Beloved, faithful warrior! Although I am in the USA I stand with you as you go to court, and pray for abundant grace and strength from our Lord God! May the Lord continue to use you in exposing the corruption! (What matters is that the confrontation with the void is happening openly, visibly, and unambiguously — and that the cracks in the system are being recorded for all to see.)
I would wish you good luck but alas the corrupt system as explained: All Administrative Courts are unlawful.
As established in the case of R v Thistlewood (1820), “Actions which overthrow and subvert the laws and Constitution of the Kingdom and which would lead to the destruction of the Constitution are unlawful.” To destroy the Constitution of the country is, unequivocally, an act of treason.
Ministers acting in fraud misrepresent acts and statutes as “law,” when in truth, they are no more than corporate policies for private corporations. Lawful and legal are distinct concepts: the inhabitant is subject to lawful authority under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, while "legal" pertains to government employees, Crown employees, and the government itself, who are bound to obey acts and statutes as corporate policies—not as law.
We now declare the void order with respect to the higher rights of civil and criminal courts, as established in the case of Re Pritchard (1963). This void order arose from a fundamental defect in proceedings, where no notice or disclosure of the proceedings was given to the inhabitant. Such a breach constitutes a violation of the Due Process of Law, undermining the principles of fair procedure and disclosure rules.
Further case evidence is submitted, including the ruling of Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis (1978), where it was held that the court and judiciary lacked jurisdiction. Their actions constituted an ultra vires act—a public body or judicial officer operating outside lawful authority. This aligns with Pearlman v Governors of Harrow School (1978), where Lord Denning addressed similar issues. Actions taken under such circumstances, including breaches of the Theft Act 1968 (Section 15), constitute criminal acts such as fraud and theft.
Magistrates’ courts are complicit in criminal acts of connivance, fraud, and privateering. These courts, often registered to foreign entities like the United States, operate in secrecy under UCC Codes (Uniform Commercial Code) rather than the Law of the Realm of England. As outlined in UCC privacy provisions, UCC 1-3, these courts prioritize corporate interests over lawful governance.
Under the Law of the Realme of England, no corporation has the authority to bring a man or woman to court. Such actions subvert the Constitution and exceed delegated powers, rendering them Ultra Vires. Only a living man or woman can lawfully bring a claim against another living man or woman.
These so-called “authorities” are acting unlawfully and beyond their rightful powers, in direct contravention of the Constitution.
You are not a "Person"
The Etymology of “Person”
The first place to start with this whole topic is with the etymology of the word person.
Person actually comes from the Latin word persona, which later evolved into the Old French word person, which has further evolved into the modern English person.
We can see that the literal meaning of person is:
• a part played in a drama,
• a character that one adopts,
• a mask or face that you wear.
Isn’t that an interesting development right there?
quote by William Shakespeare:
“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.”
A fascinating quote that really captures the essence of this so perfectly
The Legal Definition
Now things take a slightly different turn when we start to look at the legal definition of person.
The definition of person, which applies to the laws passed by Parliament, can actually be found in the Interpretation Act of 1978, Schedule One.
It literally says:
“Person includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate.”
This means that unless an Act specifically states otherwise, the definition of person is to be interpreted in the same way for all of the other Acts, right?
And we can also see here that this definition has been in use since 1889.
So, it is not new and has been used throughout our recent history without any change.
“Includes”
So, includes literally means to contain as part of something.
To contain means to put something into a container — to restrict the bounds of where something can physically go.
Maxim: “The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another”. - A list in a contract excludes anything not listed. Example: If a contract specifies pens of blue, green, and red, it excludes orange or yellow.
Maxim: “What is expressed renders what is implied silent”. - Clear expression prevents assumptions or implications.
These are relevant, right? Because they portray the same idea of containment and direct focus.
So, from this, we can therefore see that what follows after includes are the only things which the legal definition of person is actually being proposed to apply to.
As the definition specifies those to whom the definition applies, we can logically conclude that whatever is not mentioned is not to be included in the definition — and therefore whoever is not included cannot, by the very definition, claim to be a person.
Wishing you all the best in your search for truth! We need it more now than ever.
Best of luck, and success on Monday. You are doing fine work, I only wish that more people would get involved/genned up on this stuff. Peace and goodwill
My prayers and unstinting support are with you on Monday, Martin! May you find the strength to continue this fight against this corruption and malfeasance on behalf of humanity, indeed an extraordinary undertaking🙏🏻
Beloved, faithful warrior! Although I am in the USA I stand with you as you go to court, and pray for abundant grace and strength from our Lord God! May the Lord continue to use you in exposing the corruption! (What matters is that the confrontation with the void is happening openly, visibly, and unambiguously — and that the cracks in the system are being recorded for all to see.)
I would wish you good luck but alas the corrupt system as explained: All Administrative Courts are unlawful.
As established in the case of R v Thistlewood (1820), “Actions which overthrow and subvert the laws and Constitution of the Kingdom and which would lead to the destruction of the Constitution are unlawful.” To destroy the Constitution of the country is, unequivocally, an act of treason.
Ministers acting in fraud misrepresent acts and statutes as “law,” when in truth, they are no more than corporate policies for private corporations. Lawful and legal are distinct concepts: the inhabitant is subject to lawful authority under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, while "legal" pertains to government employees, Crown employees, and the government itself, who are bound to obey acts and statutes as corporate policies—not as law.
We now declare the void order with respect to the higher rights of civil and criminal courts, as established in the case of Re Pritchard (1963). This void order arose from a fundamental defect in proceedings, where no notice or disclosure of the proceedings was given to the inhabitant. Such a breach constitutes a violation of the Due Process of Law, undermining the principles of fair procedure and disclosure rules.
Further case evidence is submitted, including the ruling of Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis (1978), where it was held that the court and judiciary lacked jurisdiction. Their actions constituted an ultra vires act—a public body or judicial officer operating outside lawful authority. This aligns with Pearlman v Governors of Harrow School (1978), where Lord Denning addressed similar issues. Actions taken under such circumstances, including breaches of the Theft Act 1968 (Section 15), constitute criminal acts such as fraud and theft.
Magistrates’ courts are complicit in criminal acts of connivance, fraud, and privateering. These courts, often registered to foreign entities like the United States, operate in secrecy under UCC Codes (Uniform Commercial Code) rather than the Law of the Realm of England. As outlined in UCC privacy provisions, UCC 1-3, these courts prioritize corporate interests over lawful governance.
Under the Law of the Realme of England, no corporation has the authority to bring a man or woman to court. Such actions subvert the Constitution and exceed delegated powers, rendering them Ultra Vires. Only a living man or woman can lawfully bring a claim against another living man or woman.
These so-called “authorities” are acting unlawfully and beyond their rightful powers, in direct contravention of the Constitution.
You are not a "Person"
The Etymology of “Person”
The first place to start with this whole topic is with the etymology of the word person.
Person actually comes from the Latin word persona, which later evolved into the Old French word person, which has further evolved into the modern English person.
We can see that the literal meaning of person is:
• a part played in a drama,
• a character that one adopts,
• a mask or face that you wear.
Isn’t that an interesting development right there?
quote by William Shakespeare:
“All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.”
A fascinating quote that really captures the essence of this so perfectly
The Legal Definition
Now things take a slightly different turn when we start to look at the legal definition of person.
The definition of person, which applies to the laws passed by Parliament, can actually be found in the Interpretation Act of 1978, Schedule One.
It literally says:
“Person includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate.”
This means that unless an Act specifically states otherwise, the definition of person is to be interpreted in the same way for all of the other Acts, right?
And we can also see here that this definition has been in use since 1889.
So, it is not new and has been used throughout our recent history without any change.
“Includes”
So, includes literally means to contain as part of something.
To contain means to put something into a container — to restrict the bounds of where something can physically go.
Maxim: “The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another”. - A list in a contract excludes anything not listed. Example: If a contract specifies pens of blue, green, and red, it excludes orange or yellow.
Maxim: “What is expressed renders what is implied silent”. - Clear expression prevents assumptions or implications.
These are relevant, right? Because they portray the same idea of containment and direct focus.
So, from this, we can therefore see that what follows after includes are the only things which the legal definition of person is actually being proposed to apply to.
As the definition specifies those to whom the definition applies, we can logically conclude that whatever is not mentioned is not to be included in the definition — and therefore whoever is not included cannot, by the very definition, claim to be a person.
Wishing you all the best in your search for truth! We need it more now than ever.
Regards
M
In spirit are we standing with you
Best of luck, and success on Monday. You are doing fine work, I only wish that more people would get involved/genned up on this stuff. Peace and goodwill
My prayers and unstinting support are with you on Monday, Martin! May you find the strength to continue this fight against this corruption and malfeasance on behalf of humanity, indeed an extraordinary undertaking🙏🏻
Being in the US, I cannot attend, but I will be there in spirit and in prayer, Martin. Hang in there.
Godspeed.
One more step towards the summit, Martin — https://open.substack.com/pub/writethevision/p/transformative-faith