Discussion on Peace Keepers

This thread is for those who wish to discuss the work of the PKs,and in particular
this video ;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_9CmsDAcVk&ab_channel=PEACEKEEPERS

Whilst i agree with most of their previous content ,i have issues with this one.
Please keep on topic and with objective views ,not derogatory remarks.

To start with i have issues with their interpretation of Person.
Nowhere can i find in any legal dictionary a reference to a person being a living
man ( i will not refer to men and women i use the term as a species not a gender)

Quote from the 1889 interpretations act which they are using.
In this Act & every Act passed after the commencement of this Act,the expression
"person" shall,unlessthe contrary intention appears, include any body of persons
corporate or unincorporate.

Corporate / unincorporate both refer to a body / group. Note the word in the Act
include ,so if it includes both of these it must therefore exclude all else.

Also there are over 20 quotes in the Bible warning not to be a person.
If a living man is a person why is that never given as a definition ,ever.
A lot of confusion no doubt arrises by the term Natural Person.I think this
is deliberate obfuscation. To my thinking a Natural Person is a man acting in
the role of a person.

Thoughts please and comments

look at the 2 excellent threads started by DI on 'know who you are'. Over all IMO a 'PERSON' is legally created fiction?

also:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/section/202

“person” includes (without prejudice to the provisions of the M1Interpretation Act 1978) an association corporate or unincorporate;

I'm sure that used to read - 'an association corporate or unincorporate representation'? the re-present, re-presenting the wo/man as the legal fiction?

https://thelawdictionary.org/person/
PERSON Definition & Legal Meaning
Definition & Citations:

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.

on this channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@AdrianHealth

there were references to Black's Law on definitions of 'Human' - being a monster & 'Monster' one who cannot own anything. Something like that.

found this:
https://thelawdictionary.org/monster/

MONSTER Definition & Legal Meaning
Definition & Citations:

A prodigious birth; a human birth or offspring not having the shape of mankind, which cannot be heir to any land, albeit it be brought forth in marriage. Bract fol. 5; Co. Litt. 7, 8; 2 Bl. Comm. 246.

(3111)

Good call Dave,

In Etymology Person stems from: 'Per Sonare' ... literally through the sound of, which in ancient Romano/Greek theatre became known as through the mask or character of or through the Actor of.

So Person is always the Actor or Agent of the underlying principal., which is the real living spirit that makes it happen, Person is sometimes meant as being the Human Body itself, as in he had an offensive article on his person, this is still an agency situation as the body is the vehicle or vessel through which the self or spirit manifests its will in the world ...this would be known as one's proper person or In propria Persona.

'Natural Person' is a natural Man but is usually defined as having a certain capacity (under natural law) as opposed to a 'Legal Person' which is itself a creation of positive law, in other words a legal relationship has formed which creates that Person/Actor.

There is my ten penny worth, Person itself is a neutral term, there is no bogey man here, and it depends on the context it is used, the Bible is referring to the Civil or Legal Person as that is a face other than the one we were given by our creator, so that makes sense of the statement 'God is no respecter of persons' it would be absurd to suggest it means our physical bodies if you accept that God created them from a primordial act.

Will follow this up with a statutory explanation

I have watched a few of the videos that the Peacekeepers have put out, and yes they have good information, however most researchers in this ‘truth movement’ have good information, if they didn’t we wouldn’t give them the time of day, especially if we already have some knowledge, however, that does not necessarily mean they are not controlled opposition or getting pulled down the wrong avenues themselves.

I am not sure what their aim is with this recent video, but they are not being very helpful with it; the system has been set up to keep men and women in a state of ignorance and confusion, that is the only way they can persuade us that we are required to stay in line and do as we are bid by the state.

The word ‘person’ has been placed strategically to cover the living man/woman as has the word citizen, the Cestui Qui Vie Act and the ‘Trusts’ that were set up under this Act, is fact, and has been evidenced on numerous occasions, do we own this trust, no, is it a trust to obfuscate what is our share on this earth, gifted to us by our creator, yes, in my opinion.  The creator is the grantor of the earth and all on it, we are the beneficiaries, as long as we do no loss, harm or injury, we are free to live our life as we choose and benefit from this earth.

The problem is there are entities that believe they own this earth (or have been promised it) and all on it, they have securitised every resource and the all property, including us, the only way they could do this was to program us to believe we are something we are not, which is the ‘artificial.’   They are taking every man and woman’s share which is free at inception and making us pay for it, well our creator gifted it, so it is all fraud.

The word ‘person’ is the word used in all of their Acts, Statutes and legislation, and as none of these are for living men and women then obviously they are for the ‘person.’  Yes many are chasing the trust in the belief that what is in it, is theirs to take, it’s not, what is ours is the land and resources that they have put into this trust and profited from along with all the many myriads of trusts they have set up.  So what they do need to do is reimburse every man and woman for everything they have stolen, and remove their sticky fingers from what is ours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODBC-9dfh7A

Agree with all you put Sam, also all Craig said in the vid.
For the most part i think what the PKs are doing should be the way forward
its just the latest video i have problems with,hence this thread.

i was going to add a post with more on the Interpretation Act, but just came across this in the Children Act 1975 which seems to be consistent with the debate around Artificial Person v Natural Person, pay attention to sub-section(6), i am not sure i can explain exactly why this has been construed this way but i think we need to ask why none the less:

Explanation of concepts

85 Parental rights and duties.

(1)In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, “the parental rights and duties” means as respects a particular child (whether legitimate or not), all the rights and duties which by law the mother and father have in relation to a legitimate child and his property; and references to a parental right or duty shall be construed accordingly and shall include a right of access and any other element included in a right or duty.

(2)Subject to section 1(2) of the M1Guardianship Act 1973 [F1(which relates to separation agreements between husband and wife)], a person cannot surrender or transfer to another any parental right or duty he has as respects a child.

(3)Where two or more persons have a parental right or duty jointly, any one of them may exercise or perform it in any manner without the other or others if the other or, as the case may be, one or more of the others have not signified disapproval of its exercise or performance in that manner.

(4)From the death of a person who has a parental right or duty jointly with one other person, or jointly with two or more other persons, that other person has the right or duty exclusively or, as the case may be, those other persons have it jointly.

(5)Where subsection (4) does not apply on the death of a person who has a parental right or duty, that right or duty lapses, but without prejudice to its acquisition by another person at any time under any enactment.

(6)Subsections (4) and (5) apply in relation to the dissolution of a body corporate as they apply in relation to the death of an individual.

(7)Except as otherwise provided by or under any enactment, while the mother of an illegitimate child is living she has the parental rights and duties exclusively.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/72/part/IV/crossheading/explanation-of-concepts?fbclid=IwAR32LvKdzT48ofSFaD_n-vPL8uLHH9nbILZEzcJMT17vxcAIndgghl22KxY

The Act has been repealed,, but none the less the fact they construe "Parental Rights and Duties" devolved or transferred as being the same the dissolution of a body corporate, implies it is a totally artificial construct, or that even by 1975, Parental Responsibility was being governed by Corporate rules of succession, because clearly Natural individuals cannot be the same as Bodies Corporate.

My take on that subsection is refering if the boy / girl is in the 'care' of
a local authority or orphanage.

However as the PKs stress over and over ,there is no law that can give rights
or obligations to anyone .
The boy / girl is the property ('proper to me') of the parents until they
pass into adulthood.

I think these terms and definitions are relative to the Jurisdiction of the Court that assumes it and/or the Local Authorities; regardless of whether in actual custody of infants, ergo they have to create a new identity which is fictional and places us under this Civil or Corporate Jurisdiction. But they clearly are abusing and misusing how these fictions should lawfully work. because they are destroying lives the way they apply them.

"No fiction shall extend to WORK AN INJURY, its proper operation being to prevent a mischief or remedy an inconvenience which might result from the general rule of law."
- 3 Blackstone's Commentaries (21 ed.)

I found something in the 1989 Children Act where they repealed the words for appointing Guardians by 'Testament or Deed' in the above cited Act, so they seem to have a limitation when those are in play, in any case the definition of Person as in the Interpretation Act 1978 or 1888 must apply as it is not given a contrary meaning ...and that is the default definition unless some Act or Instrument expresses it another way.

There is also the way they define the term 'Area' as in Administrative area, i remember enquiring about what was meant by that as it is printed on the Birth Certificate, the LA Legal team would not give me an explanation, (which i recorded) but it was styled in the County of ..... even though they are incorporated as a Unitiary Authority by the 1972 Act, and legally are not a County, i strongly suspect the Area is actually the Court and its commissioning area.

My research so far points to the BC being the mechanism of their jurisdiction, they will never admit it, but it is obvious when looked at from the position of reality, there is nothing on that document or record that describes the natural living being that is who we are in reality. Going back to PK, i think this is a mistake on their part to rush past this fact, to reach the conclusion they have, because it is always the presumption of these Courts that it is that entity that is before them, and i think this is how they are getting around the Bill of Rights and operating administrative courts as that is about protecting the living from that Government Constitution and its over reach ... there is so much more to this that needs to be considered.

Agreed ,that was another point ,the dismissal so rapidly of the CQV act.
Was the great fire of London a forerunner of 911? was the CQV act written
and ready to go like the Patriot Act was. To dismiss the CQV act as nothing
more than a register ,i cannot agree with. So much research on this has gone
before,i think they should have given an explanation as why they think all
that research is without merit.

Getting back to the def of person, the enormity and implication of the definition
is staggering. If the powers (that think they are) believe that person = man
why do they not just give that simple def afterall its only a 3 letter word.
Instead they describe it as everything that the unthinking masses unwittingly
think is a man but never define it as such.

Yes i think the way in which Marc and Brian gloss over the most important definition in Statute is a little blaazay if not premature.

What they failed to recognise was the word 'Body', a body is a group, whether incorporated or not, it will be easily confirmed if we look in Strouds Judicial or a similar Dictionary that the unincorporated Body is an association or partnership, whereas Incorporated is an obvious one that requires no deep investigation for the purposes of Marc's argument, it seems blatantly obvious to me that a Natural Person cannot become a member of a group without some positive act on his/her part. Interestingly the only time i have found Man in Legislation (with exception of Murder/Manslaughter) is in the representation of the people Act ...A man is stated as having the Right of Franchise to vote (but not an obligation), it does make me wonder if the act of voting creates membership or joinder with the 'Body' or group ?

Some one posted this in the comments on the Richard Vobes Video which is useful as its from Hansards which is accepted as extraneous evidence for judicial Notice:

Definition of "Body unincorporate" A body unincorporate includes every unincorporated company, fellowship, society, trustee or nominal trustee to whom any real or personal property shall belong or be vested...." (HANSARD HC DEB. 29 June 1909 Mr MITCHELL-THOMSON asking the then Attorney General, Sir W. ROBINSON if the above definition was good - to which ROBINSON replied I think you could not have a clearer definition than that).

Thank you, very valid points, well made. I also had difficulty listening to the dismissive attitude of these respected researchers in the words and phrases some of us have found loaded with hidden meaning and importance.
In other areas of his Law Course, Marc makes the point that what people have become accustomed to say or do, even in ignorance, can be viewed as part of the 'customs of the people', and that his purpose is to help us change those customary actions so that they accord with our birthright-protecting constitution.
He seems very focussed on the 'contract and obligation' areas of our now customary behaviour, being used to helping corporations with their contracts in his former life. If corporations do not have to honour non-existent agreements, then neither do 'persons', however defined.

Yep, i am an advocate and helper of Peacekeepers, i believe the approach towards the Bill of Rights is correct, and needs to be pursued, i simply Defer with Marc/Brian on the way they have construed the interpretation of Person, and i think this will return to the fore in due course, as it is such a fundamental premise - it is patent nonsense to mix what is natural with what is artificial, it goes against the principle rule of parity, class and like for like, besides legal Fictions are only a valid invention if they remedy some mischief in the general law or provide a remedy where otherwise an injustice would occur (for example a fictitious beneficiary) , they cannot be used to create an injury, that is something i found in Blackstones Commentaries. Regards the Obligation, that is a question that cannot be answered by anyone working within Local Government or even the VOA, not just because these people are unlikely to have the knowledge but because it is the Commissioners of HMRC who approve and dictate what is a chargeable Dwelling (Hereditament) so it is they who must explain, the others are just box tickers  for enforcement and collection; strictly speaking they too should prove the obligation (as due diligence on their part) but as we have seen in the Magistrates Court, they are blatantly assisted by the clerk and the District Judge so that this is not taken into evidence - which is really a contempt of court. But that is where we are today .... and what Marc is doing is highlighting this and encouraging others to get into court, because the more people who shine a light on this abuse of the court process, the harder it is going to be for them to continue operating like this, on that part about customs he is correct, though if the Judges are making up the rules and fabricating precedents that are expedient for the Executive, it is hardly our customs, but rather theirs.

The Chronology and Evolution of Rates and eventually Council Tax is quite interesting, because on the one hand it evolved from the Poor rate (long since abolished) which has its origin and jurisdiction within an Ecclesiastical Parish - (Commutated Tithes), but on the other hand it appears to have taken over or merged with the County Rate which was for things like Highways, Bridges, drains etc (parliament do not publish the County Rate Act online). Most of the Acts that join the parts of the puzzle together are not yet published, although a rather helpful lady in the archives department has informed me they are going to start publishing the older statutes as part of a consolidation programme, worth keeping an eye on.

to be un-done one first needs to be done?