Matter of Rublic Record

Hereby served this day 28th August 2013

Awareness of Truth.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/JCO%2fDocuments%2fSpeeches%2fbeatsonj040608.pdf

A quiet constitutional upheaval has been occurring in this country since 1998. That year saw the enactment
of the Human Rights Act and the devolution legislation for Scotland, Northern Ireland and to a lesser
degree, Wales. These developments have led to new interest in the judiciary. Today, however, I am primarily
concerned with events since June 2003 when the government announced the abolition of the office of Lord
Chancellor, bringing to an end a position in which a senior member of the Cabinet was also a judge, Head of
the Judiciary, and Speaker of the House of Lords. The government also announced the replacement of the
Judicial Committee of the House of Lords by a United Kingdom Supreme Court.

These events led to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (hereafter CRA) and to the Lord Chief Justice
becoming Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales. The 2003 changes and the new responsibilities given
to the Lord Chief Justice necessitated a certain amount of re-examination of the relationship between the
judiciary and the two stronger branches of the state --- the executive and the legislature. Moreover, in the
atmosphere of reform and change, branded as modernisation, not all have always remembered the long
accepted rules and understandings about what judges can appropriately say and do outside their courts.
Others have asked whether the rules and understandings remain justified in modern conditions. The
pressures to which my title refers arise because of the view of some that judges should be more engaged
with the public, the government, and the legislature than they have been in the past. The Opportunities
arise from the need to develop constitutionally appropriate rules for such engagement. But before turning
to these I must say something about the constitutional importance of the rule of law and the independence
of the judiciary.

What is it that we know as fact from the actions of due diligence and observation, which we can rely upon as fact?

Page 1 of 7
From the document from recognised official source, namely the office of the judiciary and duly recognised as a sub
office of H.M. Parliaments and governments Plc. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/JCO%2fDocuments%2fSpeeches
%2fbeatsonj040608.pdf The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Sir Jack Beatson FBA noted that

The aim of this paper is to try to offer a definition of the state that is sensitive to these difficulties. More particularly, it
seeks to develop an account of the state that is not subject to the problems that beset alternative explanations that
have been prominent in political theory. The main points it defends are these.
1) The state should not be viewed as a form of association that subsumes or subordinates all others.
2) The state is not an entity whose interests map closely onto the interests of the groups and individuals that fall under
its authority, but has interests of its own.
3) The state is, to some extent at least, an alien power; though it is of human construction, it is not within human
control.
4) The state is not there to secure peoples deepest interests, and it does not serve to unify them, reconcile them with
one another, bring their competing interests into harmony, or realize any important good! Such as justice, freedom, or
peace. While its power might be harnessed from time to time, that will serve the interests of some not the interests of
all. 5) The state is thus an institution through which individuals and groups seek to exercise power (though it is not the
only such institution); but it is also an institution that exercises power over individuals and groups. 6) The state is,
ultimately, an abstraction, for it has no existence as a material object, is not confined to a particular space, and is not
embodied in any person or collection of persons. The state exists because certain relations obtain between people; but
the outcome of these relations is an entity that has a life of its own, though it would be a mistake to think of it as
entirely autonomous and to define the state is to try to account for the entity that exists through these relations.

The concept of the state

A state is a form of political association or polity that is distinguished by the fact that it is not itself incorporated into
any other political associations, though it may incorporate other such associations. The state is thus a supreme
corporate entity because it is not incorporated into any other entity, even though it might be subordinate to other
powers (such as another state or an empire). One state is distinguished from another by its having its own independent
structure of political authority, and an attachment to separate physical territories. The state is itself a political
community, though not all political communities are states. A state is not a nation, or a people, though it may contain
a single nation, parts of different nations, or a number of entire nations. A state arises out of society, but it does not
contain or subsume society. A state will have a government, but the state is not simply a government, for there exist,
many more governments than there are states. The state is a modern political construction that emerged in early
modern Europe, but has been replicated in all other parts of the world. The most important aspect of the state that
makes it a distinctive and new form of political association is its most abstract quality: it is a corporate entity.

HM PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLC is a recognised incorporation or legal embodiment by an act of

registration and is recognised as the principal legal body with sub offices and officers.

MR LEGAL PERSON is also a recognised legal embodiment, by an act of registration and is recognised as a legal
embodiment by that act of registration by the name MR LEGAL PERSON and is also the principal of that legal
embodiment.
The status of principal embodiments are, equal as they were both created by the same act of registration as a legal
embodiment. As all principal embodiments are recognised as equal in status, equal state, equal standing then,
The principal legal embodiment by the name MR LEGAL PERSON is equal to but not greater or less than an
any other principal legal embodiment such as HM PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLC
MR LEGAL PERSON is therefore not subordinate to HM PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLC and HM
Parliaments and governments Plc which has no recognisable authority over MR LEGAL PERSON
MR LEGAL PERSON is therefore not legally subject to, or legally obliged to observe or recognise any policies held by any
other principal legal embodiment unless there is an agreement in place, entered into under full disclosure between the
two principal legal embodiments.

As it is recognised that, the Judiciary is a sub office of HM PARLIAMENTS AND GOVERNMENTS PLC notably as
separate principal legal embodiment from the principal legal embodiment of MR LEGAL PERSON Then it would also

Page 2 of 7
be correct to observe that, the principal legal embodiment MR LEGAL PERSON is greater in status than the Judiciary
and all its sub officers and officials.

We the principal legal embodiment, do not recognise any authority which we are not subject to, or have legally agreed
to be subject to, or by oath.
We the principal legal embodiment, do not recognise any alleged authority imposed upon us by a subordinate office
within a separate principal legal embodiment.

We the principal legal embodiment, do not consent to pay demands for money imposed upon us by a separate
principal legal embodiment or its subordinate office or officers, without a prearranged agreement or contract with full
disclosure entered into in full knowledge and understanding by written consent.

We the principal legal embodiment, do not recognise any pre existing obligations imposed upon us by a separate
principal legal embodiment or its subordinate office or officers and any obligations which have been assumed without
full disclosure are therefore and hereby rescinded with immediate effect add in perpetuity.

We the principal legal embodiment, do not recognise the principal legal embodiment HM PARLIAMENTS AND
GOVERNMENTS PLC as a governing body, we have not agreed to be governed and we do not require those services.
We are quite capable of governing ourselves. We do not know you, we do not care to know you, we find there are no
redeemable qualities about you. You are a disgrace to this once great nation. A nation which you have financially
raped and pillaged: You have no valid legal claim against us and we refuse to enter into Joinder with you.

We the principal legal embodiment, do not recognise the subordinate office of borough council as a governing body,
we have not agreed to be governed and we do not require their services. We are quite capable of governing ourselves.
We do not know you, we do not care to know you, and we find there are no redeemable qualities about you. You are a
disgrace to this once great nation. A nation which you have financially raped and pillaged: You have no valid legal claim
against us and we refuse to enter into Joinder with you.

We the living principal legal embodiment do not recognise the subordinate office of the judiciary or ministry of
justice or any subordinate judges, Magistrates, Bailiffs or Police. You have been observed to be nothing more than
strong arm malicious, enforcement office without any regard for the truth or justice or the well being of this nation.
We do not know you, we do not care to know you, and we find there are no redeemable qualities about you. We find
you are a disgrace to this once great nation. A nation which you have financially raped and pillaged: You do not have
any authority over us as you claim as you are a subordinate servant to another equal but not greater than principal
legal embodiment which is recognised as dead. Any authority claimed by you is only as a sub officer or servant of
another legal person that is dead. You have no authority over us and to claim such would be the actions of a clinically
insane person.

It is also duly recognised that you do not have the authority to sign any legal document against us, in the form of a
warrant or liability orders. You do not have the authority it is not lawful let alone to sign the document and would
create a reverse liability if you did so. To do so would also be a violation of the fraud act 2006 if this was to cause any
form of loss to another person. To grant an application for a warrant or liability order gives the illusion that a warrant
or liability order has been signed and is valid when in fact neither have been signed but to create the deception that
they have been allegedly signed in itself is another Act of fraud and a violation of the Fraud Act 2006. No further
documentation of enforcements is subsequently signed and any enforcement would then cause a loss and a violation
of the said Act by an act of deception.

It has been established at a tribunal which creates a legal/lawful precedence case number WI 05257F that.

The Acts and statutes of HM Parliaments and Governments PLC can only be given force of law by the consent of the
governed. What is mandatory in the first instance is the consent of the governed which must also be presentable as
fact. As the consent of the governed is not presentable as fact, then the Acts and statutes of HM Parliaments and
Governments PLC cannot be acted upon in any way which would cause loss to the governed. What is mandatory in
this instance is the presentable agreements of sixty three and a half million allegedly governed to be in place before an
Act or Statute can be acted upon.

Page 3 of 7
It has been presented here that with a case number and documented evidence that the above premise which also
proves conclusively that ALL tax inclusive of but not limited to, council tax, income tax, bedroom tax, road licence fees,
duty on beer, wine, cigarettes and fuel, VAT all constitute a violation of the fraud Act 2006 as it causes a loss to the
legal person in every instance.

These violations have and will continue to have a catastrophic effect on a nations prosperity. We have created an
example, although it be simple as a simple demonstration when extended out to encompass every commercial activity
the costs have become a horrendous financial burden to the people of this nation, yourselves included. Please refer to
supplemental document: Loaf of Bread on Morrisons Shelf.

Further Catastrophic Commercial Losses Due to Bank Fraud

What is a Bank Loan ?
The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or
later is the people versus the banks. Lord Acton (http://www.larryhannigan.com/bankloan.htm)

MORTGAGE SUMMARY

Borrower Signs the Banks Loan Contract and Mortgage

Page 4 of 7
 Borrowers Signature transforms the Loan Contract into a Financial Instrument worth the Value of the
agreed Loan Amount
Bank Fails to Disclose to Borrower that the Borrower Created an Asset
Loan Contract (Financial Instrument) Asset Deposited with the Bank by Borrower
Financial Instrument remains property of Borrower since the Borrower created it
Bank Fails to Disclose the Banks Liability to the Borrower for the Value of the Asset
Bank Fails to Give Borrower a Receipt for Deposit of the Borrowers Asset
New Money Credit is Created on the Bank Books credited against the Borrowers Financial Instrument
Bank Fails to Disclose to the Borrower that the Borrowers Signature Created New Money that is
claimed by the Bank as a Loan to the Borrower
Loan Amount Credited to an Account for Borrowers Use
Bank Deceives Borrower by Calling Credit a Loan when it is an Exchange for the Deposited Asset
Bank Deceives Public at large by calling this process Mortgage Lending, Loan and similar
Bank Deceives Borrower by Charging Interest and Fees when there is no value provided to the
Borrower by the Bank
Bank Provides None of own Money so the Bank has No Consideration in the transaction and so no True
Contract exists
Bank Deceives Borrower that the Borrowers self-created Credit is a Loan from the Bank, thus there
is No Full Disclosure so no True Contract exists
Borrower is the True Creditor in the Transaction. Borrower Created the Money. Bank provided no
value.
Bank Deceives Borrower that Borrower is Debtor not Creditor
Bank Hides its Liability by off balance-sheet accounting and only shows its Debtor ledger in order to
Deceive the Borrower and the Court
Bank Demands Borrowers payments without Just Cause, which is Deception, Theft and Fraud
Bank Sells Borrowers Financial Instrument to a third party for profit
Sale of the Financial Instrument confirms it has intrinsic value as an Asset yet that value is not credited to
the Borrower as Creator and Depositor of the Instrument
Bank Hides truth from the Borrower, not admitting Theft, nor sharing proceeds of the sale of the
Borrowers Financial Instrument with the Borrower
The Borrowers Financial Instrument is Converted into a Security through a Trust or similar arrangement
in order to defeat restrictions on transactions of Loan Contracts
The Security including the Loan Contract is sold to investors, despite the fact that such Securitization is
Illegal
Bank is not the Holder in Due Course of the Loan Contract
Only the Holder in Due Course can claim on the Loan Contract
Bank Deceives the Borrower that the Bank is Holder in Due Course of the Loan Contract
Bank makes Fraudulent Charges to Borrower for Loan payments which the Bank has no lawful right to
since it is not the Holder in Due Course of the Loan Contract
Bank advanced none of own money to Borrower but only monetized Borrowers signature
Bank Interest is Usurious based on there being No Money Provided to the Borrower by the Bank so that
any interest charged at all would be Usurious
Thus BANK LOAN TRANSACTIONS ARE UNCONSCIONABLE!
Bank Has No True Need for a Mortgage over the Borrowers Property, since the Bank has No
Consideration, No Risk and No Need for Security
Bank Exploits Borrower by demanding a Redundant and Unjust Mortgage

Page 5 of 7
 Bank Deceives Borrower that the Mortgage is needed as Security
Mortgage Contract is a second Financial Instrument Created by the Borrower
Deposit of the Mortgage Contract is not credited to the Borrower
Bank Sells the Borrowers Mortgage Contract for profit without disclosure or share of proceeds to
Borrower
Sale of the Mortgage Contract confirms it has intrinsic value as an Asset yet that value is not credited to
the Borrower as Creator and Depositor of the Mortgage Contract
Bank Deceives Borrower that Bank is the Holder in Due Course of the Mortgage
Bank Extorts Unjust Payments from the Borrower under Duress with threat of Foreclosure
Bank Steals Borrowers Wealth by intimidating Borrower to make Unjust Loan Payments
Bank Harasses Borrower if Borrower fails to make payments, threatening Legal Recourse
Bank Enlists Lawyers willing to Deceive Borrower and Court and Exploit Borrower
Bank Deceives Court that Bank is Holder in Due Course of Loan Contract and Mortgage
Banks Lawyers Deceive and Exploit Court to Defraud Borrower
Bank Steals Borrowers Mortgaged Property with Legal Impunity
Bank Holds Borrower Liable for any outstanding balance of original Loan plus costs
Bank Profits from Loan Contract and Mortgage by Sale of the Loan Contract, Sale of the Mortgage, Principal
and Interest Charges, Fees Charged, Increase of its Lending Capacity due to Borrowers Mortgaged Asset
and by Acquisition of Borrowers Mortgaged Property in Foreclosure. Bank retains the amount of increase to
the Money Supply Created by the Borrowers Signature once the Loan Account has been closed.
Borrower is Damaged by the Banks Loan Contract and Mortgage by Theft of his Financial Instrument Asset,
Theft of his Mortgage Asset, Being Deceived into the unjust Status of a Debt Slave, Paying Lifetime Wealth
to the Bank, Paying Unjust Fees and Charges, Living in Fear of Foreclosure, and ultimately having his
Family Home Stolen by the Bank.
Thus the BANK MORTGAGE BUSINESS IS UNCONSCIONABLE.

Further to the corrupt management and administration from our alleged government whos principle task
from its inception which was to create a economically stable environment for the people of this nation to live
in peace and to prosper which was the original purpose when the Barrons of this nation forcefully instructed
King John to give the Royal seal of approval to the Great Charter. It is shown here that this nation has also
suffered additional commercial losses due to the fraudulent activities of the banking world.

What is wrong with this country

This Nation has suffered extensive and horrendous financial damage at the hands of those that we
entrusted with the financial wellbeing of this nation in the form of a duly elected government and the
complete commercial tyranny that has crept into being over the past number of years.
This financial tyranny has been enforced by the countrys judiciary to support the financial tyranny of
the above stated duly elected government.
If this was not bad enough this nation has also suffered the same horrendous treatment from the
banking cartels.
Due to the above commercial tyranny, we the people of this nation, have lost our industry to foreign
interests, our service industry, our livelihoods and our homes
We will tolerate this no longer.

Page 6 of 7
 The Corrective Process

We the people who also recognise ourselves now as the Barons and Baronesses of this land as recognised
when the Barons tried to remedy the actions of King John by forcing King John in 1215 to place the Royal
Seal of approval on the Great Charter after he had fleeced the Nation and the Barons took back financial
control of this great land. We the barons demand that our Public Servants recognised as the constabulary
take the following actions:

The judges, the judiciary, the parliamentary members, the bailiffs, the civil enforcement officers are
all guilty of fraud and should be arrested, charged and incarcerated for their crimes against the
people of this nation.
All the directors of the banks who are currently operating in this country and are guilty of fraud are to
be arrested and duly charged and incarcerated for the crimes against the people of this nation.
All assets of the alleged government and the banks to be ceased and the relative companies
foreclosed and re-appropriated under new management.

It is stated under Article 45 of the Magna Carter and we quote We will elect into the position of Judge,
Magistrates, Bailiff, Sheriff, Marshall, Constable, all those that understand the law and wish to mind it well

Where it is duly recognised in this quotation that the we in this quotation are the barons.

If any member of the constabulary feel that they are inadequate in understanding our capability then they
should remove their badge of office and quit the force. Those that remain are charged with the above tasks
and are answerable only to the people of this Nation and no other.

We the people of this nation recognise the recent worldwide exposure of the treason and tyranny that has
been committed against every person on the planet and that due to the recent UCC filings submitted on
public record that all Governments, Banks & Courts have been Foreclosed. The Foreclosure flyer with a
brief description and guidance to further information is enclosed.

The contents of this document are un-contestable facts, what is recognised as facts is truth and what is truth
is law.

YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED ORDERS TO UNDERTAKE BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE BARONS AND THE
PEOPLE OF THIS NATION.

Without Prejudice All Rights reserved

David Ward

Melanie Batty

David Batty

Carl Cunningham

Dated:
.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Page 7 of 7