V.Important

I'd like to apologise I feel I have been neglecting the posts in the other forums, but this is to important to put on the backseat.

What I have discovered, as some will already know, is it is one thing hearing seeing on the variety of online resources to actually proving in law.

There is no real easy way to explain or advocate this, Im gonna go ahead and give it a shot.

Terminology:

Natural Guardian (parent) = Legal Guardian

Mother = Someone who has been granted parental responsibility by the state

Father =Someone who has been granted parental responsibility by the state

Parental responsibility = the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent of a child has in relation to the child and his property

What does this mean?

It means in legislation the state grants a natural parent, the real biological mother and father parental responsibility of their own child. No parent, no mother, no father has natural guardianship of their biological child, the parentage they think they have is parental responsibility, which is a basic responsibility to nurture the basic needs of that child and tend to its financial necessities.

In the eyes of the law NO natural parent of a child is deemed to have a biological and natural attachment to their own child, those parental duties we are all fulfilling are all fictional responsibilities that are granted to us over our own children, you are not a true parent of your own child in the eyes of the law! In fact, they have legislated this so much, that since 1989 NO male or female is, in law, considered, a natural guardian of their own child. This is shocking, its very shocking your child in law is considered an orphan and that orphan is a ward of the state and the state grant you parental responsibility over your very own child, your very own child who in law is a freaking orphan!

Hi Waffle

Yes, it is indeed shocking.

It also conveys the essence of the difference between lawful and legal.

Cheers!

Wrong Waffle, you are a natural parent up the point you register them for the BC, this is why is so important for them to get this piece of paper so quickly

Hi guys

Might i offer a different opinion?

'You', as in the 'man', are never a natural parent. The man doesn't have a child.

'Natural parent' and 'child' are legal terms rather than lawful. There is no law involved in these Acts.

It is only your 'person' that is 'natural parent' to a child.

This only happens because the 'author' of the 'creation' doesn't assert his authority and claim the product of his labour as his own.

Cheers!

Iamani! I dont like that you distance the Man from the offspring!

To pair is to join up. Par in French is 'match'.

The 'parent' is saying something is 'paired'. "The parent to the child".

Parent is a mother + offspring and/or a father + offspring.

Hi Tom Bombadil

Actually, i didn't distance the man from the offspring. i pointed out that in using those legal terms he is separating himself from his offspring.

I understand your distaste, but it's the legislators wot did it, guv! Ask Waffle, he'll back me up.....

Cheers!

This is exactly what I'm trying to say Tom, they have taken away legislation that establishes us as biological parents, the father is separate from the child except for purposes to relieve financial burdens on the state. The ONLY reason they let the children stay with us is because generally the natural (natural law) parents can give affection like no other.

Here is the legislation that separates father and child legally.


(4)The rule of law that a father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child is abolished.

the battle should be between us and them, it's v. Important we know thy enemy.

It's a difficult thread to advocate without causing offence because of the sensative nature of the relationship between parent and child.

I'd strongly recommend reading these links on whatdotheyknow.

Why does British law not reflect natural law when it comes to parents:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/why_does_british_law_not_reflect?utm_campaign=alaveteli-experiments-87&utm_content=sidebar_similar_requests&utm_medium=link&utm_source=whatdotheyknow


Why was the law abolished https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/why_was_the_law_abolished

You missed the link to the particular statute:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/2

The statement that the "rule of law" is abolished is in itself astounding and does not appear to require any contextual narrative - however it would be naïve and foolish to not read the entire statute and its linked references before coming to any conclusions as to what this means and how they have been able to legally construct the result they have obtained.

It is quite clear the objective is the abolition of the biological familiar unit and the state stepping in as the parents over what the consider their wards and whose property they deem to have the power to administer, administrators appoint Trustees to do the dirty work.

The next time you fancy a bit of coitus, perhaps you better write to the Family Court first and ask them if you have been appointed to see the job through.

Hell, why not do an FOI while your at it.

Hi Candor

Nice to see you back buddy. Thought we'd lost you.

Cheers!

This is from an ex family law lawyer, dosche bag, typical prat grovelling at the grace and glory of the system and hasn't a clue of the big picture, but he has some interesting information in this blog....

In fact, the primary piece of legislation dealing with arrangements for children prior to the Children Act 1989 was called the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971. However, our history lesson begins long before 1971.

Guardianship actually had its origins in the feudal system, with early guardians being largely concerned with the property of a child heir. However, as described in a 1985 Law Commission Working Paper, the purpose of guardianship was to change:

The institution of guardianship was originally of concern only to those who had property. It began as a lucrative incident of feudal tenure and developed as a means of safe-guarding a family’s property and securing its transmission from one generation to another. Subsequently it became the instrument for maintaining the authority of the father over the upbringing of his children.”

As most people will be aware, until modern times our family law favoured husbands and fathers (for more on this, see this post), and guardianship was part of that thankfully bygone system. Hence the law recognised the father as the children’s “natural” guardian (the word “natural” seems to have been used simply because it was the term used for an earlier form of guardianship relating to the heir apparent). The effect of natural guardianship was that the father alone had control over the person, education, religion and marriage of his children, until they reached the ‘age of discretion’ and in some respects up to the age of twenty one. While the father was alive the mother had no claims as natural guardian, and was originally in no better position than a stranger.

http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2017/03/27/complain-family-justice-facts/



Moving on from this ignorant cockroach......

Further background research shows that guardianship relates specifically to the property of a ward. Infant some documentation I am unable to share from the Lords in the 19th century when the court of Chancery was reforming and refining its approach to guardianship. They state, that they can only acquire guardianship if a ward has property, it doesn't matter how much property the ward has just something, anything is enough for the child to become a ward of the court.

Is this why they abolished a fathers inherent right to natural guardianship of his offspring?

it would be, that upon general principles the king as parens patriae has an original prerogative to take care of the persons and property of infants, of idiots, and of lunatics, in all cases where no other guardianship exists.

Above and below is also The Wards of Chancery document, I have no link, but this is from the Lords in the 19th century.

The jurisdiction generally belongs to the Court of Chancery, as delegate of the crown, except where it is specially or personally delegated or restricted by statute.”

Back to the childrens act 1989, thanks for kindly applying the link Candor

(11)Subject to any provision made by rules of court, no court shall exercise the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to appoint a guardian of the estate of any child.(12)

Do we still need to wonder which specific high court it is where the estates are held in escrow?



Back to The Wards of Chancery: Lord Manners, I do not understand, in looking at the office of guardian, how to distinguish between the testamentary guardian and the parent. The testamentary guardian, deriving his title from the right of the parent under the act of parliament, it is a continuation of the same trust............. This is from the horses mouth.

These old documents do tell a good tale :•)

The next point for attention is, that the infant must have property in order to be a ward of court. He must see that this court has not the means of acting except where it has property to ac-t upon.We are not aware that any minimum of property has ever been suggested as an infant’s qualification to be a ward.


Certainly no receiver will be appointed over‘ his estates. The passage of Lord Eldon’s judgment, quoted above, continues in the following words, “ A very serious question would arise whether, if the person so appointed should embezzle, I should have jurisdiction to commit him to the Fleet.”

The custody of the inf'ant’s person and property is in this way brought completely under the direction of the court;

The guardian in chivalry‘ was the lord of whom the lands of the ward were holden. The guardian in socageg was the next friend, or, as Littleton explains the word, “ next in blood to whom the inheritance could not descend.” And it seems that, according to the common law, n03 other person than the father could be guardian during the father’s life. Where the son‘ was heir to his mother, the father was termed guardian by nature. A custom as to guardianship prevails in the City of London, where the mayor" and aldermen are guardians of every orphan within the city, that is, where any one free of the city has died, leaving an orphan within age and unmarried.






And Finally

Mr. Hargrave has added, that although the care of infants as Well as of idiots and -lunatics should be admitted to belong to the crown, yet that something further is necessary to prove that the Chancellor is the person constitutionally delegated to act for the King.” He has added, that although the care of infants as Well as of idiots and -lunatics should be admitted to belong to the crown, yet that something further is necessary to prove that the Chancellor is the person constitutionally delegated to act for the King.”

There appear to be three subjects involved in the question, first, the title to the guardianship of the person; secondly, the title to the guardianship of the property ; and thirdly, the general protection of the infant both as between him and his guardian, and also as between him and all the rest of the world

Those who are accounted competent to manage their own affairs themselves claim from their sovereign in his courts of justice the enforcement of their rights.

Crimes again are matters in which the sovereign bears a twofold part. The proceedings against the prisoner are taken in his name; the pleas are pleas of the crown ; “ the king, in whom centres the majesty of the whole community, is supposed by the law to be the person injured by every in fraction of the public rights belonging to that community, ' and is therefore in all cases the public prosecutor for every 77] public offence. The sovereign takes also another part in the proceedings, for the judge is merely his deputy; it is through the exercise of judicial functions, which in reality emanate from him, that the trial takes place.

To return to the case of infants, we may quote a passage in the report of Morgan v. Dillon} which recognizes the twofold character of the sovereign’s relation to his ward. “ At common law, before the statute 32 Hen. 8, c. 24~, by which the court of wards and liveries was erected, the lord chancellor was the sole judge of wardships: but with this difference, that where they are lucrative to the crown, there the lord treasurer acted, who had a concurrent jurisdiction with the chancellor; but where wardships were not lucrative to the crown, but only for the benefit of the ward there the chancellor alone had the disposition and management of the ward.”





Lucrative livery wards.

Thanks

Perhaps being lost is better than being found as far as these Devils are concerned. lets be frank only Demonic entities could come up with such a repugnant doctrine and have the utter arrogance and subversive intent to make it law.

Tom - I hear you, remember Karl Lentz ? Man has property !

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

If Government is no longer performing the function of securing the property of Man, then what exactly is it ?

Is it administrating property instead ?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/1

1

Welfare of the child.
(1)

When a court determines any question with respect to—

(a)

the upbringing of a child; or

(b)

the administration of a child’s property or the application of any income arising from it,

the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.

(in other words how much is their annuity account going to provide us with if we leave the child where it is or move it else where ?)

So who are you buddy anyway, you may have provided the seed and you may have bore the burden of carrying the egg and the new being all those months, but move over we are taking over this show.

Unfortunately a lot of people have to see their progeny being lead away in tears by the police and the social services before they will take wacky people like us seriously.

That is the real loss here.

Wards of Chancery: So as far as it relates to guardianship it is not a matter of jurisdiction but rather ADMINISTRATION.

The distinction between administration and jurisdiction is marked by the different modes in which the chancellor’s authority is conferred in the two cases. In the one he acts as judge in the Court of Chancery, exercising the common judicial authority delegated to that court by the sovereign. He acts as the representative of the sovereign in a matter in which the sovereign has no interest. In the other he is a commissioner of the crown, acting under a sign manual, the usual form in which the sovereign commits to a subject the management of a matter in which the sovereign has an interest}

To return to the case of infants, we may quote a passage in the report of Morgan v. Dillon} which recognizes the twofold character of the sovereign’s relation to his ward. “ At common law, before the statute 32 Hen. 8, c. 24~, by which the court of wards and liveries was erected, the lord chancellor was the sole judge of wardships: but with this difference, that where they are lucrative to the crown, there the lord treasurer acted, who had a concurrent jurisdiction with the chancellor; but where wardships were not lucrative to the crown, but only for the benefit of the ward there the chancellor alone had the disposition and management of the ward

Hi guys

Candor - isn't 'rule of law' referring to code rather than natural/common/god's law?

Cheers!

By the way I think what is happening in the registration is that the estate is being assigned to the local authority, county council or whatever the hell they call themselves today.

I do have a document somewhere, ill be buggered if I can find it, that states the government were sending the annuities to the county councils and no one, not a single PERSON was claiming them. Ill have a root round and see if I can find this document to try and shed a little more light.

Hi guys

That document sounds very relevant.

i'm almost convinced that this (BC) is about money-laundering on an epic scale.

Cheers!

iamani - The rule of law is to us perhaps the natural law of God and Creation, to the secretary of (E)state it is whatever he as settlor deems it be, or he is told it is deemed to be by those with a vested interest in the passing of said statute.

I say what they have done is created a parallel world and taken over natural beings with fake ones - the civic public vessel is a necropolis. Anubis will keep watch over you from here on.

The Military are supposed to return the usufructs when the occupation is over ..... oh they forgot to tell you it doesn't actually end.

Yes it's an orgy of plunder usufruct and death .... the way these guys roll I am afraid.

Waffle - I suspect you are looking at the original concept of wards in chancery and confusing it with the Civil Whore Ship they dragged us all into.

At least in chancery they acknowledged the original and natural guardian.

Very good Iamani, that rule of law hasn't just been abolished here, its been abolished international, common wealth countries for sure, the states and even India, thats what the research is suggesting.

Where it used to be the father who was the sole natural guardian, the apparent heir, instead of abolishing that rule of law and granting it to the mother, which they should rightly have done, they have just abolished the rule of law that the father is the natural guardian, ergo NO HEIR.

We no there are no more heirs from the admin of estates act unless you have an absolute interest (trusts), now there can only be one heir if you don't know what you are doing, and thats for lucrative purposes for the Crown.... I know the Wards of Chancery documents not up to date but that says the Lord Treasurer, who is acting on behalf of the sovereign.

They are stripping away all legal rights to any type of inheritance and ownership of property and land. Common law is common law and statutory law, common law has well and truly killed us off, that leaves really one resource to acquire any type of locus stand in this physical real and thats equity. Equity should keep the remedy, but as stated in the Wards of Chancery document we need to be competent for any type of standing, if we are competent, then they give us our rights, it won't be a simple as just being competent, they would have a very tightly knitted shirt that we would have to wear, if they even make them in our size!

Hi guys

Candor - you're not wrong re: parallel world, i think Waffle has mentioned that too.

Have you seen our recent posts on BC?

Waffle - you're forgetting christian remedy, i suspect the KJV can tell us everything we need to know. As regards equity i've only just started looking at it so can't really comment on that - but it is still very much part of T.H.E.I.R. system, so not really on our side.

Perhaps i'll think differently once i've studied it.

Cheers!

Candor, yes need to move into today's world of warcraft, its not just game... or is it!

Where are we all with data that the hospitals are under military jurisdiction? Ive heard ushers but not been able to locate anything.......

Knights of the hospitallers, what ever happened to them? Arnt they now the sovereign military order of malta operating straight out of Rome.....

Ha, if its not already complex enough!

There is only one way you can reach the capacity you need to be in, that I've seen anyways and thats in equity, theres no way you'll get locus standi in common law. But maybe you could go into the venue quoting KJV, I am who I am! Thats natural law and we would need to be able to prove we profess the faith, penal laws still exist, but they certify you for conforming, its on the record.....

Hi Waffle

At the end of the day it's a Christian country with the monarch (crown) as Defender of the Faith. The western judicial system and our Laws are based on the bible. Probably why they have one in court to swear on.

The KJV was coded to give remedy to the 'knowledgeable.

i've spotted a couple of bits that may prove useful in future.

Besides, there are 'laws' governing discrimination on grounds of faith.....

But at this time i couldn't say i know enough to use it.

Cheers!

I agree the whole thing is run on biblical scripture, however, I'm finding a path in equity easier to comprehend at this stage, they don't tell us how to use the bible in court. Not that I wouldn't give it a shot..

I have read the BC thread, I have been studying this BC matter for a long time and to be honest I still don't know what it really is, and nobody in their system seems to be able to tell us either, or will not tell us.

You hear some say it is our remedy, some tell us it was the event that killed us and made us landless, honestly all I can say is that when you are identified by their system and its agents and authorities, you are identified with that same name and everything else seems to derive from that source event.

All I know is the matter is one where we do not know, we need to spend hundreds if not thousands of hours researching and digesting apparently occult and complex formulas so we can be recognised as alive and having rights.

Perhaps we should just stick to the things that are clear and that we have clear evidence for, we can establish now that the natural guardian rights of fathers have been abolished within the public law - the Civis, its not some bullshit off of you tube by some one holding up a piece of paper you can hardly see, or a pub lounge announcement, it's not even a well drilled and articulated researcher who studied a life time in academia - it's just their in plain sight.... and yet those who created it and therefore should be able to explain it - refuse to.

And even if you corner them on it, they get their gate keepers the judges to keep it open to interpretation, am I wrong ?

Its just like the bad old days of the priesthood keeping the holy book to themselves and torturing the pennants for the good of their own souls.
Maybe it is not us doing it all wrong after all, maybe the wolf is not a shepherd but actually .... just a wolf after all.

I Look at this way, if I asked you to perform some kind of Alice in wonderland ritual so I can see you as alive and having rights, would you think it was you who had the problem or me ?

And that is the insanity of all this, you are dealing with people who treat you as worthless and dead without rights because of some event where constructs were construed or formed without your knowledge, when you were too fresh in this world to even be able to wipe your own ass or feed yourself, does that sound equitable ?

If this is the church you are trying to gain access to, count me out - I doubt God has anything to do with it either.

Hi guys

Candor - Wow! Pretty intense..... you've been at this a long time, i take it? Your frustration is 'righteous'.

Anyway, who said anything about church?

Your obvious frustration says you know how important it is - don't give up! There are angles yet to be revealed, and we've already benefited from the research.

i guarantee the next time i post on 'census/warehouse' thread you'll see something you've not considered yet.....

Cheers!

And everyone is quoting legal.