John Harris - Freeman of England

[dondaz]

John James Harris - Freeman of England within Common Law

I, JOHN JAMES HARRIS DO DECLARE that as from and including this present date, and for all such time as may now be required to restore Elizabeth the Queen to Her Freedom and to The Lawful Dignity & Authority of her Crown, I DENY AND WITHHOLD ALL ALLEGIANCE AND OBEDIENCE TO ELIZABETH THE QUEEN, to the precise purpose of providing some defence to Her Majesty’s Person; Royal Estate and Freedoms, by the process of denying all and any lawful recognition to those Evil Persons who now hold Her Majesty captive to their own Treasons; Evil Designs and Unlawful Purposes, contrary to law –

I NOW DECLARE to All Persons claiming a legal authority to exercise the power of government, in the name of Elizabeth the Queen that their authority to govern me in any way whatsoever is both DENIED and ENDED.

Here's John outside Parliment:

Traitors in Parliament - YouTube

People are moving ahead and setting an example. Respect to John Harris!

[soldier0fortune]

Wake up...Dr. Freeman...wake up and...smell the ashes!

[Mo0n5tar]

Hey it's magna carta man!:)

[malvern]

good on you John ... making a stand, long life your freedom.


It would be nice if John could up date us on how things change in his life in the future, what he has done i watch with great interrest.


freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[h2pogo]

respect and good luck to John Harris.every one should do it.

[dondaz]

It would be nice if John could up date us on how things change in his life in the future

I'm on it mate;)

so she has 40 days to sack any traitors.. when did he make the speech?

The 40 days are up. 1st May!

respect and good luck to John Harris.every one should do it.

Having a think about it myself:cool:

[soldier0fortune]

Err...you do realise that if this went through then the queen would become the direct ruler of the UK again...right?

This really isnt a good idea......

[h2pogo]

Err...you do realise that if this went through then the queen would become the direct ruler of the UK again...right?

This really isnt a good idea......

I agree it would be a bad idea for the queen to be direct ruler of uk but if it went through she would have to abide by our constitution and reinstate a goverment who also abided by the rules of our constitution.Err i think.
Does any one know any good lawyers.

[thetonic]

Err...you do realise that if this went through then the queen would become the direct ruler of the UK again...right?

This really isnt a good idea......

If you think the queen is ruling anything you are kidding yourself

[soldier0fortune]

If you think the queen is ruling anything you are kidding yourself

Read the entire article, then post again.

[jon galt]

My understanding is the queen holds office of the crown. The crown has some powers the queen does not. The crown serves a legal function and limits the powers of the government.

[micklemus]

Since FOTL is clearly on it's arse, I thought I'd bump up one of the first threads on this forum. Looky here - it was about John Harris.

In the 3+ years that this sub-forum has been running nothing effective has happened, no evidence to justify freeman proclamations has been provided, John Harris himself has even got jittery about the whole thing and most of the hangers-on have scattered to the four winds.

Is anyone going to pick up the baton and deal with FOTL's countless shortcomings or will it continue to be a case of make ridiculous claims and put the old fingers in the ears and shout "la la la" to anyone who points out why they're wrong?

EDIT - wow, that's weird. Jon Galt was looking back at the old stuff at the same time as me!

[jon galt]

Na I was reading through your posts because your one of the few voices of reason on these forms. I actually spend some time looking in to this freeman stuff because with out any legal back ground a few thing seemed a bit plausible .But on closer inspection....I'm glad there is some people that actually know the law and know what they are talking about.

[micklemus]

Na I was reading through your posts because your one of the few voices of reason on these forms. I actually spend some time looking in to this freeman stuff because with out any legal back ground a few thing seemed a bit plausible .But on closer inspection....I'm glad there is some people that actually know the law and know what they are talking about.

Cheers

Just remember - Rob Menard and Jackieg say that I don't know the law. ;)

[rob menard]

Cheers

Just remember - Rob Menard and Jackieg say that I don't know the law. ;)

Perhaps you would care to share with us what you claim the law is, then?
Is it the rules others make which you AGREE to?
Is it the rules others make which you do not agree to?
Is it even made by others, or do others rely upon it and agreement to make their rules applicable to you?

If they are not written down does it not exist?
Is 'The Law' a science or an art, or maybe a craft?

Is not doing what you are told to do, by another adult with whom you have no contract, breaking the law or not?

[micklemus]

Perhaps you would care to share with us what you claim the law is, then?
Is it the rules others make which you AGREE to?
Is it the rules others make which you do not agree to?
Is it even made by others, or do others rely upon it and agreement to make their rules applicable to you?

If they are not written down does it not exist?
Is 'The Law' a science or an art, or maybe a craft?

Is not doing what you are told to do, by another adult with whom you have no contract, breaking the law or not?

So many questions, Rob. Yet you explained to us all only recently that what you say goes anyway so why are you asking me? ;)

PS - re your emboldened bit I would have thought that the answers were simple. You really need to think things through before you launch into your sophistry. Point 1: there is such a thing as contract law but contracts are not the entire body of law, so quite why your contract bit has been mentioned is beyond me. Point 2: what somebody says is pretty much irrelevant to whether someone is breaking the law or not. There could be examples of not abiding by a statement that could amount to breaking the law, e.g. (non exhaustive list) -

- someone gives an undertaking not to do something and does it anyway, in which case that someone might face liability for breaching his undertaking
- a judge passes a judgment which someone refuses to honour, in which case the judgment can be enforced against him

Generally speaking, however, it's a simple question of what the law says, rather than a review of an individual's remarks. You get that from things called statutes and judgments, in case you hadn't heard. True these things have at some point been the subject of some sort of pronouncement initially but we don't need a fresh pronouncement everytime for there to be a breach of the law, contrary to what you appear to be suggesting. So, no, you don't have to be told not to do something before you're breaking the law.

In summary, it is a question of evidence and law as to whether a law has been broken, not simply a question of what someone says, although I appreciate that you would like it to be the latter and have tried to convince people for many years that this is the case. It all boils down to you wanting to be in the position where what you say goes. I must however burst your bubble on that one.

:rolleyes:

Now, are you actually going to park your sophistry for a few minutes to answer my question? To recap:

In the 3+ years that this sub-forum has been running nothing effective has happened, no evidence to justify freeman proclamations has been provided, John Harris himself has even got jittery about the whole thing and most of the hangers-on have scattered to the four winds.

Is anyone going to pick up the baton and deal with FOTL's countless shortcomings or will it continue to be a case of make ridiculous claims and put the old fingers in the ears and shout "la la la" to anyone who points out why they're wrong?

Actually, maybe you have answered the question after all! ;)

PPS - I still like your understanding of things in one sense though (your reversal of the burden of proof). Therefore, I still own you!

[jon galt]

Perhaps you would care to share with us what you claim the law is, then?
Is it the rules others make which you AGREE to?
Is it the rules others make which you do not agree to?
Is it even made by others, or do others rely upon it and agreement to make their rules applicable to you?

If they are not written down does it not exist?
Is 'The Law' a science or an art, or maybe a craft?

Is not doing what you are told to do, by another adult with whom you have no contract, breaking the law or not? ''

the law(s) apply to me where ever i agree to them or not. same goes for every one else. even laws you are not aware of still apply, ignorence of a law does not make you exempt. are you saying that if i dont agree that murder should be illegal i am free to murder?

[rob menard]

Way to avoid mic, and using sophistry, accuse me of doing so.

I have answered far more of your questions then you have mine.

Answer this one plainly please:
Is not doing what you are told by another adult, someone with whom you are not in contract, in and of itself a crime in your book?

As for your court examples, an undertaking is an agreement.
And order of a court, is only secured after AGREEING to the court process, by way of making an appearance.
Both of which rely upon agreement and the law of contract.

And neither of them had f*ck all to do with the question I asked, and is merely you trying to avoid.

Incidentally do you consider The Law of Contract to be merely my rules which I made up, and did not exist prior to my existence, or do you agree that The Law existed prior to my existence?

In the 3+ years that this sub-forum has been running nothing effective has happened, no evidence to justify freeman proclamations has been provided, John Harris himself has even got jittery about the whole thing and most of the hangers-on have scattered to the four winds.

That is merely YOUR opinion. There has been plenty of evidence, all of which you automatically rejected cause it offended your previously held beliefs.

Recall I started by pointing out the words that actually exist in the various Acts and statutes, and your camp replied with asinine remarks like "Equality does not mean what you think it means." Or "You are not trained to understand the language of law", which when the inequity of that remark was pointed out you replied with statutes must be plainly interpreted.

So when it comes to things like equality, it is not in plain language, and we can't understand it as it is the technical language of the law. Or it is in plain language but does not mean what it normally does.

In the three years, you have failed to establish that you have the ability to lawfully govern another without their consent, or that your rules are law without consent, or that the people in the government do not need consent.

Since I was not the one originating the claim, that means Freeman perspective is still standing.

Funny how NO ONE in the government wants to claim the right to govern without consent, but those who do claim they have that right hide on the net.

[jon galt]

I have answered far more of your questions then you have mine.

Answer this one plainly please:
Is not doing what you are told by another adult, someone with whom you are not in contract, in and of itself a crime in your book?
it does not mater if it is a crime in my book. the laws stand irrespective of my opinion.

As for your court examples, an undertaking is an agreement.
And order of a court, is only secured after AGREEING to the court process, by way of making an appearance.
Both of which rely upon agreement and the law of contract.
what about prisoners who are forced to go to court? also what about juviniles people under the age of 18 who can not enter in to a legal contract?
your claims make no sense

[rob menard]

the law(s) apply to me where ever i agree to them or not. same goes for every one else. even laws you are not aware of still apply, ignorence of a law does not make you exempt. are you saying that if i dont agree that murder should be illegal i am free to murder?

So I can make up rules, and they will apply to you without your consent? Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying that you think the only reason you are not free to murder is because someone wrote down that you are not? Are you only allowed to do those things which someone else said you could?

Are you saying that refusing to do what I am told, by someone with whom I have no contract, is equivalent to MURDERING someone? HMMM???

[jon galt]

also (any one who knows better please correct if im wrong) but i was under the understanding that if some one is forced in to a contract that voids said contract. like a while back our lawer was settling my grans will and i had to sign a contract to allow him to act on my behalf . what i signed was some thing along the lines of i am in sound mind that i have not been forced in to doing so and it also had to be signed in frount of a witness.

[rob menard]

it does not mater if it is a crime in my book. the laws stand irrespective of my opinion.


what about prisoners who are forced to go to court? also what about juviniles people under the age of 18 who can not enter in to a legal contract?
your claims make no sense

So for you then the law is whatever some other adult tells you what to do, and though you are an adult, you have no say in what they tell you, right?

Prisoners have a special status. They can be told what to do. They agreed to be prisoners, in a large part. Failure to do what you are told, absent a contract, should not end up with you in prison though should it?

If I tell you what to do, claim it is now the law, and you refuse to do it, should I have the right to put you in prison? Do you have the right? And if neither you nor I do, why would some other adult, merely because they claim to work for Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Crown or some other legal and imaginary fiction?

[jon galt]

So I can make up rules, and they will apply to you without your consent? Is that what you are saying?

Are you saying that you think the only reason you are not free to murder is because someone wrote down that you are not? Are you only allowed to do those things which someone else said you could?

Are you saying that refusing to do what I am told, by someone with whom I have no contract, is equivalent to MURDERING someone? HMMM???

im just trying to work out your logic for such claims. and no you can not make up the rules that right is reserved for parlament.
oaky mabey i put my question wrong are you saying because i do not agree that murder is illegal then the law should not punnish me for murder?

[rob menard]

also (any one who knows better please correct if im wrong) but i was under the understanding that if some one is forced in to a contract that voids said contract. like a while back our lawer was settling my grans will and i had to sign a contract to allow him to act on my behalf . what i signed was some thing along the lines of i am in sound mind that i have not been forced in to doing so and it also had to be signed in frount of a witness.
You are correct. One must agree without duress.
That is why when people in the FMOTL movement sign court documents they often use UNDER DURESS, and the cops and judges HATE it, cause it invalidates the contract or agreement or UNDERTAKING they were seeking to have the FMOTL agree to.

[rob menard]

im just trying to work out your logic for such claims. and no you can not make up the rules that right is reserved for parlament.
oaky mabey i put my question wrong are you saying because i do not agree that murder is illegal then the law should not punnish me for murder?

Nope not saying that either.
Murder is unlawful, regardless of whether it is illegal.

Technically, if you do not believe that murder is wrong, then you can be murdered with impunity, right? After all if it is not wrong for you to murder someone, then it is not wrong for their family to do the same to you. Is that not an even greater punishment? Is that not the law at work, too?

[jon galt]

So for you then the law is whatever some other adult tells you what to do, and though you are an adult, you have no say in what they tell you, right?

Prisoners have a special status. They can be told what to do. They agreed to be prisoners, in a large part. Failure to do what you are told, absent a contract, should not end up with you in prison though should it?

If I tell you what to do, claim it is now the law, and you refuse to do it, should I have the right to put you in prison? Do you have the right? And if neither you nor I do, why would some other adult, merely because they claim to work for Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Crown or some other legal and imaginary fiction?


i have a say at every election.
again you can not tell me or any one what to do. that right is reserved for parlament. a right that is given to them by consent through our democratic system. i think the freeman movement are realy confused anarchists. no?

Nope not saying that either.
Murder is unlawful, regardless of whether it is illegal.

Technically, if you do not believe that murder is wrong, then you can be murdered with impunity, right? After all if it is not wrong for you to murder someone, then it is not wrong for their family to do the same to you. Is that not an even greater punishment? Is that not the law at work, too?

what do you mean unlawful. whos law. yours?

Also why can no fmol answer my question , how can juviniles be prosecuted if all law is contract and you can not enter a contract untill the age of 18. it kinda messes with your theory.

[micklemus]

Way to avoid mic, and using sophistry, accuse me of doing so.

I have answered far more of your questions then you have mine.

Answer this one plainly please:
Is not doing what you are told by another adult, someone with whom you are not in contract, in and of itself a crime in your book?

As for your court examples, an undertaking is an agreement.
And order of a court, is only secured after AGREEING to the court process, by way of making an appearance.
Both of which rely upon agreement and the law of contract.

And neither of them had f*ck all to do with the question I asked, and is merely you trying to avoid.

Incidentally do you consider The Law of Contract to be merely my rules which I made up, and did not exist prior to my existence, or do you agree that The Law existed prior to my existence?

Your questions boiled down to the bold one at the end Rob. Did you read my answer? It was long, I know.

You've just asked the same question again. Let me answer you yet again:

PS - re your emboldened bit I would have thought that the answers were simple. You really need to think things through before you launch into your sophistry. Point 1: there is such a thing as contract law but contracts are not the entire body of law, so quite why your contract bit has been mentioned is beyond me. Point 2: what somebody says is pretty much irrelevant to whether someone is breaking the law or not. There could be examples of not abiding by a statement that could amount to breaking the law, e.g. (non exhaustive list) -

- someone gives an undertaking not to do something and does it anyway, in which case that someone might face liability for breaching his undertaking
- a judge passes a judgment which someone refuses to honour, in which case the judgment can be enforced against him

Generally speaking, however, it's a simple question of what the law says, rather than a review of an individual's remarks. You get that from things called statutes and judgments, in case you hadn't heard. True these things have at some point been the subject of some sort of pronouncement initially but we don't need a fresh pronouncement everytime for there to be a breach of the law, contrary to what you appear to be suggesting. So, no, you don't have to be told not to do something before you're breaking the law.

In summary, it is a question of evidence and law as to whether a law has been broken, not simply a question of what someone says, although I appreciate that you would like it to be the latter and have tried to convince people for many years that this is the case. It all boils down to you wanting to be in the position where what you say goes. I must however burst your bubble on that one.
An undertaking is most certainly not an agreement by the way. That's one of the advantages to the party with the benefit of an undertaking - he doesn't have to go through the rigmarole of proving the usual contractual points; he only has to prove the giving of the undertaking and the breaching of it. You've just sat in the barrel and shot yourself again, Mr Fishy.

Re agreeing to the court process that is absolute and total rubbish. Show me one case, just one, where someone has had to agree to a judgment before it became binding and enforceable. Go on sunshine, do it.

As for your last bit, you clearly haven't read my preceding post, but I copied and pasted it above so hopefully it'll get through to you this time.

Incidentally, I couldn't help but peek at the JREF Forum. Think I need to get in on that one too as those guys clearly have you well sussed. I note you keep avoiding requests for proof there as well. Try this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7744924&postcount=3494) one for size, as it pretty much encapsulates where the likes of us "naysayers" are coming from:

Got the evidence that you are immune from all statutory law, except those laws that you agree with? A verifiable court order or letter from the Canadian government should do the trick.

No? Thought not

Been telling people that this is what you have achieved? Yes
Been receiving money on the back of it? Yes
Been giving other bogus 'legal' advice and receiving money from that? Yes


Once again, evidence please. Alternatively you are welcome to continue digging your own hole.

Over to you Mr Sophist in my pocket...

[micklemus]

i think the freeman movement are realy confused anarchists. no?


Good point sir

[micklemus]

Way to avoid mic, and using sophistry, accuse me of doing so.

I have answered far more of your questions then you have mine.

Answer this one plainly please:
Is not doing what you are told by another adult, someone with whom you are not in contract, in and of itself a crime in your book?

As for your court examples, an undertaking is an agreement.
And order of a court, is only secured after AGREEING to the court process, by way of making an appearance.
Both of which rely upon agreement and the law of contract.

And neither of them had f*ck all to do with the question I asked, and is merely you trying to avoid.

Incidentally do you consider The Law of Contract to be merely my rules which I made up, and did not exist prior to my existence, or do you agree that The Law existed prior to my existence?



That is merely YOUR opinion. There has been plenty of evidence, all of which you automatically rejected cause it offended your previously held beliefs.

Recall I started by pointing out the words that actually exist in the various Acts and statutes, and your camp replied with asinine remarks like "Equality does not mean what you think it means." Or "You are not trained to understand the language of law", which when the inequity of that remark was pointed out you replied with statutes must be plainly interpreted.

So when it comes to things like equality, it is not in plain language, and we can't understand it as it is the technical language of the law. Or it is in plain language but does not mean what it normally does.

In the three years, you have failed to establish that you have the ability to lawfully govern another without their consent, or that your rules are law without consent, or that the people in the government do not need consent.

Since I was not the one originating the claim, that means Freeman perspective is still standing.

Funny how NO ONE in the government wants to claim the right to govern without consent, but those who do claim they have that right hide on the net.

OOw you added more so let me deal with that as well.

I sometimes wish the law was my opinion, but it isn't. I am relaying what the law says, as it's actually interpreted in real life. What you say about it is worth dick all because you don't understand the law, you're not a judge or any other person in authority. It's their interpretation that counts. As I've said already, we all know that you want to be the person calling the shots but you're not, nor am I. Get over it.

Re governance and consent and your three years, let me put this to you again in big letters because this has always been my position and I find it amazing that you should now misrepresent it:

INDIVIDUAL CONSENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GOVERNANCE so your remark is bogus. Sophistry on your part yet again.

Governments do not operate by unanimity and they never have. You do have your say, yes, but if Rob says one thing and the rest of Canada, or even a significant proportion of the rest of Canada, says another then what Rob says doesn't go. Do you understand that now?

Of course no one in government would claim the right to govern without consent - they are put there by election, which is the collective will of the people. They consent through democracy. If they don't want the government they can vote the government out or have a revolution, simple. So the government DOES operate by consent in a sense*; it's just your individual point of view that doesn't count for much in the scheme of things. I find it incredible that you can't understand that, but I am relieved to see that most have finally seen through your sophistry.

I still own you. ;)



* I say "in a sense" because ultimately it boils down to who is in control of the big guns, we all know that. Sorry, all of us except Rob and his followers know that.

[aulus agerius]

Is not doing what you are told to do, by another adult with whom you have no contract, breaking the law or not?

Could be. There are many things which break the law without there being a contract. Most torts for example - negligence, trespass to property... Much of criminal law too.

Are you suggesting that murder is not breaking the law because there is no contract between the murderer and his victim? Clearly that you be silly. I think you probably want to revise the above leading question as it suggests to me that you are arguing all law is contract, leading to the above silly consequence.

[freedom2020]

john harris does and says what he believes in!! theres not many who have the balls to take on the criminals that run the system who want to extract your hard earned money so they dont have to work and make up laws to make sure the slaves do there bidding of work, consume, die!!!while they sit back and laugh at the goons who love there enslavement;)

[solzhenitsyn]

So for you then the law is whatever some other adult tells you what to do, and though you are an adult, you have no say in what they tell you, right?


Provided the "other adult" is a judge, whose "telling me what to do" will be enforced by the police, this is exactly correct. Of course, in our system, I do have a certain amount of "say" in what they tell me (either through my democratic rights or my entitlement to procedural fairness), but this certainly doesn't have to be the case.


Prisoners have a special status. They can be told what to do. They agreed to be prisoners, in a large part.

I'm glad you brought this back up since you didn't address my points in the other thread. How do prisoners agree to be prisoners? Are they tricked into by applying for a driver's license or by pleading not guilty in court? Or some other such misleading action?

If so, perhaps you could explain these questions which seem to naturally arise from that proposition:

You believe that there is nothing special about the government, yes?

You believe that they are just another "party" to a contract, yes?

You believe that the government and I and Tim who works at my health club are all in exactly the same position (in terms of our abilities to contract), yes?

You are further believe that the government is able to form a contract, a contract whose terms I have absolutely no knowledge of, a contract whose terms permit the government to order me around and imprison me, by convincing me (tricking me really) to sign an application for a SIN or a driver's license, yes?

And so if all of this is true, the necessary conclusion is that if Tim who works at my health club were as nefarious as the government, he is able to form a contract with me, a contract whose terms I have absolutely no knowledge of, a contract whose terms permit Tim (who works at my health club) to order me around and imprison me (in the same way the government does now), by convincing me (tricking me really) to sign an application for a health club membership.

And, of course, all of this would, according to you, be "LAWFUL" or permitted by "THE LAW"? Even though, as you have stated many times, "THE LAW" prohibits the use of fraud in contracts?


Failure to do what you are told, absent a contract, should not end up with you in prison though should it?


We aren't discussing "should or should not". We are discussing what "is or is not." The reality is that, unless one accepts the absurd explanation above, thousands of people end up in prison "absent a contract" every single day.

It may also be worth noting that in Canadian law that breaching a contract carries absolutely no penal consequence.


If I tell you what to do, claim it is now the law, and you refuse to do it, should I have the right to put you in prison?


Again, we aren't discussing "should or should not". We are discussing what "is or is not." And if you have a police force and army and the acquiescence of most of the population, there is no question that you are able to tell me what to do, claim it is now the law, and if I refuse to do it, you may put me in prison or make me walk the plank or whatever else you want.


Do you have the right? And if neither you nor I do, why would some other adult, merely because they claim to work for Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, The Crown or some other legal and imaginary fiction?

Whether you think someone has the right to do it is irrelevant. The question is whether they have the ability. And as noted, of course the government of Canada does have that ability (as they do it every single day.)

[freedom2020]

what is it that you!!??? THINK!!! is not true with what i said in my last post!!!:)

[jaynette]

Sorry you missed it live ljt, fear not! the full three hour show will be uploaded to utoob and available by tomorrow on my youtube channel; freemanjacktpucfm and I wouldn't hold your breath for the next show/appearance as John announced that this would be his last.
fmj.


Come to his senses then? shame he hasn't had the balls to set the record straight before he goes.

[jaynette]

People are moving ahead and setting an example. Respect to John Harris!

If you can ignore or suffer the boring droning of freeman jack you might decipher what NO CAPS is trying to say.

http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=38712