Chapter 3: Legalese
I’m going to discuss the English version of Legalese. Every nation on the planet will have its own version. (For reasons which, I hope, will become obvious). The same discussion and comments will apply. Because there is no other way.
Legalese is the language of Statutes. It is assumed that Statutes are ‘the Law’. They are not, as you will see if you keep reading. Statutes are discussed within their own Chapter.
For now, I simply want to confine the discussion to Legalese itself. To show that it is an illusion. Another arm of the Grand Deception.
There is an old Roman Law maxim that states: "Let he who will be deceived, be deceived".
That is so, so true.
What, exactly, is Legalese? Well, first of all it is a language. It looks like English (in the British Isles), but it is no more ‘English’ than is any Foreign Language. French, for example. Or German. Or Croatian.
It is written by those who draw up Bills for Parliament (and Congress). It is assessed by Committees. It is voted on by Members of Parliament (or Congress). If agreed it becomes an Act of Parliament (or Congress). It becomes so-called ‘law’ when it receives the Royal (or Presidential) Assent.
At that point it becomes a Statute. A Statute written in Legalese. A Statute written in a Foreign Language.
Now, you may be forgiven for asking: "How can I be expected to obey a rule written in a Foreign Language? How can I even be expected to understand what I am supposed to obey as an upright, law-abiding, citizen?"
I, personally, would forgive you for asking that. Those who won’t, are Members of your Government, the Judiciary – in terms of Judges, Clerks, Solicitors, Lawyers, Barristers, and Policemen. And the vast majority of your fellow Countrymen, quite probably including your own family & friends. And also including the Media.
But I would forgive you, because you would be exactly right. And so, I think, would any other sane, rational, honest, honourable and decent Human Being. Really anyone still capable of using even just a grain of Common Sense.
Apart from being a Foreign Language (I’ll explain why), it also comprises a number of fictions. As we all know ‘fiction’ is not the truth. ‘Fiction’ is not the reality (I’ll explain this, as well)
Legalese is a Foreign Language because it re-defines or expands the meanings of certain words. English words. It does this for its own convenience (not yours, that’s for sure!). One good example (I’ll give you a better example in a minute) is the word ‘understand’. Legalese expands this to mean ‘stand under’ – specifically (as we will see): "Stand under, i.e. consent to, Legalese". So what does this mean? It means that if a Policeman, or anyone in a Court, asks you: "Do you understand?", and you say: "Yes", then you are agreeing to consent to the application of Statutes drafted in a Foreign Language. (Legalese is nothing if not thoroughly incestuous!).
Here’s the real dooley: In Legalese the word ‘person’ is re-defined by expansion. The word ‘person’ still means what you and I would expect it to mean viz: a Human Being; But in Legalese it is expanded to mean: ‘… any grouping of people, any Partnership, any Company/Corporation’.
(I think those who drafted this standard for their own convenience, were assuming that they could move a word defining a singular, into a plural … taking their cue from the fact that some English words are like that. ‘Sheep’ and ‘fish’ are obvious examples. However, I’m only guessing, and why they thought they could get away with it doesn’t matter anyway).
The idea was, of course, to give Corporations, Companies & Societies the same or similar ‘rights & duties’ as a Human Being. An utterly stupid idea, as I hope you will appreciate, by the time you have read and fully-comprehended this book.
So, let’s use some Common Sense to look into the sanity of expanding the definition of the word ‘person’.
A Human Being has a head within which there is a brain, within which there is – what we would call – a Mind. And a Human Being is ‘aware’, is conscious, and has a soul. A Human Being also has eyes, and ears, and limbs. And so on.
A group of people, taken as a group, has none of these things. The individuals that form the group do (of course), but not the group – of itself i.e. when taken as a ‘legal entity’ in it’s own right. It does not matter how much Legalese would like to grow arms & legs on a group, it cannot happen.
It is physically impossible.
A simple example is ‘deciding to do something’. A Human Being can work out what to do (using the brain), and do it, using its limbs. A Corporation has to firstly, go through the motions of making a collective decision, and then get/persuade/task a Human Being (e.g. an Authorised Company Representative) to actually do whatever has been decided.
More specifically, signing a document. A Human Being has limbs with which to grasp a pen, and a brain to control the necessary hand movements, in order to make his or her unique ‘mark’. A Company has to fall back on tasking a representative to make a ‘mark’ … on behalf of the Company.
When it comes to liability for actions taken, a Human Being can be fairly and squarely placed in the frame. In the case of a Company, buck-passing is the order of the day. Don’t expect any Human Being, who is a part of any Company, to own up to anything!
Consequently, by no stretch, would any sane individual consider a single Human Being to be equivalent to a Group.
And that’s where Legalese starts. It starts with insanity and irrationality … and then steadily gets worse. It layers fiction (calling a Company as ‘person’) upon fiction. It creates what is known as a Legal Fiction Person from each and every Human Being. It does this in order to be able to fictionally equate a Human Being to a ‘single-individual-partnership-or-CORPORATION’ for ‘legal purposes’.
This is done so that any adjudication in a Court de facto (what that means is explained later) is One CORPORATION .vs. Another CORPORATION. Very simply because it is perfectly obvious that no adjudication is possible between the reality of a Human being and the fiction of a CORPORATION.
How can anyone ever adjudicate between a reality & and an illusion? The reality, the Truth, would always win against the fiction, the Untruth, hands down!
A Chapter in this book is devoted to Legal Fiction Persons.
It is also interesting to note that there is an excellent video available, called The Corporation. This video not only explains how and why CORPORATIONs all came about, but goes further to compare the actions of any CORPORATION to that of the real Human Being it purports to impersonate.
The video goes into massive detail in order to explore this concept. And, for that reason, it is highly recommended viewing. And what does it conclude? It concludes that, if a CORPORATION (any CORPORATION) were a real person, it would be a psychopath.
And, furthermore, the definitions change from time to time. That’s why Black’s Law Dictionary is now in its 8th Edition (at the time of writing).
Its 8th Edition of pure fantasy and absurdity.
You want some more? I’m reliably informed that if you look up ‘Human Being’ the 4th Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, it says: "See ‘monster’". Not so, by the time we get to the 8th Edition, of course. It’s a moving carpet.
Of course it is perfectly possible to step back and use a bit of Common Sense. The very fact that Law Dictionaries are necessary, gives the biggest hint. In English we already have dictionaries to define our language, in terms of normal parlance. The Oxford English is probably the best known, but there are many others. They do not define the word ‘person’ as a Corporation.
Because Legalese is a Foreign Language it needs its own dictionary. If it were not a Foreign Language it would not. Languages always need a dictionary. If we could always rely on Oxford English then we would, would we not? What would be the point of Oxford English otherwise?
Legalese is an illusion. A fictional world created for the benefit of mind control and enslavement. It is an English look-alike, and no more than that.
Because it ‘looks like English’, no-one complains.
But we should. We should all complain. We should all say: "This is bloody ridiculous! How dare you impose rules to be obeyed when they are written in a Foreign language? Get outta here!" As you will see later, in the Chapter discussing Promises & Contracts, the vast majority of the so-called ‘Legal Profession’ have not the slightest clue about all this. Which means that if you understand the illusion of Legalese, then you can run rings around them.
I’ve got an idea! Let’s dump Legalese on the Rubbish Tip of History, and stick to Oxford English, shall we? Then we’d all know where we stood, wouldn’t we?
I have seen many examples of letters from Solicitors, Lawyers, and so-called ‘Legal Scholars’, which are a complete mass of double-think. Under careful and critical scrutiny just about anything they write can be shown to be totally contradictory, and thoroughly irrational. The reason for this is because they live in a fictional world, and are always attempting to replace Common Sense with fiction. They achieve little other than disappearing up their own hindquarters.
The benefit to you is that you can write plain commonsense, and they will not understand! They will not understand because Common Sense does not compute in their fictional, illusory, world.
Because they do not understand they will resort to ignoring what you said, and reply to the-question-they-wanted-you-to-ask. And they will reply in their own way. (How often do Politicians do that? How about like: "Always"? It’s the same old smoke & mirrors). What this means is that they have ‘not responded in substance’ to the points you made. They could not ‘respond in substance’ because that would not compute with their illusion.
Since they have ‘not responded in substance’, they have dishonoured, and you have not. In Law: "He who dishonours, loses".
Generally speaking, when it comes down to brass tacks, we have found that – for all their huffing & puffing – they never actually go to Court. Primarily (we think) this is because – at the end of the day – they know, deep down, that your Common Sense trumps their Legalese. Hands down.
One of the biggest questions to arise is: "What’s the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘lawful’?" Well here is one big clue. ‘Legal’ refers to the illusory world of Legalese.
means truly bound by Law (long established customs & traditions), in the real, Common Sense, world. The Law established over centuries, by consent (Consensus facit legem in LatinConsent makes Law in English). There is much more about this later.
"Let he who will be deceived, be deceived". Don’t be deceived


Government Manipulation of Language

A Natural Person vs Artificial Person (A Legal Fiction)

Government Manipulation of Language

Government Tricks:
This is perhaps the most important page on this web-site.
First Trick:

The first “trick” of the Government is the re-definition of certain critical words in each Statute (Act). They (the Government) want you to assume the ordinary meaning of the word so as to trick you into reading and interpreting the Statute in their favour. Here is a summary of some of the Trick Words. Two key words that are re-defined in almost every Statute are the words “person” and “individual”. There are at least two “person” in law:

A natural-person is a legal entity for the human-being.

An artificial-person is a legal entity that is not a human being.

Here are the exact definitions from Barron’s Canadian Law Dictionary, fourth edition (ISBN 0-7641-0616-3):

* natural person. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties.
* artificial person. A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom certain legal rights and duties may attached – e.g. a body corporate.

You will observe that the natural-person has the “capacity” (i.e. ability) for rights and duties, but not necessarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached (i.e. assigned) by laws.

Second Trick:

The second “trick” of the Government is to use the Interpretation Act to define words that apply to all Statutes, unless re-defined within a particular Statute. Without this knowledge, you could assume the ordinary meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing that they may have been defined by the Interpretation Act. Unless these words have been re-defined in another Statute, the underlying definitions for the two most important words still apply, either from the Interpretation Act, or the Canadian Law Dictionary. Basically, they are defined as follows:

from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
individual means a natural person,
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition:
individual means an artificial person.

from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
person means an individual (natural person) or incorporated group (artificial person),
from the Interpretation Act we find the re-definition:
person means a corporation (an artificial- person),
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition again:
person means an artificial person (amongst other things).

In the Canadian Human Rights Act you will see how individual and person are used and how they apply to natural and artificial persons.

Third Trick:

The third “trick” of the Government is to use the word “includes” in definitions instead of using the word “means”. They do this in some critical definitions that they want you to misinterpret. If they used “means” instead of “includes” then their deception would be exposed, but by using “includes” they rely upon the reader to assume that “includes” expands the definition, whereas in reality it restricts the definition in the same manner that “means” restricts the definition.

Here is a means definition of the word “person” from the Bank Act:
person means a natural person, an entity or a personal representative;
Here is an includes definition of the word “person” from the Interpretation Act:
person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation
To expose their deception, substitute the word means and you have
person , or any word or expression descriptive of a person, means a corporation (viz. – artificial-person)

Both “means” and “includes” are restrictive in scope because they only encompass part of the whole. Typically they are used in the following form:

person means A or B or C (and nothing else).
person includes A and B and C (and nothing else).

From the above example, you will see the logical difference. The list that follows means is constructed using “or”, whereas the list that follows includes is constructed using “and”.

There is a Legal Maxim that supports the restriction of “includes”:

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.

The definition of the word include is key to understanding your potential loss of natural-person. This is the major trick used by the Government in an attempt to take away your natural-person rights. Unless you know this, you will voluntarily forfeit your rights.

Forth Trick:
The fourth “trick” of the Government is to modify how the word “includes” is used in order to make an expansion in the definition when such expansion is required. This “trick” helps add confusion to the use of “includes” convincing most readers that “includes” should always be expansive rather than limiting. Here are some legitimate ways in which “includes” is modified to become expansive rather than restrictive:

also includes
and includes
includes, without limitation,
including but not limited to

The expansive definitions usually take the following form:

person means A or B or C and includes D. (A,B, C and D)

However, there is also a possibility that “and includes” is restrictive in some constructions. There are some people investigating this possibility right now. Their logic is demonstrated by the following example of a definition that states:

province means a province of Canada and includes Ontario and Quebec.

So, if we presume that “and includes” does provide expansion then we must ask why Ontario and Quebec had to be specifically mentioned when they are already part of a so-called province.

The above construction clearly defines the scope of what is meant by province, that is a province of Canada (it does not say which one), and includes only Ontario and Quebec (compiled from a list of two from the original scope of all provinces). In this construction means provides the scope of the definition and includes provides the list of what is actually included in the definition.

The foregoing analysis is one interpretation, but is not the only interpretation. The use of “includes” in statutory definitions can be argued both ways and is the backbone of understanding interpretations.

With the presumption that “and includes” is restrictive, then we must take a very close look at the following definition, taken from the Interpretation Act:

province means a province of Canada and includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut .

With this presumption what is stated is: unless another statute re-defines province, the default definition of province only includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

So in order to not become absurd, we must allow for “and includes” to be expansive, however more work needs to be done on this subject before placing the last nail in the coffin, so to speak.


Barron’s Canadian Law Dictionary does not provide definitions for “include” or “means” therefore we have to look in the next Source for the definitions.

From Black’s Law Dictionary, fourth edition, here is the definition for the word “include”:

* include. To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in , attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Including may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used.
* inclose. To surround; to encompass; to bound; fence, or hem in, on all sides.

It is stated in the above definition that the verb include is clearly restrictive and only has limited scope. On the other hand the participle, including (but not limited to) enlarges the scope.

Therefore the conclusion is that when used in a definition, include does not expand the existing definition of the word it is attempting to define. It is easy to be confused because we naturally assume the existing definition of the word, then assume include means to add this new interpretation to the existing assumed definition of the word. Our assumptions fail us in this case.

From now on, when you see the word includes, mentally substitute the word means and you will not be “tricked” by this definition any more.

For the Doubting Thomas:

If you look into any statute, you will be able to find a definition that uses the word includes and when you attempt to broaden the scope of that word to include the ordinary meaning, you will find that the statute will break down because it will not be able to support the inclusion of the ordinary meaning of the word. The breakdown usually occurs when slavery is invoked.

“Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,”
( Preamble – Universal Declaration of Human Rights)


“How’s the dictionary getting on?” Winston asked his comrade Syme, who worked with him in the Research Department.

“We’re getting the language into its final shape,” Syme answered. “By the year 2050 at the very latest not a single human being will be alive who could understand the conversation we are having now.”
1984, George Orwell.

In America we speak three languages: Slang, Formal English, and Legal English, Though simular, if one tries to communicate using one language while the listener is listening using another language, there is great opportunity for miscommunication. This article is written in Legal English.


It’s the language of the street. It is a dynamic, loosely defined language, and it can vary considerably from one geographical area to the next. It abounds with special and paradoxical interpretations. Once must “grow up” with the language to fully appreciate its peculiarities.

Foreigners always have great difficulty dealing with the various idioms. For example, if you think something is genuinely wonderful, you could say either, “That’s really cool!” or “That’s really hot!” Another way to express great approval is to exclaim, “That’s B-A-D!” or “That’s G-O-O-D!”

Formal English:

Precise communications require a more formal structure. Formal English is taught in the schools, and it is the language of choice when strangers meet to execute common transactions. It is a stable language that typically requires multi-decades or centuries to evolve its meanings.

Unless otherwise specified, English dictionaries cast all words in Formal English, with the more common usage placed at the beginning of the definition. Dictionaries often will show slang or legal meanings as well. They are placed after the more popular usages.

This author favors Webster’s 1828 Dictionary because it is useful in understanding words used in the U.S. Constitution. G. & C. Merriam Webster’s unabridged dictionary published in 1953 and earlier is great for modern meanings.

Legal English:

When you want accuracy in communication, Legal English is the preferred language. Also known as King’s English, or the Language of the Court Room, Legal English is extremely stable, requiring thousands of years for changes in meaning.

Because accuracy is required for good legal communication, legal definitions tend to be rather verbose. The extended explanations are necessary to achieve that accuracy. Legal dictionaries are not all called dictionaries. The more thorough dictionaries are entitled “Corpus Juris” and “Words and Phrases.” A given word could require fifty or more pages to arrive at its exact meaning. Other dictionaries (in descending order of this author’s preference) include Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1872 Edition), Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, and Black’s Law Dictionary (4th edition or earlier).

Later editions of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary are more like legal encyclopedias

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th through 7th Editions are not as accurate because references to common law are progressively removed, and Roman Civil Law concepts are augmented in order to conform to the law enforcement needs of political power centers such as the Federal Government and the United Nations.

The rule of thumb is that older dictionaries are useful for understanding natural rights, common law, personal sovereignty, and t                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       nthe people’s point of view. Newer dictionaries are useful for understanding civil rights, Roman civil law, centralized authority, and the government’s point of view. All attorneys are trained in the latter. Judges may go to special seminars to learn the former.

For an excellent research paper on the use of dictionaries in the Supreme Court of the United States, see Kevin Werbach’s LOOKING IT UP: The Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries in Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation (1994).


More of there Deception

The Loan Scam

Here’s how the Loans Scam works

(And why you should NEVER feel sorry for Banks and so on)

(As simplified as I can make it, based on the work of Robert-Arthur: Menard, Mary-Elizabeth: Croft and (to some extent Winston Shrout and Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst), and John R. Dempsey of Sovereign Trust. I’ve just tried to reduce it to absolute fundamentals)

1) Banks: They take deposits. These are held in trust for the depositor. They must, by law, always be prepared to return any and all deposits back to depositors on demand. That’s the LAW. They would not be able to do that if they were ever to lend out any money on deposit to anyone requesting a loan. They cannot, therefore, lend or invest anything entrusted to them. So the question is: Where do they get the money from, in order to loan it to you?

2) Loan Companies, Credit Card Companies, Building Societies: They don’t take deposit money anyway (I’m talking about the ‘older version’ of Building Societies before they became banks. I’m referring to the way they would just issue mortgages. Their ‘banking’ activities are controlled as in (1), above). So the question is: Where do they get the money from, in order to loan it to you as a mortgage?

Leave that question pending for a moment.

3) What is a cheque? Paper, printing ink, somewhere you can hand-write a Payee, and Amount (in numbers and words), a Date, and somewhere to write your signature.

4) What is a Loan Application/Agreement? Paper, printing ink, somewhere a Payee will be written (the name of the Loan Company), somewhere for an Amount (in numbers and words), a Date, and somewhere to write your signature.

Do you see any similarity between (3) & (4)?

A Loan Agreement is a cheque. (Cheques can be written on anything … even toilet paper … provided it contains the essential information so as to enable correct clearance processing)

You send off the Loan Agreement to the Loan Company … and they CASH YOUR CHEQUE! They cash it with an organisation that has the power to issue ‘money’ for that purpose (for example the Treasury, or the Bank of England, etc)


Simple. Wasn’t it?

But wait! Sure, they provided the ‘service’ of converting your cheque into funds within an account you can drawn upon (write other cheques against, use a Credit Card against, etc). And they could do that because they knew how to do that. And yes, that was a service. And yes, they should be paid a fee for that service.

But wait again! What is their ‘fee’? Their ‘servicing fee’?


That’s all they ask for .. in order to provide the original service!

How to do they ensure they collect this ‘service fee’. By giving you a Payment Book! And they make sure they cream off the INTEREST, before applying the remainder as PAYMENT. In fact they even cajole you into never-ending INTEREST by specifying aminimum payment equal to the INTEREST they want. (Knowing full well you’ll often opt for that, thereby allowing them to roll the whole thing on endlessly)

Now let’s view this another way.

If you write a cheque for £100, and send it to someone else (the Payee), and they cash it – DO YOU EXPECT THE BANK TO DEDUCT ANOTHER £100 PLUS INTEREST – FOR ITSELF – AS WELL?

No? You don’t when you write a cheque you ‘see’ as a cheque do you?

Well, then, why should they do that just because you can’t ‘see’ a Loan Agreement as the cheque it actually is?



Your ‘promise to pay’ creates money. Yours, and everyone else’s.

So what -should- happen, then?

What should happen is that you write out a cheque – promising to pay – and send it to the Treasury yourself. They would then ‘cash’ it (in the same way they do that for a Bank), by updating an account with the amount you specified, from which you can draw funds as you need them.

That’s it. Your ‘promise to pay’ stands until the end of time. That’s all money is. A ‘promise to pay’, which stands until the end of time.

All money. "All thee bits of it".

Check out a Banknote. What does it say? "I promise to pay the Bearer on demand the sum of so-many-pounds". And signed by the Governor of the Bank of England (in the UK). A banknote is a Promissory Note – just like a cheque or Loan Agreement or any other IOU. An IOU that stands until the end of time.

What should a Bank do? It should simply accept the ‘cash’ from the Treasury, and operate the account for you.

And claim a reasonable – SMALL – fee for providing you with this convenience.

If you agree to some of your funds being invested, the bank should deduct their fees as commission, and not bother you with any other ‘charges’ at all.

THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO GET TO. To be able to convert your SIGNATURE directly, without any Bank or Loan Company intervening.

And now for something completely different

When you sent them your cheque (aka Loan Agreement) and they cashed it, they could have just walked away with your money. If they’d done that, you wouldn’t have known any difference.

They could have just written to you and said "Sorry, we didn’t approve this loan, after all"

You would have been miffed at not getting the loan but, on the other hand, slightly relieved you didn’t have the payments hanging over you, believing that the whole thing was ‘dead’.

Dead? They were ‘up’ by the amount of the loan! And you were empty-handed! And you had given them that amount!

Dead? I should cocoa!

No. They are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They want INTEREST. Never-ending INTEREST. They POSITIVELY HATE IT when you pay off a loan. Have you noticed? Try getting a loan, and then paying it back immediately. TRY IT.

No. They can lend you your own money, and then claim it back PLUS INTEREST, if they don’t just walk away.

That’s why they don’t just walk away.

Every loan taken out generates money for them. Generated by your payments back.

That’s where banks (etc.) get their money from. All they need to do is to make as sure as possible you’ve fallen for this SCAM sufficient times in the past, so as to be pretty sure you’ll fall for it again.

If you ‘default’ on payments, they had ALREADY BEEN PAID IN FULL RIGHT AT THE START. They took the risk with it. Exactly the same risk as when they invest anywhere. If prices go down, they simply lose, write off the experience, and try elsewhere. Do they send bailiffs if ‘prices go down’? Err … no.

They ‘involve’ themselves when (as explained above) they have no need to be. The risks of doing so are, therefore, entirely theirs, and consequently there is absolutely no need to feel sorry for them.

YOU, on the other hand, don’t owe ANYTHING to ANYONE.

What YOU did was to ‘make some money’ – and then spend it the way you wanted to spend it.

And why not? ‘Money was made’ by you SIGNING a cheque and thereby ‘promising to pay’. I repeat, that’s the only way ‘money is ever made’.

They were the ones who jammed their oar into that simple mechanism.

And now for something that gets really silly

Mortgages. The method for obtaining the cash amount is the same as described above. But there is more to mortgages that meet the eye. (More, over and above, straight loans).

Here a property, in the form of a dwelling, is being transferred from one owner to another (actually one keeper to another, not owner, but that’s another subject).

Now, it is illegal to mortgage a property you don’t own. The property is considered to be the security on the loan. How can you be providing ‘security’ when you don’t – at that time – actually own the thing?

And, secondly, it is illegal to transfer a property/dwelling that has not yet been paid for.

So … what does this mean? You can’t establish a loan, because you don’t have any security to offer. Therefore you can’t pay for it, because you can’t get the loan money. (Err … no. You can’t offer you current home as security, because you are probably in the process of selling it!) And, since you can’t pay for it, the Seller can’t transfer it into your name.

But … on the other hand … people can and do establish mortgages, do buy homes, and do move house.

How is this done?

Well … it happens by ‘magic’. The Bank/Building Society uses ‘magic’.

Not really paranormal ‘magic’, of course … more akin to fraud, in actual fact.

John Dempsey, of Sovereign Trust, explains in absolute detail how the Magic Bank operates.

(Sovereign Trust, btw, don’t employ any form of magic/fraud. They do it honestly, openly, candidly, and all above board)

Veronica: of the Chapman family

(January, 2009)

LIE – Legal/Lawful – TRUTH

The legal/lawful dichotomy is one of the more controversial aspects of freemanism since for many, the two words mean one in the same thing. At the beginning of the 21st century, children are still taught at school that the Statutes are the Law, and many of those who go on to practice in the legal profession will fail to consider the implied contradiction of the "law" being "unjust".

The freeman take on this issue is best summed up in the legal maxim

Aequitas nunquam contravenit legem


Fairness does not contravene the law.

In the freeman dictionary, the word lawful specifically applies to actions or omissions which are just and fair, where as the word legal refers specifically to actions or omissions which are in accord with the legislation, be they just and fair or otherwise.

While there is overlap between the two, to the extent that the legislation has been codified correctly in accordance with what is just, the dichotomy arises because this is not always the case. Logically and reasonably, where the two concur, the legal is unnecessary and utterly irrelevant – because the situation is covered by lawful anyway.

A good example might be given in the enforcement of legislation forcing a human being to pay for a service which the human being does not use. This example is most frequently incarnate in the enforcement of taxation, where the Taxes have neither contracted for the services so provided by, nor use the services, yet are unjustly, but legally forced to labour in order to pay for services they neither want nor use.

An obvious example of this is the use of money to fund State Schooling when, for example, a child may attend a Fee-paying school. Ignoring discussions on whether or not a parent should be able to pay independently for a child’s education, and whether or not Fee-paid Education is better/worse than State Education – the point is that the burden on the State Education is considerably reduced. And the argument is that it would be fair to reduce the State-enforced burden accordingly, in such circumstances.

There are, in point of fact, three distinct categories for the usage of the word "law". And each of these categories has three major components.

1. Laws of Nature (including Laws of Physics, Chemistry, Thermodynamics, etc), i.e. "lawful":

a) Mankind does not make them. Mankind observes them & their effects, then enumerates and evaluates them; in most cases being able to devise mathematical formulae to express them, utilise them and inter-utilise i.e. apply them. Examples: The Law of Gravity (Newton’s Laws), Boyle’s Law, Maxwell’s Laws, Charles’ Law, Ohm’s Law, etc.

b) They apply universally and unilaterally without fear or favour. No ‘Courts’ are required.

c) There is no penalty for breaking them because they cannot be broken.

2. The Common Law i.e. considered "lawful" by freemen:

a) Mankind does make them, based entirely on Common Sense. Thus they are universal and unchangeable. (What you know to be right, fair, honourable and just, is what I know to be right, fair, honourable and just. And will always be so).

b) They are applied by Courts, called Courts de jure (Courts of Justice). A serious attempt at fairness of application is by means of a Jury of 12.

c) There is always a penalty for breaking them because they can be broken if one is prepared to accept the consequences.

3. The Legislated Rules of Societies (Statutes), i.e. "legal":

a) Mankind does make them. Mankind changes them in accordance with its own desires, wishes, needs, etc. Mankind can wipe them away (repeal them) at the stroke of a pen.

b) They are applied by Courts, called Courts de facto (Courts of Arbitration or Tribunals, etc ). They are not applied equally because they always depend on ‘judgment’. It is often said "There is one law for the rich and one law for the poor".

c) There is always a penalty for breaking them because they can be broken if one is prepared to accept the consequences.

We can see that 2a is the same (to all intents and purposes) as 1a. And that 2b attempts, as far as can reasonably be expected, to emulate 1b. We can see that 2c is necessary in order to support 2a & 2b. Thus to use the same word, "law" to describe both 1 and 2 is not unrealistic.

However, from the above, we can see that 3a, 3b and 3c are the exact inverse of 1a, 1b & 1c. And yet the same word is used to describe them in common parlance! This is surely totally unrealistic, however ingrained it has become. It is similar to using the same word to describe both "fire" and "water".

As a result of this, "Legals", i.e. "Statutes", become imbued with the same characteristics as Law. In other words a Statute becomes mentally considered to be as true, solid, and ‘untouchable’ as (say) the Law of Gravity. Which, of course, is totally undeserved.


Societies & Statutes

“Legislation” comprises Statutes. We have got that far. So now let’s examine the definition of a Statute, which is: “The Legislated Rule of a Society”.

Which sounds fair enough. But what is a Society? The definition of a Society is “A group of like-minded people who come together to deliberate, determine, and act towards common goals”.

And, if you think about it, that’s correct. That defines ‘Societies’, in many contexts. Think about the British Medical Association. (“Association” indicates “Society” … the “soc” is in the word). Now, they have their own Rules, don’t they? Rules that Doctors, GPs, Surgeons and Nurses, etc. must obey (or be ‘struck off’!) These Rules are the Statutes of the BMA. The ‘like-minded people’ are the Health Professionals, who have joined the BMA in order to practice professionally. The Rules (Statutes) have been deliberated and determined in the past, and acted upon to publish the common goals into instructions on how Health Professionals must behave (or be ‘struck off’!)

Now, the question is: Are you a member of the BMA? If not, then the Statutes of the BMA do not apply to you, do they?

Let’s look at another example, The Law Society. This Society dictates how Legal Professionals will behave, such as to be able to practice in Courts. It has its own Rules (Statutes) which are not the same as those of the BMA. For example, Lawyers don’t take the Hippocratic Oath, as do Doctors of Medicine.

Now, the question is: Are you a member of the Law Society? If not, then the Statutes of the Law Society don’t apply to you, do they? They don’t apply to your Doctor either – he or she has their own set of Rules, defined by the BMA.

And, similarly, the Rules of the BMA don’t apply to your Solicitor.

And neither set of Statutes apply to your Postman.

And so on, which (hopefully) sets Statutes into their true context. YES – they ARE Law – TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY – but not to anyone else!

Similarly if you work for a Company (which is a Society, in fact), you will undoubtedly receive a Company Handbook, which defines how to behave during your working hours. These are the Statutes of your employer. And there’s another similarity in all of this. Many of these Statute Rules only apply during working hours. In your Social Time, many of them can be disregarded.

Now it’s important to investigate the attributes of any Society. I suggest they are:

1. A Membership (i.e. like-minded people’, to go back to the definition);
2. A distinct Name (so as to distinguish it from all other Groups);
3. A Legislative Body (who ‘deliberate, determine and act);
4. A set of Legislated Rules aka Statutes (which are published as ‘common goals’);
5. A defined method a creating the Membership (i.e. via ‘Applications to join’);
6. A defined method of Resignation.

Now the question is: Can you become the Member of a Society, without you – yourself – deciding to join it, of your own free will? Can someone else decide to join you, and then just say “You’re a Member, so you WILL obey the Statutes!”?

And, even if it is possible for someone else to join you up, what about your ability to resign? Is it possible to prevent the ability to resign?

I think you’ll find that no honourable Society would ever accept Applications to Join other than from the actual person making that Application, out of their own free will. I further think that no honourable Society would prevent Resignations.

But that’s the exact opposite of the Society in which we live, isn’t it? The Statutes decided upon by Parliament (whether you vote or not!) are enforced upon you (even though you never made an Application to Join), and oblivious to the fact that there is no Orthodox Resignation Method (except, presumably, to become a drop-out Hippie!)

This so-called ‘Society in which we live’, which doesn’t even really have a distinct Name, operates in the most DIShonourable manner possible. It decides, of its own accord, to collect you as a Member, enforces its Legislation upon you – whether you agree or not – by means of threats, coercion, extortion and intimidation, and won’t even allow you to resign! If that’s ‘honourable’ then – to quote an American friend from Louisiana – I’m a blowed-out peckerwood!

Yes, Statutes ARE Law – IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. BUT THEY ARE NOT LAW, IF YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER. That’s where they sit, in “Law”.

Fundamentally, if course, it’s all about consent. If you decide to join a Society, then you must be consenting to its Rules. If you don’t consent, then you don’t join, do you?

So this is how we derive the shortform definition: “Statutes are Law BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED”. “The governed” being “those who have consented to be governed”.

But (I scream!) not Law that can be honourably enforced those who have never been consulted, or have withheld consent!

And it is a CRIMINAL ACT to apply or enforce – as “Law” – Rules … on those who have not consented to abide by them, in the first place.

This is not to suggest that we should all ignore all rules of decency, and run riot. Of course it’s not! Go back to The Common Law, and Common Sense. That caters for everything. Who wants trouble? Who wants aggravation? Who wants war? No-one … except Politicians!

I might even be prepared to sign up to a Society that was honourable. One that made sensible Rules in the form of Statutes. One that regarded my Indefeasible Human Rights as paramount. One that allowed me the free will to decide to join. One that allowed me to resign, if I found the Society intolerable at some future time. One that wasn’t utterly corrupt. I might be prepared to join that kind of Society. And obey its Legislated Rules. But that’s not the one I see today … do you?

Perhaps you can begin to understand why myself, and others, are engaged in what is called Lawful Rebellion? We simply wish to rid our ‘current Society’ of corruption, and bring it back to the Rule of Law, to the best ‘justice’ we can find, via The Common Law. But you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. This means we have the break the current stranglehold of Statutes, and fight tooth and nail to utilise The Common Law, as much as possible. Fortunately we still retain vestiges of it, and that is where we can find all of our ‘possible solutions’.