strawman

The Law Society deems the issuing of a Birth Certificate as making the child with the same-sounding name, a
member of the Law Society, and through that membership, subject to the rules and regulations created to govern
the running of that society. That membership is, in reality, purely notional and the individual can resign from that
society but not until he reaches adulthood. That membership permits a Local Authority to take the child away from
it’s parents should the Local Authority decide to do so. I am informed of one case where a Local Authority took
four children away from their mother and the next day had to return one child as no Birth Certificate had been
issued for that child and consequently, that child was not bound by the regulations of the Law Society.
The commercial organisation, the Law Society, along with the various associated commercial organisations
collectively known as “the government” have produced thousands of regulations to control the people who are
deemed to be members of that society. It was stated recently on the national news that some 7,000 additional
regulations were produced in the last thirteen years alone. It is a clear objective of the society to make most
people believe that it’s regulations are “the law” which they most certainly are not. Another objective is to make
most people believe that only a lawyer can understand those regulations and their application. Those regulations
are called “statutes” or “statutory instruments” and they only apply to member of that society or anyone else who
chooses to be bound by those regulations. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the law as they are only for
regulating the operations of the private society which created them.
While this is the actual, present situation in England today, I can fully understand that you are not aware of these
facts as they are carefully concealed and a great deal of effort is put into misdirection aimed at convincing you that
“statutes” are “the law” and that “statutes” apply to everyone rather than the reality that statutes are restricted to
members of that particular society. News announcements call statutes “the law” which is either gross ignorance
or deliberate falsehood. The same goes for the content of films, political speeches, government literature and the
like. Whatever the motive, the result is the same with the falsehood being spread on a daily basis, day in, day out,
week in, week out, month in, month out, year in, year out until most adults believe the lie without the slightest
question.
Any member of any society can resign at any time. If you happen to wish to claim that anyone is a member of any
society, then you need to show evidence of an application to join (made knowingly by an adult following full
disclosure of all of the consequences of membership), evidence of acceptance of membership by an official of that
society and evidence that the member has not subsequently resigned from that society.
I can fully understand that following many years of intensive conditioning aimed at making you believe that
“statutes” are “the law”, that you will find it difficult or impossible to grasp the reality of the situation. It is very
difficult to accept that your parents, friends, relations, etc. were deceived. It is much more comfortable to brush
the facts aside and pretend that they are just a wild “conspiracy theory” and not actually true.
However, while I accept that it is most unlikely that you will believe anything that I say, let me just run through the
events which led up to this letter from me to you.
In Autumn 2010, never previously having had any interest whatsoever in politics or the law, I became aware of the
present situation. As there is no law requiring anyone to pay any kind of tax, levy, fee or licence, I stopped paying
Council Tax to Forest Heath District Council.
Forest Heath District Council then wrote to say that MR PATRICK KELLY of my home address owed them a debt.
I wrote back stating that I would pay any lawful debt that was owed, but that I am not the legal fiction ‘person’ (or
corporation) quoted in their demand, and so, evidence of any such lawful debt needed to be provided. That is,
sight of a law which specifies the debt, or alternatively since a statute was being mentioned, evidence that I, the
human being am actually a member of the particular society which is bound by that statute. I also stated that I am
not a member of any such society, nor do I consent to be bound by the regulations of any society to which I do not
belong.
Subsequent correspondence from Forest Heath District Council merely repeated the claim that the statute quoted
constituted “the law” that I should pay whatever amount they chose to specify. None of the required proofs was
presented.
Eventually, Forest Heath District Council was given a 28-day period in which to present evidence that there was
indeed a lawful debt outstanding against me, the human being. During that period, not even one of the several
required proofs was presented. The legal system involved in the claim by Forest Heath District Council deems
that failure to provide the requested proofs within the time specified, to constitute tacit legally-binding agreement
on the part of Forest Heath District Council that there is no such outstanding debt. The technical legal term for
that situation is “estoppel”.
136