I appreciate a lot that Marc spoke about the rule of equity, in balancing and fairness. That's an important thing to remember in general. A maxim that only really clicked with me recently, is that he who creates has author-ity. Which is why they need to change our names when they create a new person. They need to control it. I've seen a few of the bailiff videos and heard mention here or there that some of you might have put your legal name into a trust situation and had a lien on it to protect it. Or one of the many things similar to that at least. So I'm curious about how far you went into the whole birth cert as a trust aspect with all this. So far, it's looking to me like the mother has a primary estate of the Vaticans holy see. That it is through the Vatican that we can have estates in the first place and property RITES. Then during the birth certification, the baby is given a legal name for this estate. On my birth cert there is only a first and Christian name. No surname within the boxes. My surname is an assumption, not fact. At least at this point. So now you have the first fiction/person, as the Christian let us say for arguments sake, and Romes history., Now this person, is connected to a living man/woman, but for the purposes of ledgers, i guess we should just consider that this is not a living man, but instead a living estate at best, and probably a person as well if they are on paper.. But an estate all the same. This estate seems to be where the credit comes from. But because this estate is unclaimed by a living man(because we all think we are just persons, or the surname), that man is considered lost out in the holy see. But because the dead can now speak to these priests of the courts, in their black robes or using black inks, that man can be there in spirit, to speak as the dead. So the court can only really speak to two types. The person who is dead and the person who is of a living estate. i don't know if "living estate" is a thing, but it sounds accurate for explaining. All this council tax stuff, sounds to me like it's a problem for people who have not claimed their estate, and are still stuck in limbo, not having another person to jump to. At the end of the day, IF promissory notes need our estates to create the credit behind that promise to pay, and to pay is to indorse, perform or.. I forget the third one :( Discharge? Then it seems possible that the council tax could be discharged through the public trust of the all caps name, using our normal signature which apparently is our signature we use when we fraudulently act as trustee to the account we were supposed to be beneficiary to. As trustee can you not discharge the debt through the public account? Or even better maybe, is not to act in fraud, but to claim you are alive with affidavit( is that like a lawful prayer?) and then treat that first and middle name as your company to function as an estate in the world. Then use that first and middle name/status, higher in rank than the surname that came from it, to take control of the surname trust as beneficiary, and tell the government who is the real trustee, to start doing it's job and discharging the debts, like council tax, shopping, electricity, home loan etc. As you said Marc, it's about equity and fairness. If we living beings are to engage in contracts with the church and state, for property rites and the states own existence, and the creation of promises to pay(indorse, perform and maybe discharge) in the future, then there needs to be some value on the other side right? What's the value we get for building society, all the houses and cars and food etc etc? Well if we as a society made everything, then we as individuals of the society should get value and benefit from that. Which I'm told is why we are expected to discharge the electricity bill for example. So euity can balance the books and we don't get inflation. Instead we allow the banks to use our creation powers and rites, to hijack that promise through usury and fraud. And so we get inflation mechanics. We would not if everyone discharged the same debts they created which inflated the economy. More lending = more inflation. Now you know why, exactly at the base. Okay, I'm just curious how much of this you folks would say is correct and where I may have missed something or everything XD I do get that it may be the case you are trying to help people already buried in the system with debts and nowhere to run. Or a house paid off and nowhere to run. People who think they might actually be the owner of that house. It belongs to the trust doesn't it? The public trust of the all caps name. There is no "common law" rite to life and a home, if you are all dead on paper. I'm researching how to become alive on paper, and then start from ground up. Not easy. I can't even speak well in lawful English, or legalese. Lastly, I forgot to mention standing. The reason you can't go into a court and say i am not a person, is that the court can only hear and see those who have standing. Anything less than a special appearance seems belligerent. If you haven't in-formed a piece of paper to the court or system, factually stating you exist, then you don't. So if you are in court and you are not the name they seek, you are likely in the wrong court. Unless there by force, I don't think you should be inside that court at all. it means you made a mistake. Or a mistake of identity.

Respect to you both fantastic video take care all 💯

Can't see the link to the AI version of Bill of Rights

Thank you for your time and effort to put this out.

Article 6 of the UDHR states that “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law you also have Right not to be a person and be a fcukin man

Ignorance of the law is no excuse you have right to recognition as the person if you choose

A person is a legal idiot

How long you been in to this and you still dont know what a Person is does it look like man?

legal name is the name that identifies a person for legal, administrative and other official purposes. A person's legal birth name generally is the name of the person that was given for the purpose of registration of the birth and which then appears on a birth certificate

Look in to training in Legal english

They hire a private room, they do not sit below the ( whatever) crest. Oaths are not broken ( by withholding names & due process )

How can anyone be a natural fiction

A forensic accountant would cherish searching through the councils accounts , because of course they have no money

It is all theory. The next practical application of the theory is biometric gathering for entry/exit EU for a "Non EU national" (legal fiction). How many "natural persons" will be able to keep their private charactistics (fingers and fingerprints are real) not digitaised and not collected? How to protect self from EU dictate on the border - this would be helfull for people to know.

Human etymology online - old French 'of or belonging to man'; Latin - 'of man'. Therefore it is not man itself! I have a person, I am not that person, but I am a man, created by God, created through man, not created by man! So, surely it is upto us to challenge and not give consent to definitions used to enslave us. Surely We define Our lives and must not let corrupted authorities define it for us??

Respect to this man for standing up to corruption 💯

Nice video Based on your perspective...Here is my question Say I write in reply to say a Debt collection company and I say 'I am writing to the person that authored/sent me such and such correspondence' Who am I writing to? 1.The Natural person/human being or 2. The Body corporate? 3. writing to both? How is it possible that registered persons that are created on paper, to have the ability to correspond with natural persons, without the company acknowledging that it itself is not a body corporate but a natural person making the communication? It is not only a question of meaning... it is also one of acting as - when it comes to double meaning On a side note...I think they should create an act to interpret the word 'you'

We are awake..Thank you all..

Respect to this woman for standing up ❤

Respect to you both

Human being is an animal not a natural person or, the great “I am”, or man or woman

In your video you made this claim: "Inclusio exclusio does not strictly apply to "person" in the Interpretation Act" This is your claim, ie opinion. Please provide evidence of your claim

Why 28min video when if the winchester court case in around 1889? Defined person & hasnt been changed in any other case at higher court then this is case law fullstop

Blacks law dictionary is used in UK courts I've stated this before as 3 cases I've been against a barrister who has used it with the judge in the case

A natural person is not a man, woman…. It is the office of that man, woman… So in the statutory, public realm a man, woman acting in the capacity of a police officer (for example) is now a natural person, for that natural creature, the man, woman is now acting in the ‘office’ or ‘official capacity’ of something else… Simple, yes?

📚 JURY'S Act On Behalf Of The PEOPLE, under GOD, Judge's and Magistrates Act On Behalf Of The GOVERNMENT,

HMRC defines natural person as the unincorporated version. Both of which are legal entites. A natural person is not a living man or woman. There is absolutely no reason to even mention it with the intent to describe us all the while statutes govern contracts. Quoted; "VATREG02100 - Basic principles of registration: meaning of person The word ‘person’ is defined in the Interpretation Act 1978, Schedule 1 as including a body of persons, corporate or un-incorporate. In effect there are two types of persons: ‘legal persons’ and ‘natural persons’. Legal persons A legal person is an entity or body which has an existence separate and distinct from the persons (legal or natural) comprising that entity or body. The following are legal persons corporate bodies corporations sole Scottish partnerships European Economic Interest Groupings. Natural persons The following are natural persons sole proprietors partnerships unincorporated associations. A sole proprietor is a natural person and it is the sole proprietor who is the ‘person’. In the case of partnerships and associations, it is the sum of the members that is the ‘person’. Further guidance on defining the status of the person can be found in VATREG08000."

laws are enforce by majority fear, majority acceptance, and the threat and use of violence and those willing to commit that violence in the name of. so it doesn't matter what legalese or Oxford definitions are applied to words whilst ever the system is corrupt to the core.

Nice video, Going off on a bit of a tangent here but …. Say if 2 natural native ‘ persons’ signed an agreement in blood with several copies would that not be the same as the Vatican and the birth certificate/ collection of takes . This agreement would be un forgeable due to DNA evidence. This agreement could be used for anything including work / labour etc etc, thanking it out of the control of the law . Making a non taxable contract. Your DNA is your identity as facial and physical features can change over time and can also be used to trace your ancestors to prove you are native and a descendant of a country. Your DNA will be present in your children so therefore we can reclaim our children too . Land and assets could be passed down through family generations without being on a ‘state ‘ register. No contact could be forged or denied proof . Secondly is it not possible to register as a religion and then use the same procedure but stay private. I know it kind of goes against the sovereignty thing registering with the ‘state’ ? Vobesy had a good guest on about escaping the matrix, although I won’t be 100% until I know more . Personally I think everyone is on the correct lines here but I do believe the answer is far more straightforward. As they say ‘All is in plain sight, for everyone to see ‘ 👍🇬🇧

Peacekeepers often advocate school leavers English as being definitive. However we all know that boys and girls have been indoctrinated into believing the surname is their name, when it is state owned and that they are children with parents. It is in fact illegal to knowingly claim that as as their name as it is State owned, they created it from your family name. We have all been indoctrinated from 'birth' into believing the corporate terms are reality and legislation being law. Birthdays, rather than born or creation days. Is it not true that governments and the powers above have heavily influenced our education systems, just as with media, health and even our dictionaries. A legal act does not mean it is lawful, indeed many aren't. If they call a man a 'human' or 'person' or even a 'cat' it doesn't alter the fact he is a man, or make him into a cat, human or person. Just as legislation is the 'colour of law', a human is the colour of man, not man itself! Only in their fictional corporate world! Trickery and mind games. GOVERN-MENT = control of the mind!! Mind control is their weapon

..of course, all these rules and regulations and definitions were written by other men and women. What right have they to impose their will upon others???

You got it wrong with your "Claim", the claim is that person only refers to legal fictions not only corporations. Now go back to basics, government is a legal fiction, Marc has made this clear. What does government get to control? That which it creates such as commerce or the legal fictions taking benefits or privileges from it. The principle category here is government employees (civil servants), then any fiction working for a commerce company, ltd, corp etc The main thing to note here is that there is a contract between the wo(man) and the government or its creation via their person as evidenced by the birth certificate. The signature line on a personal cheque gives the game away, we sign as the "authorised signature" of our legal fiction, the all caps name, that we need to engage in commerce such as banking via a contract. To even think that government gets to automatically control a wo(man) is to make government your god or you a slave/possession of government. If government has any authority over a wo(man) it must logically be via a contract like when we are at work or otherwise receiving a direct benefit or privilege. Dont bother asking for the court records to prove this, you should know full well that there will not be any if the court can not gain jurisdiction.

You are trying to convince me has natural person I was born with clothes on not the natural way without clothes

Being selective on definitions works both ways. There appears to me more in favour of man having a person, rather than being that person. The person being created when the baby was born onto the land previously known as Albion, but the placenta, closely related, being birthed, unknowingly abandoned dead, so claimed, weighed and named thro Birth Certificate as property of the state. An 'individual' what? Deformed and monster appearance. Definitions within VAT codes very specific about Natural Persons being corporate. Seems an incorrect twist on the meaning of the Maxim of Law 'inclusio unius est exclusio alterius' to me. More Maxims of Law cast appear more definite 'False in one, false in all." "He is not to be heardwho alleges things contradictory to each other"; "similar is not the same"; "the twisting of language is unworthy of a judge"; "things taken or captured by pirates, do not change their ownership" the word man is not incorporated into any legislation for what seems like an obvious reason. That being because it does not include man, unless man consents to being that person. Maxims are the unequivocal foundations of law. "He who asserts must prove". Proof would be the inclusion of man, not its exclusion. The proof is in the pudding, like a cake without flour, coal without carbon or a man without blood, heart and soul!

So you guts use legislation to tell me who I am? Not to smart I would say.

The answer is we do have to unincorporate our names from the Corporation 😊

PK are Shills!!!

I’m MOST concerned to watch this video. The presenters are either ignorant of the language of law or knowingly complicit in sowing Confusion & Discord. All “Persons” are fictions at law. Period. That the legal wishes to differentiate between “natural” (the fiction at law attached to a man or woman in fraud) versus a “corporation” (a group of men/women who have formed a company) is mere spelling or obfuscation. The “Exclusio” maxim was completely mishandled in this video. Why? Kick it out of touch? Used properly it would unwind most of the presentation I call on Peacekeepers to withdraw this video. I challenge the presenters to an online debate regarding their views. As I strongly affirm you are doing much damage teaching this distortion of Truth. Please cease and desist. Mark son-of-John People’s Assembly New Zealand (Promoting living divine law/lore)

"UNFORTUNATE TO BE BORN WITH EXTREMELY" .. Thus are in-valid aka Not Valued. Dont take your eyes of the ball guys.

WE ARE NOT ANY FORM OF PERSON, ALL VARIANTS ARE LEGAL TRAPS TO ENSLAVE US INTO THEIR SYSTEM.

NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES HUMAN APPEAR !!! : "Man" (Hu-man Boviers Dictionary whichbis used by American patriot Constitutionalist use).

According to what definition is the term "human being" synonymous with, or defined anywhere as, "a living man or woman"? Hue-man is colour of man, as is to colour of law. "Human being. See; Monster". So that does not refer to you and me, who are not deformed. To say that a "person" is a "natural person" is a circular definition and does not adequately define the term. All we need to be looking at is the Interpretation Act, since that is how we are meant to "interpret" statutory legislation, which includes (and therefore is limited to) a body corporate or unincorporate (and excludes everthing else). If it was meant to include anything else, it would have stated the phrase; "includes, but is not limited to". Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

What you are missing, a person may be natural or corporation, But because corporations can only deal with corporations, any dealings with a corporation can only be with the corporate person And just because they include a natural person, doesn't mean they can deal with, or charge a natural person. The only person they can deal with is the person described in the interpretations a body unicorparate, which is the definition or a legal fiction.

All that is to do with the bill of rights 1689 and halsburys admin law with Tacit agreement. If you are the person then you have agreed to be the PERSON in a illegal court. Simple as that.

Always always always an intelligent conversation from our trusted friends at Peace Keepers... Thank-You men

I agree with Brian. Some people do need to go this far. We are all on different levels of learning.

you've sold your soul. I am not one to follow the crowd and I have always seen the difference but you have said things here that do not mean what is intended.....

WHAT THE FUCK, IF WE SAY MAN WE MEAN WOMAN..... FUCK OFF. IF THEY WERE MEANT TO BE THE SAME THEIR WOULD BE NO DIFFERENCE. BRYAN, HOW MUCH HAVE YOU BEEN PAID..... HOW MANY SHEKLES....

but the explanation of human and monster is very loose and shit.

Quick correction - A "child" is not a natural "person" (persona = death mask - why are you putting this word with "Natural" is beyond me - especially when "person" is a corporate term), the more appropriate terminology would be "offspring". So you may want to change your title for this video.