The true nature of the legal fiction.

The true nature of the legal fiction.

Postby Dreadlock » Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:10 pm

I apologise in advance as this is a long one. I've been doing a lot of thinking and I think the following hypothesis is closer to the truth than anyone, that I am aware of, has thus far come.
It is based on material evidence (link below), deduction, observation and experience. Constructive comments welcome.

The legal fiction is not the name of a trust as many people think - I did too until a few days ago. Rather, it is the name of a BOND, our bond. The term "strawman" is not accurate because the legal fiction actually does represent us, just as much as our given names do. Why? Joe Bloggs - the name of the man given to us by our parents. JOE BLOGGS - the name of the man capitalsed indicating reduced status, specifically that this man has been bonded. The first name represents us in our natural capacity with our full god-given rights. The second name represents us as bonded with vastly reduced rights - but not quite a slave who has no rights.

How did I come to this conclusion? Well I have the Royal family to thank for that. Look at this document:

We can see that Catherine had a surname as a maid, but lost it upon marriage. We can also see that the surname is the last name of the legal fiction. We can also see that the Royals by birth, William and his son, do not and have never had surnames and by extension legal fictions as represented by surnames. These facts raise a couple of questions:

If the legal fiction was a trust of which Catherine was a beneficiary, why would she want to get rid of it?
If the legal fiction was a trust from which people can benefit why would the Royals not want one?

The only logical answer is that the legal fiction DOES NOT represent a trust.

So what does it represent? Let's look at some known facts.

1. Our Certificates of Birth are printed on bonded paper. Evidenced by the paper.
2. They are issued by the government, the Crown Corporation specifically. Evidenced by the coat of arms printed on the certificate.
3. They have a number on them and OUR names in CAPITALS.
4. They are financial instruments and are traded. This can be checked on certain financial websites - I did this years ago.

It hardly takes a giant leap to conclude that the name ON the bond is the name OF the person bonded - acting in the capacity of a bonded person. This is an assumption on my part but I think a safe one.

Lets look at the word "surname". After checking numerous law dictionaries dating from the early 1700s to a few years ago the most complete definition of surname that I found was:

Bouvier's 1856

SURNAME. A name which is added to the christian name, and which, in modern times, have become family names.
2. They are called surnames, because originally they were written over the name in judicial writings and contracts. They were and are still used for the purpose of
distinguishing persons of the same name. They were taken from something attached to the persons assuming them, as John Carpenter, Joseph Black, Samuel Little, &c.

We can see from this that the nature of a surname is that of an attachment. A bond certainly qualifies as an attachment when placed upon a baby (or any man) and so calling the last name of the bond a surname is totally accurate.
From the royal registration document we see that Catherine's maiden surname was MIDDLETON which was the last name of her legal fiction. If it was originally printed on a Certificate of Birth (there is no reason to assume it wasn't) then it was the name of a government bond, which is to say that Catherine had been bonded to the Crown by her parents (just like the rest of us).

Clearly a prince cannot marry a bonded woman whose status is but one step above that of a slave - hence Catherine's bond was removed.

So how do we get this legal fiction/attachment/surname/bond in the first place? It's very simple, our parents asked for it at some point after we were born. They no doubt thought that "surname" was synonymous with "family name" and so were deceived into bonding their baby.

If I am right, and I think I am, how does this theory (I'll call it the bond theory) compare with the "trust" theory?

Well the trust theory states that the government tricks us into acting as employees (trustees) of the trust when we are in fact beneficiaries. An employee is very similar to a bondsman so it is easy to see how this conclusion was arrived at. However there are some problems with it.

1. It means that the government is always acting illegally and unlawfully, by constantly committing fraud, by representing itself as beneficiary and us as trustees - when it knows full well this isn't true.

2. It means that the government is always acting upon presumption and assumption in regards to us acting as an employee of theirs - a weak position for them to be in, as it is impossible for them to prove that we are acting in that capacity at any given time. (Unless we ARE employees of course! Police etc.)

3. It means the government is violating the common law by presuming we are acting as their employees despite our protests to the contrary.

4. It fails to explain why the Royals would not and do not have trusts, after all the government would hardly try to defraud them would it!

The "Bond" theory has none of these problems.

1. The government is not committing fraud. There is no trust at work with regards to the legal fiction.

2. The government never has to assume or presume that we are acting as their employees. We have been bonded by our parents. The bond is in place 24/7. WE ALWAYS WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT!!

3. The government never violates the common law because as bondsmen we are always within Crown and statute jurisdiction.

4. It totally explains why the Royals do not want and do not have a legal fiction and why Catherine disposed of hers! Also note that Catherine's occupation is "Princess of the UK". She can hardly be employed as a princess whilst being a bondswoman!

As you can see. The "Bond" theory is far "cleaner" than the trust theory. It requires ONE simple deception shortly after we are born, rather than deception and fraud day in day out. It explains why the police and government officials behave the way they do. If I was the government, I'd be doing it this way and not messing around with trusts.

One more big question. How come people who go to court denying that they are the legal fiction/capitalised name/ trustee of a trust, sometimes seem to win?

Answer: the government is caught between a rock and a hard place.

The truth, that we are bonded and that it was done by means of deception, is extremely unpleasant. They simply cannot allow this to become common knowledge.

The alternative is to allow us to think that they are dirty cheating scum who trick us into playing the role of trustee when we should be beneficiaries. Well people like us believe they are dirty cheating scum anyway, so they are not giving anything away there. Even so, they don't want to admit this lie and will try every trick in the book to get us to submit to them. But at the end of the day, this lie is far less unpleasant than the truth.

Don't take this to mean that I don't think a trust is involved in all this somewhere. In fact I think there absolutely is a trust at play somewhere - it simply is not represented by the legal fiction/bond name printed on our Certificates of Birth.

Ok people, go for it! :grin:
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: The true nature of the legal fiction.

Postby squark » Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:29 pm

Is it a bird?
Is it a plane?
No neither of them. Oh well.

GB I mean UK is built on banking and the other biggie INSURANCE, that's bonding of a sort?
Makes sense you sell close to home first of all. Look how "clever" they are, 2 compulsory purchases out of 2 available products. "Shopping" :thinks:

What made a whole lot of sense to me was, If YOU value YOUR stuff.......YOU insure YOUR STUFF.
I always drove a crappy old car, makes no difference if its trashed.
Why should I insure your big expensive BMW? Because YOU value it?
We live in a culture of blame, an accident is an accident, no one is at fault.

I heard, I think from Creditors in Commerce, (before they went to prison for ever) that the offer is Limited Liability (statute court and punishments) rather than full unlimited liability (civil claims). All the rules are to keep claims against Bonds to a minimum. Its worth thinking on Dread, well played.

Everything goes so much deeper than I ever intended to go. All this unintended learning.

We are making progress, please someone convince me.
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: The true nature of the legal fiction.

Postby Dreadlock » Thu Dec 19, 2013 12:46 am

Thanks for replying squark.

I don't know if my theory is correct. I'm pretty sure it isn't 100% correct but I'm also pretty sure it is more correct than the trust theory.
At the end of the day all we really need to know is that the legal fiction is a capacity which we can choose to play or not play. The government will never admit to it being a capacity that we HAVE to play
because that will make their "birth deception" simply too obvious - rock and hard place.
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: The true nature of the legal fiction.

Postby pitano1 » Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:31 am

first`s a may like to watch,it is a long one.
dealing with this very subject,and `more.

i.m.h.o...the legal entity,is both a blessing,and a curse.....just like the birth certificate.

what do i mean.?

on the long have the birth of a new baby..[blessing]..the first entry.
the second a death certificate/entity.[curse] does this pan out in the legal world,to be a blessing,and a curse.?

the blessing[wrong term realy] its,an artifice.

as squark suspects...the `b.c`,is an insurance..[limited liability]...underwritten,by the legal fiction.

[uhn-der-rahyt, uhn-der-rahyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), un·der·wrote, un·der·writ·ten, un·der·writ·ing.
to write under or at the foot of, especially under other written matter.
to sign one's name, as to a document.
to show agreement with or to support by or as if by signing one's name to, as a statement or decision.
to bind oneself to contribute a sum of money to (an undertaking): Wealthy music lovers underwrote the experimental concerts.
to guarantee the sale of (a security issue to be offered to the public for subscription).
to write one's name at the end of (a policy), thereby becoming liable in case of certain losses specified in the policy.
to insure.
to assume liability to the extent of (a specified sum) by way of insurance.
to select or rate (risks) for insurance.

so....if we are policy....their has to be a bond.

oh what tangled webs they order to decieve.. :grin:

the whole worlds,a stage,and each...MUST...act their part.
If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau
Posts: 1157
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: on the land

Re: The true nature of the legal fiction.

Postby squark » Thu Dec 19, 2013 5:37 pm

I actually got round to reading the dictionary last night. It's only a small one. Oxford English.
Anyway, as I was looking at the UN rights and they use the phrase State
STATE-Organised political community under one government.

POLITICAL-Of or affecting the State, its government, public affairs, relating to persons status or influence.

CITIZEN-Native or Naturalised member of a State

JURISDICTION-Administration of Justice, Extent of Authority

AUTHORITY-Power or Right to enforce obedience, this power delegated. Personal Influence arising from Knowledge or Position.

COMMUNITY-A group having something in common.

OBEDIENCE-Obeying or ready to obey. Submissive to anothers will.

RIGHT-Required of Morality, Equity or Duty. Correct, True, Not mistaken. Fair Claim. Being entitled to by privilege or immunity.

There ain't much in there suggesting compulsory membership. Its nothing more than a group with something in common, who make rules, and have a fair claim to enforce them on their Citizens.

I was asking in the Job Centre about public funding entitlement. They found me this link!!!! (I got the gov't to do something!!!!!Yehaaaa!)
"provides information about British citizenship and other forms of British nationality"
:grin: :mrgreen: :grin:
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: The true nature of the legal fiction.

Postby squark » Wed Dec 25, 2013 5:59 pm

Twas the night before Christmas, I did pray unto the Lord, he did sayeth unto me, "you shouldn't have had that 9th mince pie then should you, greedy pig."

The clock struck 12, and then a heavenly angel came down and said, Happy Christmas, here is my gift unto you........

From the OED again....

WITHOUT-not having or feeling or showing, WITH FREEDOM FROM (! HO HO HO) in absence of, with neglect or avoidance of.

SECEDE- Withdraw formally from a political or religious body.

INNOCENT- without guilt, not guilty of a crime, sinless, WITHOUT GUILE, harmless.

GUILE- Treachery, deceit, cunning, craftiness.

CEDE-give up ones rights to or possession of.

The guile (deceit) of the system is to make us believe we are within the State, we did not sign up, if its a contract, under the law of the land it's an invalid one, no full disclosure is possible, making the task for the new year to secede from something we never ceded to. I think we were SUBJECT to it, it was done to us.

Go forth in peace and spread the good news. How Christmassy can you possibly get!

:grin: :apple: :sun: :peace: :sun: :apple: :grin:
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: The true nature of the legal fiction.

Postby squark » Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:44 am

I got an answer!!!!!!!!
What is a PERSON?????????

'Person' is defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 - Schedule 1 -
"Person” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporated.

What? That's it? That doesn't help!!!
So much so I have warned them complaints procedures on every level including going to the people showing how their tax money is wasted on RETARDS IN POWER.
This answer is a thoughtless, useless, piss take. It's deliberately so, they are shit heads.
I'm running out of patience, that's their modus operandum I guess.
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: The true nature of the legal fiction.

Postby Too Far Gone » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:37 pm

The terms (any you like) used in anything have different meanings. The true meaning of person will be defined in whatever literature it is used in, as the meaning changes.
User avatar
Too Far Gone
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:59 pm

Re: The true nature of the legal fiction.

Postby holy vehm » Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:25 pm

All law is to be interpreted in its plain english definition unless otherwise stated.
The interpretation and its standing in law is key.

A question one could ask is what is their interpretation of 'Person'
Unless they state otherwise, its the plain english definition that is to be applied.

Its not really for us to look into all the possible definitions that may exist, a simple question to those that have written to us or made a claim against us asking for their interpretation should suffice.
Depending on what the case is about will depend on what if any interpretation is required.
One must then see if their definition applies.
Very few cases will require a definition outside of the plain english definition and if it does then generally speaking, a precedent will exist where a prior case has already defined what 'person' will mean in a similar case.
If it is felt that the word 'person' is being misused or misinterpreted then i would request they refrained from using that word and offer an alternative.


In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears, words and expressions listed in Schedule 1 to this Act are to be construed according to that Schedule.

“Person” includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate. [1889]

The above is the defined version of 'person' that will be applied unless 'otherwise' stated.
"A ruler who violates the law is illegitimate. He has no right to be obeyed. His commands are mere force and coercion. Rulers who act lawlessly, whose laws are unlawful, are mere criminals".
User avatar
holy vehm
Posts: 3077
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 7:17 pm

Return to The Person (legal fiction)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest