British protected person

British protected person

Postby consumerpada » Sun Aug 23, 2009 1:17 am

section 3 (3) In the M1Aliens Restriction Acts, 1914 M2 and 1919, and in any order made thereunder the expression “alien” shall not include a British protected person.

I hadn't seen that phrase before, i.e a word for a non-citizen (natural domicile but not a subject)

http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/britishprotectedperson/

....................>>>>>>>>>>>

Who is a British protected person?


This page explains what a British protected person is and what rights that status gives them. It also gives an overview of the complex rules that govern who may be a British protected person.

If you are not already a British protected person, there are very few circumstances in which it is possible for you to register as one.

If you need more detailed guidance on whether or not you qualify as a British protected person, please contact us.

What does the term mean?

The term started to be used in the second half of the 19th century when Britain extended its protection to people and places outside the British Empire. The places given British protection were:

protectorates;
protected states;
mandated territories; and
trust territories. (See protectorates)
People born in these countries became known as British protected persons and this gradually became a form of British nationality. Until 1949 the status was given by royal prerogative. In 1949 the status became a statutory one, granted according to defined rules and available only to people who had no other nationality or way of obtaining one.

Am I a British protected person?

From 1 January 1983, the following categories of people became, or were able to become, British protected persons:

citizens or nationals of Brunei under any law in Brunei that provided for citizenship or nationality (but this status was subsequently lost when Brunei became a fully sovereign state);
anyone who, immediately before 1 January 1983, was a British protected person; and
anyone who would otherwise be born stateless, on or after 1 January 1983, in the United Kingdom or an overseas territory if, at the time of their birth, their mother or father was a British protected person.
In most cases, British protected persons lost that status when they gained any other nationality or citizenship, including British citizenship, British overseas territories citizenship or British Overseas citizenship.

Also, in most cases, British protected persons lost that status when the territory they were connected with became independent and they became a citizen of the newly independent country (whether at independence or later on).

What rights does a British protected person have?

British protected persons have limited rights in terms of living and working in the United Kingdom.

They:

can hold a British passport in that status;
are regarded as British nationals; and
can receive consular assistance and protection from United Kingdom diplomatic posts.
But they:

are subject to immigration controls and do not have any right to live or work in the United Kingdom without those controls;
are not able to vote in elections in the United Kingdom;
are not able to hold some public offices in the United Kingdom; and
are not considered to be United Kingdom nationals by the European Community....cont...

http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/britishprotectedperson/

.......
Knowledge makes a (wo)man unfit to be a slave." — Frederick Douglass
consumerpada
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 11:22 am
Location: Herts, Beds, Bucks + Northamptonshire

Re: British protected person

Postby consumerpada » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:03 am

From the thread the name game over in general chat:

1. Who has secured the rights (legal and equitable) in my legal name???
2. What rights do I have in the legal name ???

From the point of view of the trustee:

1. Who has secured rights ( legal and equitable) to the legal names of my heirs and beneficiaries?
2. What rights doess the trust have in those names.

I have declared the govt is not my partner, but I hav't removed my self from the jurisdiction technically speaking and my british citizen ship is intact. ( in so much

This is a technical point, but there are adhesion elements to my name, for instance, how in the 'hell' can a court use 'my name' as if I am not there, from what hidden terms and conditions are they working from?

the state immunity act says it well A court shall give effect to the immunity conferred by this section even though the State does not appear in the proceedings in question. in other words, if someone does use your name they must assume you not liable - they can only intefer with what they own.

From a technical point of view ( and I am not one to renounce things) .......If my british citizenship is intact, then I am still within the jurisdiction of the crown ( EC1) as far as I know...

as a 'Free Briton' domicile in the geo-graphical are of the british isles, a british protected person' in legal 'terms'. A sovereign standing family.

Derived from Celtic and Moorish peoples who habitated these lands prior to statutory regulations and within the natural and common law ( of the land).

I will reconise the Judge as having jusidiction over any party that I or my people may encounter. When I encounter other sovereign standing people I will seek their diplomatic agents directly.

......................>>>>>>>>

British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61)
This version of this statute is extracted from the UK Statute Law Database (SLD). It is not in the form in which it was originally enacted but is a revised version, which means that subsequent amendments to the text and other effects are incorporated with annotations.

There are effects on this legislation that have not yet been applied to SLD for the following years: 2007 and 2008. See the Tables of Legislative effects and the Update status of legislation page on the SLD website.

.........................>>>>>>>


There are effects on this legislation that have not yet been applied.

There are effects on this legislation that have been applied.

legislation has been applied.

There are effects.


For something to be applied, there needs to be two parties, the party that is
'applied to' is the citizen,

but the person making the application is not subject to the legistation.

However, the person making the application has the consent, of the citizen, via the British Nationality act, and subsequent registrations and licenses.

FIRST LINE of the nationality ACT.

"An Act to make provision for British nationality and for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."

Make provision means: to create an 'accountable liability'

'connected with the matters aforesaid' for me should say 'let it be known herein' but instead it refers to other matter also, 'previously metioned' in th past. (adhesion)

So I find also, that in truth the status of 'british citizen' can be renounced in such a way as to retain use of the 'title' for use.
It about using and sticking to the laws you recognise and making those laws availiable for communications.

The Vienna Convention of Diplomatic relations - http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multi/texts/BH408.txt

Universal Declaraion of Human Rights - http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

State Immunity Act 1978 - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1978/cukpga_19780033_en_1

Your own declaration(status) - http://consumerpada.com/Notice_of_Intent_and_Claim_of_Right.aspx (EDIT* now password protected)

Your own Trust (jurisdiction) - http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=1330&hilit=+family+trust

Your own declaration of removal of uk citizenship -http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/
Knowledge makes a (wo)man unfit to be a slave." — Frederick Douglass
consumerpada
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 11:22 am
Location: Herts, Beds, Bucks + Northamptonshire

Re: British protected person

Postby BaldBeardyDude » Sun Aug 23, 2009 11:30 am

This is some awesome work, CP.

Am I reading this right - that we form a family trust, renounce our citizenship and we are classed or treated as a seperate state?

Or, as I strongly suspect, am I once again being a bit dim?
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
BaldBeardyDude
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire

Re: British protected person

Postby consumerpada » Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:53 pm

:rotfl: lol..

No you're not being dim at all, tis is how it looks to at the moment in law, as in, the presently recognised ( by the crown,te third pay who has claim to your name) way of renoucing citizenhip.

But (important point) you can not remain stateless, because there are other adhesion involved in 'that' legal status.

So the jurisdictional state is the private 'common law family trust.' In court we are not invisible, we have brought 'our court' to the court, in observance with diplomatic protocol (international law).

We accept that the other party is within their court's jurisdiction. Its not say we are not liable, it is to say our matters are dealt with according to our own juris prudence.

When we are wronged, we should by rights, apply to crown court for them to intervene on the party in their jurisdiction.

Infact we should issue own own court order, and 'submit' it to the crown court as claimant. We are unable to enforce a court order on a party that is not within our jurisdiction. Just like they are.

From this point of view we should not be going in to court as an antagonist, we should simply be reporting a 'crime' with all evidence, and due to respect for jurisdictional boudaries seek to have our court order ratified for action in the crown juridiction. With a promise to make order the proven liable party pay court costs at the courts discresion

If we can't ever get a court order ratified and we have made clear appeals for full and proper explanations AND we have established a verified court record (our own)

Then its a matter to the house of lords/supreme courts and or international courts, as we can show we are being infringed upon and that jurisdictional boudaries are not being respected. As indigionous people, as direct decendants of ancient peoples who existed on the lands prior to modern statute and government. As carriers of oral traditions, cultural identities that are unique to briton. (commonly known as the british isles)

We are a protected people when we are in trust. We are our own protectorate, self governed.

:peace: Its a plain as day. :peace:

in god we trust?

Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. (last sermon)

Trust:

–noun 1. reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.
2. confident expectation of something; hope.
3. confidence in the certainty of future payment for property or goods received; credit: to sell merchandise on trust.
4. a person on whom or thing on which one relies: God is my trust.
5. the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted.
6. the obligation or responsibility imposed on a person in whom confidence or authority is placed: a position of trust.
7. charge, custody, or care: to leave valuables in someone's trust.
8. something committed or entrusted to one's care for use or safekeeping, as an office, duty, or the like; responsibility; charge.
9. Law. a. a fiduciary relationship in which one person (the trustee) holds the title to property (the trust estate or trust property) for the benefit of another (the beneficiary).
b. the property or funds so held.

10. Commerce. a. an illegal combination of industrial or commercial companies in which the stock of the constituent companies is controlled by a central board of trustees, thus making it possible to manage the companies so as to minimize production costs, control prices, eliminate competition, etc.
b. any large industrial or commercial corporation or combination having a monopolistic or semimonopolistic control over the production of some commodity or service.

11. Archaic. reliability.

–adjective 12. Law. of or pertaining to trusts or a trust.

–verb (used without object) 13. to rely upon or place confidence in someone or something (usually fol. by in or to): to trust in another's honesty; trusting to luck.
14. to have confidence; hope: Things work out if one only trusts.
15. to sell merchandise on credit.

–verb (used with object) 16. to have trust or confidence in; rely or depend on.
17. to believe.
18. to expect confidently; hope (usually fol. by a clause or infinitive as object): trusting the job would soon be finished; trusting to find oil on the land.
19. to commit or consign with trust or confidence.
20. to permit to remain or go somewhere or to do something without fear of consequences: He does not trust his children out of his sight.
21. to invest with a trust; entrust with something.
22. to give credit to (a person) for goods, services, etc., supplied: Will you trust us till payday?

—Verb phrase23. trust to, to rely on; trust: Never trust to luck!
—Idiom24. in trust, in the position of being left in the care or guardianship of another: She left money to her uncle to keep in trust for her children.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1175–1225; (n.) ME < ON traust trust (c. G Trost comfort); (v.) ME trusten < ON treysta, deriv. of traust

Related forms:

trust⋅a⋅ble, adjective
trust⋅a⋅bil⋅i⋅ty, noun
truster, noun


Synonyms:
1. certainty, belief, faith. Trust, assurance, confidence imply a feeling of security. Trust implies instinctive unquestioning belief in and reliance upon something: to have trust in one's parents. Confidence implies conscious trust because of good reasons, definite evidence, or past experience: to have confidence in the outcome of events. Assurance implies absolute confidence and certainty: to feel an assurance of victory. 8. commitment, commission. 17. credit. 19. entrust.
Knowledge makes a (wo)man unfit to be a slave." — Frederick Douglass
consumerpada
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 11:22 am
Location: Herts, Beds, Bucks + Northamptonshire

Re: British protected person

Postby BaldBeardyDude » Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:09 pm

This is sounding (and I use the word deliberately, as you can imagine) very, very promising, CP. :clap:

I'm going to have to have a bloody good look into this, aren't I? :grin:

If you could, would you start a thread (I know you have one, but no docs) - including redacted docs - to show the process, as I know I haven't picked up much regarding the actual making of a family trust. Specifically, I'd like to know:

1. The process of forming said trust, including documents needed.
2. Administering said trust, with regard to financial and legal/lawful activities.
3. Property of said trust and members of said trust, specifically houses and lands registered with HMLR and vehicles/transport ditto DVLA

I realise that I can look all this up and I am not being lazy, I assure you. My concern is to get this info assessed, streamlined and rolled out into a template/thread to the betterment of all as soon as we can, so we can all get at it and I guess assess it - more heads are better than one. If you have any links, I will help - no problems.....

I do not mean to dismiss or doubt your work either, CP - you know that. I just see us doing the usual job and hammering something out which is another viable weapon, let alone the 'silver bullet', should this be it.

What are your thoughts, CP?
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
BaldBeardyDude
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire

Re: British protected person

Postby consumerpada » Sun Aug 23, 2009 4:39 pm

Thank you, for saying so, I agree, completly. bBd.

No worries at all.

I really think the comment above I just made is a good starting point, I can post more docs and explain some points. What it really needs, right now are a lot more devils advocates because it does need sharpening. But I think the posts above states it pretty much as it is.

just quicly - a trust 'can be' verbal and have no deed, but I think that's pushing it.

It's a deed, like a covenant, with includes the trustee oath. Sealed signed and witnessed, essentially it's a private document and clearly is not notarised by third parties, its a 'familly covenant' - common law family trust.

It's administered according to natural and common law, at the discresion of the trust and trustee ( in short, you administer it as you would - as you feel is best)

A trust can contain what ever you think it should, for me, eventually, all property, all conveyances, all insurances, all invoices, all contracts. All commercial affairs. But the point is, it could be just for insurance or just for holidays or just for broaband accounts it can be as little or as big as you want. It could be just a silent thing that only springs to life when there are legal difficulties or it can be to complete lawful framework to 'sheild a sovereign family' the latter is a full time job in itself.

All run through one ledger ( which is infact a group of folders, each folder the corresponding with the family or family member's real name.

also hopefully it can also be groups of families as in trust confederation.

:peace:
Knowledge makes a (wo)man unfit to be a slave." — Frederick Douglass
consumerpada
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 11:22 am
Location: Herts, Beds, Bucks + Northamptonshire

Re: British protected person

Postby Farmer » Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:09 pm

I have to admit that I have been watching your posts CP on the trust but have been having problems understanding it all. The frustration I have is that in the US things are clearly written down in their codes, even to the point of saying that the US is a corporation. The codes also include the remedies. However, here in the UK, there is either nothing, or it is not written down. The trusts may be the answer as to how this should be done. One thing is clear, the elites use trusts and corporations to protect their wealth and avoid taxes, as the statutes they make apply to them as much as us.
If you're scared of 'them' poisoning 'us' with some shit then maybe you haven't noticed the shit they are already poisoning us with.
- prajna - fmotl.co.uk forum 2011
User avatar
Farmer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1989
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:07 am

Re: British protected person

Postby huntingross » Sun Aug 23, 2009 10:01 pm

Agreed...I have marvelled at the prospects of CP's posts on Trusts, alas I am still in the wasteland in trying to understand it....and have a myriad of destractions to keep me away from it.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: British protected person

Postby BaldBeardyDude » Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:50 am

CP has very kindly started a thread and included some documents. It is here.

Good job CP - thanks from all for this effort!! :clap: :clap: :cheer: :cheer: :shake: :shake: :hug: We'll get into it and hammer it out, m8.

If no-one has any objections, I propose locking this thread and using the alternate - anyone object? Or would we want to see it merged?

I'll give it a couple of days.... :grin:
They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth - Gerald Massey
User avatar
BaldBeardyDude
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2256
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 8:42 am
Location: Telford, Shropshire


Return to The Person (legal fiction)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron