Breaking News

Letter to the Editor: Confusion Over the Separation of “Man” and His “Possessions”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A reader writes to explain his understanding of the difference between “man” and his “possessions” as demonstrated in Canadian laws and statutes.It is this ‘possession’ that no one speaks of yet it is the elephant in the room that should have your undivided attention,” he writes.


To The Exposé,

I was reading the letter to the editor that was recently published on your site on June 18, 2022. The author of the letter presented some points I believe to be valid that are not being mentioned anywhere in the MSM or the alternatives such as your site.

“The man, John Doe Smith, has spent his whole life being taxed and robbed for two entities called: JOHN DOE SMITH and JOHN D SMITH. Both are corporate fictions that exist only on paper.”

Letter to the Editor: Who Benefits and Who’s Behind the Global Genocide?

In the above sentence, it is said but it is not said at the same time. So, what am I talking about?

“Possession” – one word to explain it all. It is this “possession” that no one speaks of yet it is the elephant in the room that should have your undivided attention. But, why?

Possession allows for jurisdiction control and ownership through the use of legislation. But, how?

It happens through confusion regarding the separation of “man” and his “possessions.” If man cannot separate himself from his possessions, he becomes a possession – a piece of property by his own ignorance and choice.

From the interpretation section of the Criminal Code of Canada (“CCC”) it states: “Everyone, Person, Owner includes her majesty and an organisation.” Your human rights will always fall under the designation of “everyone” with any civil rights and privileges falling under relevant legislation under “person” or “owner.”

This is further supported by the Citizenship Act in paragraph 6 which states: “And has a like status to that of such person.” Also, the Civil Code of Quebec states: “Every human being possess juridical personality.” Case law from the court indicates this as well. Meads vs Meads paragraph 445: “There is only one legal identity that attaches to a person. If a person wishes to add a legal ‘layer’ to themselves, then a corporation is the proper approach. The interrelationship between corporation and owner, and the legal effect of that ‘layer’ is clearly established in common law and statute.”

The ignorance of men, women and children is no longer enough for those who want it all. Governments are limited when it comes to the designation of “everyone” hence the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“CCRF”) or Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) under the UN.

However, where the government is unlimited is in the fiction or the identity of the person used by the man. There is a reason why it is said: “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” It is because there can only ever be two areas of law that is: man, and his possession(s).

Let me offer an example. I will call it migration. The government does not have the framework of jurisdiction over men, women, and children when they cross the border, as they say, “illegally.” What the government has instead is an obligation under the designation of “everyone” and not the person or owner as there was no passport presented to officials – no identity per se. The government is forced to interact with these men, women and children through the designation of “everyone” and not its preferred method of “person” or “owner” where the government has the most control.

The government controls what it creates, in this case, the identity of the man – the fictitious entity. That is why your ID, whether it is a passport or a driver’s licence, is never the man’s property but the property of whoever issued it.

You will own nothing and be happy. The fourth industrial revolution involves changing you. Let’s take the fiction and make it a fact. What do you think the result will be? How successful will this merge be?

It is called association and will be a means used to remove possession by having jurisdiction over a small piece contributed to what makes your likeness unique – call it the great reset.

If there was one piece of advice I could offer people in this it would be to remain in good faith regarding your actions. When you hit your limit and feel that only violence remains there is still one more option available. Before you go to war with your opponent return all of the property that does not belong to you. If the authorities have no subjects how much control do they have?

Control is governed by the consent of the people. It’s your choice.

Regards,

Lanny


If you would like to publish a letter, please email it to contact@theexpose.uk addressed “Letter to the Editor.”  At the end of your email, please indicate the name or pseudonym you would like shown when we publish your letter.

Letter to the Editor: Confusion Over the Separation of “Man” and His “Possessions”
Share this page to Telegram

Categories: Breaking News, World News

Tagged as:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
john
john
15 days ago

As the author of the letter you reference, i comprehend what you are saying. I do not possess a drivers license. The bank account which people wrongly believe to be theirs, was closed using an autograph that separated the given name from the family name. The passport was returned. Nor do i make claim or use the legal fiction NAME attached to the birth certificate.
I am no body. My calling is John. Just John. There is non controversy to answer to.

Lanny
Lanny
Reply to  john
14 days ago

Personally I prefer the term entrusted when I speak of the given name my mother gave me, but that is just me. One of the things I learned about the legal natural person argument is it does not matter which side you choose both are juridical or artificially created to be possessed with a right to use but not to own. What kind of trouble can this right of use cause for the man? It is a control method where consent is the means of control, the illusion of freedom some may say that is point of right to use vs right to own to set the narrative of the illusion it may create. This form of control is not enough for the authorities they want more they want all of it, more inclusive as its been said. So why is possession the elephant in the room as I wrote above? It has to to do with association and right to use. Let me give you an example well call it inclusive association with jurisdiction that will be obtained by the state by possession of property that is not owned by the holder but offered as a service by the owner. The association between holder and owner is key for the great reset to be effective in the vision of the authorities hence the mrna therapy is vital in bringing together association of the parties. The owners will claim damages being done by the holders of property a carbon footprint they will say. If you monetize the gift of life a burden can be formed so great you would have conditions where people would own no property and be happy.