Peace Keepers

Whilst i believe their approach regarding our ancient laws and customs is
the way foreward .I think they have it wrong in this video.

I may start a thread to debate here what they have presented in that video.

If people started to comprehend that the country land mass call it what you like but "please don't use their names or you are agreeing that they own an control it" is under occupation an they have been here an long time but that does not make it right ! , ENSLAVED , until people comprehend this fully whats the point, "their was an good video about this will dig it out an post it" You will see that the same s,,t is happening now ,

Yes, Marc has made an error here in my view, he describes the Fictions of the Estates comprising Parliament quite well, but he is making a mistake conflating a Natural Person with the Interpretation given to Artificial Persons, i gave my reasons in the comment section.

The key point is that an Unincorporated Body of persons such as an Association/Club or Partnership is still a separate fictional entity to its members (who are Natural Persons in their individual capacities) ..the difference between Unincorporated Bodies and Incorporated Bodies is the issue of 'Liability'. In any case a Body of Persons is an Artificial Person.. that is obvious as it comes into being through a concept and an agreement between individuals to give a legal meaning to that concept to which they can be bound.

https://www.gov.uk/unincorporated-associations

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803110707292;jsessionid=7818D416D4E3D01F1EC2E7207C499140#:~:text=An%20association%20that%20has%20no,in%20A%20Dictionary%20of%20Law%20%C2%BB

https://valonline.org.uk/unincorporated-v-s-incorporated-legal-structures/#:~:text=Unincorporated%20groups%20cannot%20enter%20into%20contracts%20or%20own%20property%20in,contracts%20in%20their%20own%20right.

I could post pages of links here but i think the point is made well enough in the above examples. I am surprised they have conflated Natural Person like that as it negates what they are saying about individual consent and the right to exercise freewill... and is this not the nub of the problem we have with the Legal Professionals and Corporate Agents ? they are identifying us in a way that is based upon these fictions yet will not provide evidence to us that proves where our agreement to be bound by those fictional constructs exists or has come into existence ... probably why they are forcing administrative courts upon us to circumvent that fundamental requirement.

Example, we have a list with your name on it, so pay up... but how did i agree t be party to that list ? Your on the list just pay up or else ...

@ DI ...certainly worth a thread of it's own this

Even Wiki breaks this down sufficiently well enough to see how it must work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_association

The problem is when it gets pushed into the lap of Judicial interpretation, with the Judges we have today the only precedent likely to be created is one that strengthens the reach of the State, not one that is consistent with protecting the rights of the individual from the State.

This is the reaction from some people -
"yeah i heard it before" but did you comprehend it , so what are you doing about it ?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk

Good to see Marc on Richard Vobes channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVGIPhGOvC8

It would appear that Peace Keepers are not as genuine as they purport to be, it is a registered company No. 13507258 with 'Master Marc Anton Paul Horn being the officer and person with significant control.

Craig has done some digging on this.

more info too
https://companycheck.co.uk/director/927238247/MARC-ANTON-PAUL-HORN/companies

Also had a look on companies house,all looks innocuous

weneedremedy why are you still using a vpn from israel after being warned in pm?

daveiron wrote:Also had a look on companies house,all looks innocuous

All I can say is that, after all of the research I have done over the last 15 or so years I have looked at many researchers, some in depth and some not so much, although the word 'controlled operation' is all over the truth movement I have come to the conclusion that there is always good information to come from most places, including of course the 'State' and its proxies as it is 'revelation of the method,' so I take what resonates with me and also do my own cross checking research, and decide whether they are genuine  or not at their core; in my opinion Peace Keepers are not genuine at their core, so that means for me to always double and triple check their information before using it within my 'one to keep' folder.

I do trust Craig more than most, I am not saying he is 100% genuine, but then we can never know, anymore than people who interact with us, know that we are or not genuine, however, none of his information to date has not panned out with further research, and of course I do my own anyway; there is a saying that, "people always tell you who and what they are if you listen carefully," and I think Peace Keepers certainly did that with the 'persons' video, and merely being registered as company says a great deal.

My opinion of course.

I and many others in the comments below his vid ,have challenged him
to debate with the PKs and of course he is refusing point blank.
That to me says it all.

What the real question would be , How could an piece of paper be sovereign ?

or even have any type of authority ?

Sorry to be an pain but, Who's money does the members of that organised crime cartel use to fund their lavish life styles, when equity seems too be in another realm !

With the withdrawn video above,it would appear that the Black Belt
Barrister cannot stand scrutinity of his words .Many comments were posted
below his video asking why he will not debate with the Peace Keepers,
Surely a barrister should be more than capable of debating with a couple
of non professionals on what he claims to be his profession.

Re uploaded;

Lets see if he keeps his oath. It is very clear.

as Churchill the dog says - 'Oh yes'

can't say it any simpler