We ask the easy ones here.
If a blog is a two way street, just a tool to find out the truth on things, then let’s test that out. Chap has written and thrown a curved ball, so to speak. I know some but am not an authority, some of you out there might be able to comment on one or two of these – I’d like to get a reply to him in this way [point him to the url]. See what you think:
I am a Brit and live in New Zealand and I came across your very interesting website last night. I am an amateur legal/lawful researcher as in New Zealand things about power are seemingly easier to see, less sophisticated than the UK. I think New Zealanders are distracted by sport, but that is just my opinion.
I was wondering if I could ask your opinion on some issues, I will put them in order for clarity:
1. In New Zealand the Establishment through the medical profession want to fluoridate the whole country possibly by 2018. In my opinion based on sound research and knowledgeable contacts, I am very concerned about this. I have been in contact with a group who took this issue to the High Court and lost the argument.
It will now go to the Supreme Court and I have been in contact with a Barrister who is involved with this. However, I do not know which Temple the NZ Bar Association is controlled by and I am suspicious of the Barrister because as far as I know all lawyers/Barristers work for the same ( unincorporated association..ie. there is no membership just members AS adding ship to the end of a word means that IT has a certificate of registration). Do you know?
2. On the NZ legislation website it always states that: ”this act binds the crown”. I am trying to comprehend who or what is this ‘Crown’. I am in the middle of investigating the ‘matrix’ created by the birth certificate process as it appears that this ‘abandonment’ of the baby to the State creates the first membership of a ‘united body’ with no spiritual aspect ( of course it is difficult to ‘prove’ a spirit) and an entity- Crown entity( is landed as a subject of queen in the district?,- The majesty of the people is invested in the king/queen) is established which then is given an agency and an office-with a residential address under a variety of ACTS, as the agency ‘moves’ the entity.
One presumes the AGENT works for the government/crown under various ACTS and if becomes a naughty boy one suffers the consequences under the benefit/obligations process. I have learnt from Kevin Cahill ( whom I have been in touch with-he is a Freemason in the city of London) – he wrote the book: Who owns the World, that the woman who ACTS as the queen has around 32 Crowns as ……..in right of New Zealand, Canada &c. But when I engaged him in what is land he never contacted me again.
He writes in his book that this ‘queen’ is the legal owner of 1/6th of the planet ( I avoid the word: world as the world is middle-earth=somewhere between heaven and hell). I suggested to him that she cannot own the physical dirt/soil and that she owns the ‘landed’ goods called entities/persons whatever legal non-sense word one wants to call it. He never got back to me for the first time. Kevin used to work for Gordon Brown.
I am aware that statutes are inferior ‘laws’ and are basically the club rules of the present body politic that one enrolls with although I am not enrolled with these dudes. That Common Law is a different kettle of fish.
However, I recently contacted a guy in the Middle Temple who has written on the common law and asked him questions-no reply. His writings seem very misleading on what Common Law is. I have a friend in NZ who witnessed an Administrator (Judge) in a Summary Court proceeding getting very edgy when the defendant brought in the Common Law.
I have a very interesting book online from Cornell University which was translated from French ( as French was the official and court language of England from William the Conqueror – I have this info. from a Professor of languages in America) into English which shows what so-called common law is and it is NOT what is generally known. Lex Mercatoria has also been wound into Common Law.
So who is in charge????? I am beginning to think that the legal profession runs the whole show across the world. So a case like fluoride seems at this stage to be a no-winner even if the Plantiff”s Barrister believes in no fluoride in the public water. Me thinks she would lose her licence.
By the way, the Birth Certificate. When one is ‘born’ the biological parents enter ( this is also a very specific legal word) the particulars( another specific legal word) into a hardback cover book in the District they are ‘landed’. I have this info. from a FOI exchange I found online.
The registrar ( acting as agent for whom???) then transfers ( another very very specific legal word) these particulars into his register and then gives the biological parents copy – the Full BC. However, one cannot obtain the details placed by the biological parents into the hard back book WITHOUT a court order and with very good reason-info. obtained from a FOI request.
So I am not sure who the baby was pledged to-the Crown, a Crown, the government of the day or the Inns of Court. I know that a fundamental comprehension of such information is invaluable to my knowledge of what I live in. I have already dissected the word: Birth and I already have 9 sides of A4 paper and am only about a 1/3rd through comprehending what this word means.
My initial feeling is that though this is about NZ, not blighty, the legal system may have the same basis. It would also be interesting to look again at Mullins and how the British system underlay the US. All this will take time.