.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, 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 through threats, coercion and penalties.
-
Often, state agents, have little or no understanding of the aim to live in peace without interference, and see their own actions as for the common good, often committing 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.
-
And while those who do their research find common law principles upon which to respond to claims, they are often innefective or rejected as pseudo-law, or freeman-on-the-land, meaning action continues for enforcement.
This issue is not terminal, it's a language barrier - the system is conditioned to dismiss common law challenges
-
While common law and foundationally natural law challenges ARE valid, the statutory system has both engulfed and converted much of the logic and principles into legalese. Meaning the statutory systems own language.
-
Many who use common law, believe that using statutory acts and statutes is in some way a submission to statute jurisdiction and defeats the very point of the aim, to stand aside from or outside of the legislation created for the "Person"
-
But here's the interesting truth. Rather than common law sitting outside of statute, it still exists within statute, and the mechanism by which you are considered to be or act for the person, can be legally and lawfully challenged.
-
As in common law methodology, this is not about denying statute authority, it's all about conditionally accepting it subject to proof that specific statutes apply to you. Importantly this must be done in a language the legal system recognises and understands.
-
NotAPerson.org is here to expose a route that works and brings clarity for those just starting out on this journey, and those who are fatigued by continued threats and enforcement.
The route is simplicity, and stating a negative to be proven, using the person, agency and contract law
The Key Challenge (for them), your unassailable position and key to living life in peace:
-
“I am NOT a person. I am NOT a statutory creation. I have NOT contracted to represent any statutory entity.” - 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 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.
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
Why Proof is NOT Possible
The simplicity of this challenge means that there is only two points in contention. Are you a person? Or is there an agency contract? The state must now prove either in order to proceed.
Option 1: Prove you ARE the 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)
-
“Natural Person” is a human as defined by statute. A statutory role or status. Again Not you.
-
It’s 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 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
-
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.
Enlightening & Strategic
By stating what you are NOT (negative claim), you:
-
Avoid making positive claims you would need to prove - This is Not the common law approach
-
Stays simple and avoids "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
How conditional acceptance can be formed.
First welcome the claim and then state what you are NOT, followed by respectfully stating the burden of proof now upon the claimant. This could be structured, although tailoring it to specific claims is key.
I am not a person (legal or natural), I am not a statutory creation, I have not contracted to represent any statutory entity.
I conditionally accept your [claim(s) which relies on this statute(s)] if you can lawfully prove this statute applies to me specifically.
To meet this conditional acceptance you must provide proof that:
-
I AM a statute defined and created person, and not a natural entity.
-
I have contracted to represent a statutory 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. Assetion 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.
