To be a Corporation or not to be a Corporation.... that is the Question?
From the National Archives it has this to say about Crown
Copyright :
Crown copyright covers material created by civil servants, ministers and government departments and agencies.
It is legally defined under section 163 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 as works made by officers or servants of the Crown in the course of their duties.
Copyright can also come into Crown ownership by means of assignment or transfer of the copyright from the legal owner of the copyright to the Crown.
From the Open Government License we get the following information :
You are free to :
copy, publish, distribute and transmit the Information;
adapt the Information;
exploit the Information commercially for example, by combining it with other Information, or by including it in your own product or application.
All seems well so far and then from the national Archives page on copyright guidance we find the following :
Guidance – Copying of Birth, Death, Marriage and Civil Partnership Certificates
Number: 7 Date: 27 October 1999 (Revised April 2009)
Introduction
1. This guidance note sets out the arrangements for the reproduction of official birth, death, marriage and civil partnership certificates (‘extracts’ in Scotland.)
Copyright in the layout of layout of certificates is owned by the Crown. The Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms.
The guidance goes on to say under the heading Reproduction :
This guidance does not {authorise you} to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals
If we look at the statement; “The Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms”, it is a fact that unless we are trained in sophistry, we look upon the sentence and we understand it to mean the crown does not own the contents of the certificate. But the keyword in that sentence is “assert” which we must define to understand its presence in the sentence and its power of expression :
from the Oxford Dictionary 1989 7th edition, the term assert is defined thus : declare; state clearly; enforce claim to (rights);
from the Oxford edition 2005 10th edition, the term assert is defined thus : state a fact or belief confidently; make other people recognise something; assert yourself.
from the Collins English Dictionary 2004 12th edition it says thus : declare forcefully; insist upon (ones rights etc.)
If the crown was not in the position of ownership of the contents, then the second statement; “This guidance does not {authorise you} to reproduce the contents of any certificate containing personal data about living individuals”, would not be present, because to authorize means to give authority, which can only be given by the owner. Should it not be the case that copyright belongs with the crown, then they would not be obligated to have furthered the issue pertaining to copyright of something it does not own, however, as a precaution it could have presented guidance in the manner of reminding that consent must be gained by the owner of the information if it is to be copied. It does not do this, it claims authority by informing you, you are not authorised. The certificate is one half of the equation the other would be filling out the certificate thus forming the corporate ‘legal person’ as a mimic of a birth name being registered, as such the legal person becomes nothing other than a commercial debt account at which all statutory claims are made, the trick is then to encourage living humans to claim to be the liable agent by claiming ownership of the certificate, because of course the crown is not asserting ownership via copyright breech, it will make a lot more money by levelling a range of statutes against you, recoup-able in a cash value, be that in fines and repossessions, or given the same realm is in control of all the private corporate interests moving in on our civil system, they also make a lot of money incarcerating you to the tune of some £50k per year.
What the crown is informing you of, is the fact it does not assert [ 'its' ] ownership outside the guidelines presented, it does not state it owns the rights outright, but acts in a position of authority to deny the use of personal information on living individuals to be copied.
Two terms to absorb in order you better understand your relationship with the legal person :
Power of Attorney
Liable agent
You must consider your relationship with the legal person created when your birth name is registered by your parents, it exists and so do you. Therefore it is essential you understand the difference because the statutes certainly do. On the one hand you are you, as such you are fully responsible for yourself, the other is to claim ownership for something you clearly do not own and in so doing, handing ownership of your destiny to the crown and whichever raft of statutes they are attempting to enforce against your claim to be the liable agent for a legal document belonging to someone else.
I have used three definitions of the term assert, in order we can better understand that changes in our language, especially relating to the meaning of words, do not change due to social pressure, they change in accordance with the next wave of statutes to be laid against us. Through this very clever manipulation of the English language, they have been able to push the statute state upon us without it being noted, while setting as precedent statutes over our land law. The Law of the land protected the people and the state offices from foreign threats and internal government lunges for power, the statute state protects the corporate realm while categorising and herding the peoples into any forms of profit creation, this is how slavery is born and protected, even better if this system is so under contractual consent, and who cares if that consent is gained under a great deception? ….. I think it is time to care. The path is open, are you going to walk it?
