.png)
TAKING ACTION & RESPONSES
Ready to Live in Freedom & Peace?
More and more communities and individuals are choosing the natural, living world over the threats, coercion, control and penalties of the "Person" world. The pockets of independent, peaceful, self authority are a blueprint for the next paradigm.
How to make the dream a reality
For those who've tried to exit, coercion, threats, control, interference and penalties can currently seem unavoidable
-
For those who have started to embark on the journey to live free and peacefully outside the system, the realisation that state interference with almost every aspect of how you live, what you build and what you do to generate money will be intense, often becomes disheartening.
-
Natural law says live in peace, do no harm, cause no loss or interference, and yet the state routinely causes all of the above, and it does so with apparent immunity through threats, coercion and penalties.
-
Often, state agents have little or no understanding of an aim to live in peace without interference, and believe their enforcement actions to be for the common good. They even inadvertently commit real crimes against the living to impose statutory control.
-
The post box can become what feels like a battleground of claims and threats, and finding independence can be exhausting.
-
Those who do their research often find "common law" principles upon which to respond to claims, but then find they are often innefective or rejected as pseudo-law, freeman-on-the-land or sovereign citizen meaning enforcement action continues.
This is a simple language and wrong law barrier - the system is conditioned to dismiss common law challenges
-
The amalgamation of common law, statutory legalism and Equity into a single system has distorted and masked the protections available but has not removed them. They are alive and well across all British Empire and Colonial states and jurisdictions. They are simply consolidated into a single court system.
-
The freedom community and many who study common law, actively avoid statutory language and concepts believing that use is submission, or that they need to claim a separate jurisdiction. This is not the case and what we share here is black-letter law, meaning it is accepted within the system.
-
Contract law, agency law, common law and equity work together to both protect you and reverse the statutory presumptions. When combined with trust law and the correct mechanisms and declarations they are effective.
-
The processes we have used and through experience have seen work, do not somehow deny the existence of the statute system, or deny that the person is real - they recognise that by operation of black-letter law the effect can be reversed.
-
NotAPerson.org is here to expose a route and framework that works and brings clarity for those just starting out on this journey, and those who are fatigued by continued threats and enforcement.
The key is simplicity. State what you are NOT, then use recognised agency, contract and equity law to exit
The Key Challenge (for them), your unassailable position and key to living life in peace:
-
The person to which your claim is addressed has no contracted living agent and is incompetent to receive claims.
-
“I am NOT that legal person. I am NOT a statutory creation. I have NOT contracted to represent any statutory entity, person or role.” - As statutes apply to only legal persons, prove this statute applies to me specifically.
-
This requires lawful proof. Dismissal, assertion or circular reasoning (“Statute says so”), or reverting to force are not proof and they confirm that there is no legitimate authority..
An Unassailable / Unbeatable Legal Position Occurs - When you state what you are NOT:
-
NOT a legal person (statutory construct)
-
NOT a statutory creation (a director, defendant, citizen (role/title))
-
NOT contracted to represent any statutory entity
You're not making a claim they can dispute - you're making a denial they must disprove. In order for statute to reach the living being you must be an agent for a legal person.
The Burden of Proof Problem, to proceed, statute must lawfully prove:
-
You ARE the person, OR
-
You ARE lawfully contracted as agent for the person
This explanation requires deep understanding before use, together with equity protections. It is shown to demonstrate the simple clarity but not as something that can be used blindly.
Why Proof is NOT Possible
The simplicity of this challenge means that there is only two points in contention. Are you a legal person? Or is there an agency contract? The state must now prove either in order to proceed.
Option 1: Prove you ARE the legal person (or a statutory creation)
As those making the claim have only their own definitions and rules to work from, proof is :
-
Factually impossible - you're a living being created by nature, not a statutory construct
-
“Legal Person” is a statutory definition (Interpretations act - includes bodies corporate and unincorporate) meaning it is factuall not a living being or even a natural person, as that is a separate definition.
-
“Natural Person” is a human as defined by statute with inherent rights, the source of those rights is you the living being when you agree to play the role. Legal persons require natural persons as agents to be competent.
-
Trying to prove you are a legal person is like trying to prove a human IS a corporation. Categorically false, and cannot be evidenced.
Option 2: Prove a lawful, explicit agency contract exists
-
Requires demonstrating all elements of agency and contract law:
-
Offer and acceptance (clear, explicit description of effect)
-
Consideration (exchange of value)
-
Intention to create legal relations
-
Meeting of minds - bilateral with two signatures
-
Voluntary, informed consent
-
-
The system has none of this, you never contracted
-
Only presumption based on:
-
Responding to the name (not acceptance)
-
Presence (not consent)
-
Officer "satisfaction" (not proof)
-
Birth certificate or Prior compliance (not a contract)
-
-
And once challenged, presumption must be proven, as per the precedent set in Nash vs Inman in 1908. No contract, no liability.
-
As we understand the law behind the mechanisms of the system, we understand how the deception occured.
Enlightening & Strategic
By understanding the person definitions deeply and stating what you are NOT (negative claim), you:
-
Avoid making positive claims you would need to prove - This is Not the common law approach
-
Stay simple and avoid "Pseudo-law" and "Sovereign-Citizen" framing, and unlawful dismissal.
-
Force them to prove a positive (agency/identity) - An impossible legal burden shifts to them.
-
Expose that the entire statutory process runs on a fragile presumption
-
Allow agents to see and question the legitimacy of the authority they rely on. Bypasses conditioning.
-
Expose that without an agency contract, you are simply NOT the entity statutes attach to. The Person.
-
Reveal that statute has no mechanism to prove what it has always assumed - Authority over you.
We will share judicial rulings that supports this for your reference
Conditional acceptance is key, it does not deny their claim it requires them to prove it applies to you. It can be formed as follows:
This is a partial example of a response to a personal claim (say for tax or penalty), companies which are also legal persons require a different claims approach to avoid rendering them incompetent.
This simplified example does not use the preferred trustee response which is key for ultimate effectiveness. What follows outlines core principles:
Welcome the claim, shift the burden of proof to them and render the legal person incompetent to receive claims immediately, as follows :
The legal person to which your claim is addresssed has no living agent and is therefore incompetent to receive claims.
and then state what you are NOT, followed by respectfully stating the burden of proof now upon the claimant.
I am not a person (legal or natural), I am not a statutory creation, I have not contracted to represent any statutory entity or role.
I conditionally accept your [claim(s) which relies on this statute(s)] if you can lawfully prove this statute attaches to me, a living man/woman specifically.
To meet this conditional acceptance you (statute) must provide proof that:
-
I AM a statute defined and created legal person, and not a natural entity. (impossible)
-
I have contracted to represent a statutory legal person with a valid, lawful and explicit agency contract. Presumption of this contract is no longer legally valid once challenged. (Nash vs Inman 1908 - No Contract, no liability).
-
The contract must therefore exist and meet the following contract law requirements:
-
Offer, acceptance, consideration, intention, meeting of minds, and be voluntary.
-
What does not constitute proof :
-
Dismissal or compartmentalisation of this response eg as “Pseudo-legal.” or "Sovereign citizen". It is legal in its entirety.
-
Assertion/circular reasoning - “Statute says so because it’s statute.” Statute applies to persons. Assertion does not prove they apply to me.
-
Force - Enforcement through power substituted for providing proof of legitimate authority.
Any of the above simply confirm the authority you rely upon is NOT legitimate, bringing personal liability upon you as an agent.
