A chat with UK Police

A fellow who is CommonlyKnownAsDom recorded this recently asking both a Liaison Officer and a Chief Inspector, whether they knew what the legal definition of person was.

He also spoke with another Liaison Officer who was unaware of the legal definition but was willing to look it up.

The Changing Of The Guard

As well as the idea that the Constitution wasn’t set up for the flesh and blood man, I’ve been under the impression that the country Australia was actually a corporation. So when I researched the Acts database for the blog I wrote about the Constitution I was wondering what else I might find.

One of the databases I was using to research was Austlii Database. I have been aware of this database for a number of years now and one of the things that has been annoying was the fact that the Acts between 1951 and 1972 have been missing. So what I did was contact the people who update this database (it is a voluntary organisation) and ask them why this was the case. This was the reply I got:

The colonial history project grant funded the recent scanning, OCRing and creation of the 1901-1950 Acts.

We received a dump from the Attorney-General’s old SCALEplus online database which started in 1973.

We have the raw data available for the 1951-1972 Acts as of a week or so ago, but have yet to find the time to create the files for the database. Hopefully, we’ll get them added within the next few weeks.

Ask and ye shall receive. 🙂

It is interesting to note that one of the things that Heather Tucci-Jarraf continues to say is that absolute data will begin to come out under complete transparency. So what did this new upload of these Acts show.

After checking a couple of Acts in the 50s and 60s I then had a look at 1972, and finally to the last Act in 1972 this is what I found.

Repatriation (Torres Strait Islanders) Act 1972 (NO. 139, 1972)
[Assented to 2 November 1972]
B E it enacted by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, as follows:-

Now compare this to the first Act passed in 1973.

Social Services Act 1973 (NO. 1, 1973)
[Assented to 16 March 1973]
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen, the Senate and the House of Representatives of Australia, as follows:—

So what was originally written in the Constitution, ‘the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty’ has now been converted to ‘the Queen’. Which is interesting as I recall from a few years ago someone telling me how in their research, what we know as ‘the Queen’ is actually the Prime Minister. (I don’t have links to the evidence at the moment). Further what was formally know as ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ is now known as ‘Australia’. So what does this mean? Is Australia a country, a corporation, what is it?

Interesting to say the least. I wonder what else will show up.

Who is the Australian Constitution for?

I have always thought that the Constitution was a document created for the people, that is the flesh and blood man and woman. But now I am not so sure.

In the document (a scanned copied of which can be found here) there is reference to person, persons and people. I don’t want to go too deep as to when each is or isn’t used, what I‘m more interested in is the definition that they use. The reason being is that in all my research over the years, the term person seems to be what has caused the greatest amount of discussion and confusion. So if you look in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which was the second bill to be passed once the Commonwealth of Australia was formed, it states the following:

22. In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears-
(a) “Person” and “party” shall include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual:

Ok so I thought, as this is a legal document, why don’t I take a look at a legal dictionary that would have been used around the time of the Constitution’s creation. The reason being, I have known for a number of years that any legal document gets created using terms whose meanings are often arse backwards to what we usually use in day to day conversations. So I looked up the word person from Black’s Law Dictionary 1st Edition, published in 1891. In there it states the following:

Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called “corporations” or “bodies politic”.

So I think to myself, ok, they are saying in the Constitution the definition for a person is a “body politic or corporation” which as we can see from Black’s Law is in reference to an artificial person and not the flesh and blood man/woman. Ok, so what about the word individual? I couldn’t find a definition in the 1st edition so I looked under the Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition (published 1910) and this is what it says:

As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class , and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons.

Ok, so an individual could be a natural person by this definition. But I’d like to look into the last part in a bit more detail as I’ve learnt from experience that these cunning buggers aren’t into the kind of absolute honesty and truth as espoused by The One People.

So lets just look at the last part may, in proper cases, include artificial persons and see what Black’s Law has to say about these words. The term may in Black’s 1st states:

“MAY”, in the construction of public statutes, is to be construed “must” in all cases where the legislature mean to impose a positive and absolute duty, and not merely to give discretionary power.

So we see in legal land it doesn’t mean a possibility, which is what Dictionary.com tells me.

That which is fit, suitable, adapted, and correct.
Peculiar; naturally or essentially belonging to a person or thing

A general term for an action, cause, suit or controversy, at law or in equity.

Embraced; comprehended; comprehending the stated limits or extremes. Opposed to “exclusive”.

And incidently, there is a Maxim of Law which states:

Inclusio unius est exclusion alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.

Finally, for completeness, here is the definition for artificial person:

Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. Corporations are examples of artificial persons.

So the upshot of all this is that it would appear that the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act has nothing to do with the flesh and blood man and woman, but instead was created for the benefit of artificial persons.

Is this a good or bad thing? I’ll leave the reader to decide for themselves.


All documents used have been for private non-commercial use only.

Move through the cracks in the wall

I was reading this http://aishanorth.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/the-manuscript-of-survival-part-303/ from Aisha North this morning and I was reminded how much I have been hitting that wall. Whilst the Corporations/Governments have been foreclosed on, it will take some time before the system winds down. Focusing on the this fact and all the fear inducing activities going on will not stop it. As she states

“…it is the eyes of the beholder who define the ”reality”. And so, if you choose to keep staring into the wall, then the wall will keep you captivated for a very long time ahead indeed. But if you choose to shift your focus, and run out and join all of those free spirits already savouring the sweet air of freedom, your reality will also follow suit. So again we say, be careful with what you attach yourself to, for the glue that keeps you in place now is a very strong one indeed. So make sure that you let yourself have the freedom of being glued to the brighter parts of this world, for they do exist, and they are getting brighter and lighter by the day.”

“And remember, the walls will not fall down any faster if you insist on trying to punch them down by focusing your whole power on them. These walls will fall the minute you step outside them. So give yourself the freedom to do just that, for by deciding to stay cooped up inside the remnants of this old fortress, you are only making it stand just that much longer, and this will not help you, nor the rest of mankind. You are here to break through the walls by letting go of the fear that helped to keep you imprisoned behind them, and this you cannot do by being unable to let these walls fall from your attention. So let go of any thoughts of being a battering ram that will force these last pieces of brickwork down. That is not your role, your role is to fly over these walls with your beautiful wings of freedom, and the moment you take to the air and lift yourself off from these old grounds, you will make the walls around you crumble into dust. And that is the only way to ensure that this old prison will not be standing a moment longer than it was supposed to.”

In the meantime I choose to focus on the cracks of light which have begun to appear. This is what I choose to give energy to.

The One People

Being my first blog I thought what better than to talk about the OPPT. It started back in February when I first came across a story about all governments and and their offshoots being dissolved and that we are all now free to begin afresh. Could this really be so??

I followed some links and came across this interview at The Crowhouse http://thecrowhouse.com/021413.html which was my first introduction to The One People’s Public Trust. This trust had 3 trustees who had basically become the front for a whole swag of people who have been assisting them. The main front person has been Heather Tucci-Jarraf whose background has been in the banking system as well as a lawyer.

What they did was, via the UCC, dissolve the Bank of International Settlements, World Banks, and Governments who are themselves corporations. My understanding is that we have been living in a commercial world where everything and everyone has been corporatised, with the our fictional self being at the bottom. Using the UCC, which has been the registry vehicle they have used to keep us all controlled, they have returned the people back to the top so that that there is no longer anything between us and whatever you believe to be your Creator.

The filing documents used in the UCC can be found at http://www.peoplestrust1776.org/

Another good place to start is to listen to the videos at the OPPT-IN radio interviews page. The first one is with Heather. The audio is not the best as Heather’s skype connection isn’t the clearest (she lives in Morocco and all her interviews seem to be affected by the poor quality telecoms there). But it is worth perservering with as she gives some good background to where it began. Also worth listening to are the interviews with the two other (former) trustees Caleb Skinner and Randall Hillner which gives you some understanding as to why they got involved. I say former trustees, as part of the process involved with the filings was to, upon freeing up the people, close it down so as not to be reversed.

Further still, each week there are two internet radio shows on Blogtalkradio that you can listen to . One is called OPPT-IN and plays Tues morning (Aust EST) and the other is The Collective Imagination Wed morning (Aust EST). For more details you can go to the OPPT-IN radio shows page.

I’ve always been uncomfortable with the way the world has been run and over the years have attempted to file the correct paperwork to extract myself from it without success. What the OPPT has done now is provide a solution which is inside the present system.

It is a bit to get ones head around what has taken place and we will just have to see if this really is the change that many have been waiting for.