to him a benefit, becomes responsible for the performance by the latter of some act in favour of a third person, or hypothecates property as security therefor.

SURETY is defined as a person who, being liable to pay a debt or perform an obligation is entitled, if it is enforced against him, to be indemnified by some other person who ought himself to have made payment or performed before the surety was compelled to do so. [85 Mich. 42.]

However, as you can clearly see it says: “A surety is defined as a person who, being liable to pay a debt or perform an obligation is entitled, if it is enforced against him, to be indemnified by some other person who ought himself to have made payment or performed before the surety was compelled to do so”

So who is this person who ought himself to have made payment or performed?

Well, that would be the Trustee aka the PROSECUTOR (Executor/ Executrix De Son Tort)

PROSECUTOR means: In practice. He who prosecutes another for a crime in the name of the Government.

DE SON TORT means: Of his own wrong. A stranger who takes upon him to act as an executor without any just authority is called an “executor of his own wrong”, (de son tort.) 2 BI. Comm. 507; 2 Sleph. Comm. 244.

So the Prosecutor is prosecuting for an alleged “crime” in the name of the Government (CORPORATION) enforcing “Policies” on other CORPORATIONS ie LEGAL ARTIFICIAL PERSONS.

However, if there is no injured man or woman who has suffered harm, loss or injury and there is no living man to move the Court and speak up Viva Voce (with the living voice, by word of mouth) then the whole matter is nothing more than “Fiction”.

In the “Little Charade” that follows, the living man/ woman is invited to take part in the “Act” and to then act as the “SURETY” and take the place of the person who ought himself to have made payment or performed aka the Trustee.

Now that we know this we can see part of the problem is that if you are stopped by a POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, for say keeping your business open they will harass you and demand you provide a name to them, regardless of the fact that unless you are under arrest you are under no lawful obligation to tell them anything including (but not limited to) providing them with a name.

This is an established fact in Law that you have the right to silence and this is set in case law.

RICE v. CONNOLLY [1966] 2 All ER 649, QBD


“A citizen is entitled to refuse to answer questions [including: “What’s your name?] or assist/ accompany a police officer where no lawful reason exists and therefore this conduct does not automatically amount to resistance/ obstruction” – Blackstone’s Police Operational Handbook.

Thats right, the above is straight out of the Blackstone’s Police Operational Hand book, so they know this or a least ought to.

Trouble is most POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS wouldn’t know the law if it jumped up and bit em on the backside and they will continue to force you to provide identity knowing full well, that the only ID you have is Government issued such as a driving licence with the name of the Crown copyrighted LEGAL FICTIONSTRAWMAN and the minute that you produce it, they have you the living man/ woman agreeing to play the role of the “SURETY”, who can then be invited to their unlawful little kangaroo courts.

Halsbury’s Laws of England is clear on the subject:

Administrative courts are unlawful and there’s is No law which can be past to legitimise them due to the constitutional restraints placed upon “Her Majesty” at her Coronation, which is why they are NOT courts of Law at all.

They are in fact private for profit CORPORATIONS operating on assumptions of law and every “case” is actually a private Trust meeting and you have been invited to act as the SURETY, all because John-Henry of the House/ Family Doe, produced Government ID claiming to be: MR JOHN HENRY DOE.

 

If you know that your NOT the LEGAL FICTION, then the question arises:

Can you prove it?

Can you provide ID that demonstrates that you are in fact the "Principal" and not the LEGAL FICTION?

With our Identity Cards you have a way of proving your true identity as the "Principal"and NOT being in “Joinder” with the LEGAL FICTION;

When you order your Identity Card your details will be put on the record (not registered) in our database and you will have instant access to your personal page via scanning the QR code on your card.

One final thought: In order for any contract to be valid and enforceable it needs to have full disclosure.

Did the Government tell either you or your mum and/or dad that when their being threatened with prosecution and fines if they don’t give over your God given name and family name that the Crown were going to copyright it?

Did they give you full disclosure of the fact they were forming a COMPANY (Public face)/ Deceased Estate (Private face)?

Did they give you full disclosure of the fact they trade the Company (JOHN HENRY DOE) on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as “Common Stock”?

Did they give you full disclosure of the fact they were forming a Trust and that you  the "Principal" are the true Beneficiary?

No…

Well if you didn’t get full disclosure then any contract is in fact Null and Void Ab Initio

Principal, adj. 1: Chief; leading; most important or considerable; primary; original. Highest in rank, authority, character, importance, or degree. – Blacks Law 5th Edition;

Law of agency. The term "Principal" describes one who has permitted or directed another (i.e. agent or servant) to act for his benefit and subject to his direction and control. Principal includes in its meaning the term "master", a species of principal who, in addition to other control, has a right to control the physical conduct of the species of agents known as servants, as to whom special rules are applicable with reference to harm caused by their physical acts;

Principal and surety. Relationship between accommodation maker and party accommodated on promissory note is that of "principal and surety." Putney Credit Union v. King, 130 Vt. 86, 286 A.2d 282, 284.

ORDER YOUR ID