Are you a HUMAN or a corporation?



The Law is a set of rules which is created by the legislature. What people don’t realise is that all man made laws are termed “positive law”, but there is another form of law called “Natural Law” which is the view that rights or values are inherent in or universally recognizable by reason of human reason or human nature. Natural Law is the permanent, underlying basis of all law and is a perfect justice system given to man by Nature. Natural Law is distinguished from positive law which is the body of law imposed by the state and Natural Law is both anterior and superior to positive law.

Within the legal system particular words have a specific legal definition. For example a “person” which has two meanings – (i) the living body of a human being (being a natural person); or (ii) a body corporate (being an artificial person) with recognised rights and duties. A natural person is a human being who has fundamental rights under Natural Law, rights to which ALL MEN are entitled without interference by the state.

A body corporate is a corporation, which is an artificial person created under the law as a separate legal entity. Corporations are capable in law to have rights of enjoying and being subject to legal rights and duties. But corporations are not living entities in the way that humans are; it is a fictitious or an artificial person, as opposed to a natural person.  So why have the state has created an artificial person via corporations and given it legal rights and responsibilities? Why not deal with the natural person? Is it that the legislature wanted to create an artificial person that is bound to its laws? The definition of “law” is that it is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through institutions to govern behaviour.

I had noticed that on every official document my name was spelt in full in an ALL CAPITALISED VERSION of my name. If you look at your passport, driving licence, any correspondence from an arm of the state, bank statements, utility bills, certificates, everything is written in an ALL CAPITALISED VERSION of your name.  So why was my full name written and in capitalised form? I wondered if the all capitalised version of my name was created by the state for an artificial legal person so they were subject to rights and duties under the law.

birth certIf it was created by the state then when would it have been created? It made sense to think at birth, so I researched the origin of the requirement to register births and the purpose. The official version is that birth registration gives rights to access medical care, education, get a national insurance number, open a bank account, get a driving licence, or educational certificates etc., but the requirement for the registration of births began in 1837 when none of these “rights” existed: there was no NHS, formal education, cars, aeroplanes etc. So there must have been some other reason for the requirement to register births. It is the law that a birth must be registered within 42 days and a birth can be registered by the parents or anyone present at the birth.

But looking into things further it’s stated that a birth certificate is not proof of identity. So if it’s not proof of identity then what is it? And curiously, a person can only obtain a certified copy of an entry in the register of births, deaths and marriages. The original birth certificate is retained by the state.

So why does the state insist that your birth is registered but then deem it is not proof of identity nor allow you to have the original? Why does the state keep the original? Is it because the state uses the birth certificate to create an artificial person by way of a corporation or for some other nefarious reason? Is it that the all capitalised version of your name is the corporation name, your trade name where you deal with the state? Is this the same reason why on every application form you have to write your personal details in all capitalised letters?

Is it correct that a birth registration enables the state to create a corporation in that child’s name which confers the “right” to access education, medical care, obtain a national insurance number, a passport or driving licence etc.? And the “responsibilities” of the corporation are it enables you to get employment so you pay income tax and national insurance to the state? To be liable for any debt incurred by the corporation, so financial penalties imposed by the state, pay for utilities, council tax or any other tax the state demands? I am asking questions here.

Is it that when people see their name written in an all capitalised manner they identify with that name and assume the responsibilities associated with the name? But what if it is not you, it is not the natural person or the human being, but the artificial person?

chainsAnd this how the state traps people into the system – because unless you register the birth of your child they’re not entitled to medical care, an education, a national insurance number, apply for a passport or driving licence. Because only by registration is your child able to exist in society. Setting aside the obligation on a parent (or anyone present at the birth) to register the child, as failure to do so results in a fine, a parent knows that without registration the child has no rights according to the state. And that is a powerful weapon to compel the registration of birth.

I ask the question again, why is the government so intent to force the registration of a birth? Is it because the government creates artificial persons from the natural persons? Have people been manipulated by the state to register births for some nefarious reason which is hidden from the public?

I am trying to find answers and this is another observation concerning our status in law. Bear with me while I outline that a corporation is an artificial or juristic person created under the law as a separate legal entity. An entity is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (“OED”) as a things existence, as opposed to its qualities or relations; a thing that has real existence.


Did you know that the Crown is a corporation sole, the office in which the supreme power of the UK is legally vested? The person filling it at any given time is referred to as the sovereign, i.e. the king or queen. What this means is that the sovereign is a corporation. So if the sovereign is a corporation, is there any reason a person cannot be a corporation?  I’m just asking questions for the moment.  chattel2There’s a theory I came across about what government’s do with birth certificates which is thought provoking, and I can now prove the theory as fact. Before I tell you the theory I need to point out that slavery was legal in the UK and the British Empire until the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. It was officially abolished on 1st August 1834 and the government agreed to pay compensation of £20million to slave-owners who would be losing their “property” i.e. human beings. So, government had prior to 1834 permitted slavery.  Now the government needed to raise £20million to compensate the slave owners, including the church and the compensation fund was equivalent to 40% of the government’s annual spending budget.

Now  the theory – that the government raised the money through the banks and the Bond markets and used people as security for the funds, a practice they do to this day. (A Bond in legal terms is (1) a deed by which one person commits himself to another to do something: if it’s to secure the payment of money it is called a common money bond, or (2) a document issued by a government undertaking to repay long term debt with interest).

birth act

In 1834 a Bill was introduced for the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Act which became law in 1837 and the government introduced a requirement for birth registrations etc and for certificates to be issued. A certificate is defined in the OED as a document formally attesting a fact, especially births, deaths and marriages. However,no one is entitled to have their original birth certificate; this is retained by the state. I have wondered why the state keeps the original and what they do with it And why are the occupations of the mother / father needed?

I can now substantiate the theory and prove it with evidence (*please read “The SMOKING GUN” section). I can prove it through the actual debates in Parliament over how the compensation was to be raised and who proposed the Bill for the registration of births, deaths and marriages. You will also note that the all capitalised version of your name is a diminishing of status from one of freedom to bondage.



Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Social Widgets powered by