Freeman on the Land Takes on Police & SOCPA Law!

[dondaz]

This is Britains first Freeman on the Land to cross paths with the police that's ever been caught on film. A Freeman is filming a peacful protest against the new world order in London. This gent refuses to give his name to two police officers and they try to pull the new SOCPA (Serious Organised Criminal Police Act), designed for gangsters and terrorists. Many people have already been falsely arrested and convicted under these statutes, when they have done no wrong.

They take these laws very seriously, untill they come across a Freeman on the Land. The first 4 mins is the relevent info:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zG26qiK4-RI

Being a Freeman on the Land is power, from what I have seen from truthers looking for answers to defeat the ptb and the nwo, this is the most effective way to do it.

The power of the Freeman and Common Law is fucking awesome. Learn this knowledge and you will become much more powerful than the government and their elite controllers.

For more info visit www.thinkfree.ca (http://www.thinkfree.ca) they also have a top troll free forum to answer all your questions.

Visit my Freeman on The Land channel for all the latest video information:

www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel (http://www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel)

Come on folks, get the questions flowing.

You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[stickwhistler]

This is Britains first Freeman on the Land to cross paths with the police that's ever been caught on film. A Freeman is filming a peacful protest against the new world order in London. This gent refuses to give his name to two police officers and they try to pull the new SOCPA (Serious Organised Criminal Police Act), designed for gangsters and terrorists. Many people have already been falsely arrested and convicted under these statutes, when they have done no wrong.

They take these laws very seriously, untill they come across a Freeman on the Land. The first 4 mins is the relevent info:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zG26qiK4-RI

Being a Freeman on the Land is power, from what I have seen from truthers looking for answers to defeat the ptb and the nwo, this is the most effective way to do it.

The power of the Freeman and Common Law is fucking awesome. Learn this knowledge and you will become much more powerful than the government and their elite controllers.

For more info visit www.thinkfree.ca (http://www.thinkfree.ca) they also have a top troll free forum to answer all your questions.

Visit my Freeman on The Land channel for all the latest video information:

www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel (http://www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel)

Come on folks, get the questions flowing.

You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.


Nice to see this.
Good find.
Have you told Robert Arthur about it yet?

[dondaz]

Nice to see this.
Good find.
Have you told Robert Arthur about it yet?

Well, I posted it on his forum today, don't know wether he's seen it yet though.

The Freeman Movement is going to take back our country from the lying lawyers.

I'm also plotting on a Freeman conference, which will be so self empowering the ptb will not know what to do.

[Ian2day]

I'm currently doing a bit of a project on being a Freeman on the land.

[resistance]

well done dondaz, i think the freeman movement is gonna piss the ptb off big time:D

[king crass]

You mind telling us what a "Freeman" is? :D

[void]

Absolutely superb. All this kind of things is what I've been hoping to see on the forums. Know thine enemy. People who understand the various laws that these folks have as an arsenal right now, make the police very nervous and get far more wary when they see they've NOT got an ignorant monkey in front of them. On YouTube there was one guy who filmed the police blatantly lying to him saying he couldn't do this or that, and he caught them out. Police and other powers 'rely' on ignorance of the law, rely on being able to bamboozle the population with fancy law names. Although I'm not a lawyer myself and have not yet faced such a situation with the police yet, it has come clear to me that people need to know what they police can and cannot do in any given situation. Granted, people need to be one step ahead all the time because as soon as a loophole is exposed a new law comes in to fill it. It's a constant battle it seems, and labour has been quick to create sweeping powers that will cover any situation. But as long as there are people who are clued up on law, then they will not find it as easy as they want it to be in every situation. Not many police know the full details of each law they pull out of the hat, and people like this guy can defeat them.

[myeika]

This is Britains first Freeman on the Land to cross paths with the police that's ever been caught on film. A Freeman is filming a peacful protest against the new world order in London. This gent refuses to give his name to two police officers and they try to pull the new SOCPA (Serious Organised Criminal Police Act), designed for gangsters and terrorists. Many people have already been falsely arrested and convicted under these statutes, when they have done no wrong.

They take these laws very seriously, untill they come across a Freeman on the Land. The first 4 mins is the relevent info:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zG26qiK4-RI

Being a Freeman on the Land is power, from what I have seen from truthers looking for answers to defeat the ptb and the nwo, this is the most effective way to do it.

The power of the Freeman and Common Law is fucking awesome. Learn this knowledge and you will become much more powerful than the government and their elite controllers.

For more info visit www.thinkfree.ca (http://www.thinkfree.ca) they also have a top troll free forum to answer all your questions.

Visit my Freeman on The Land channel for all the latest video information:

www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel (http://www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel)

Come on folks, get the questions flowing.

You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.


I really feel that this is a possitive move for all of us free thinkers.....

I too am very interested in this, but right now am finding it hard to pull it all together.....

Like what would happen if we suddenly became seriousley ill, if we were not a child of the country - so to speak - would we still be allowed or even intitlled to medical assistance?

Is it the same for Canada as it is for here?

got lots more questions..... but want to get my head round these first!

Thanks for sharing with us, I am off to check the site out now!

Love n hugs

[dondaz]

I'm currently doing a bit of a project on being a Freeman on the land.

Nice one. it's good to see people getting into this subject. This is a journey within itself. I have been totally amazed at the deception that has gone on to get us this dumbed down so we accept this fake and fraudulant Admirality Law, the law of The Sea, and made us forget our Common Law, the Law of The Land, which is there for the people and not a corporate government.

For those that are new to this Freeman 'concept', for want of a better word, This is about the biggest and most clever plot the elite have pulled on Human Beings to date and many people on here think being a Freeman on the land it's just some old law relic long forgotten and utterly useless. Others haven't a clue what it is because the words Freeman on the Land doesn't really catch thier eye and they skip to the next thread. We all do it

When in fact if you learn just the basics of the Freeman concept you become so self empowered, the police, government and any so called official will want to steer clear of you for good. So will the courts and their laws! This isn't some quick fix answer to the new world order. This is some serious learning which can be quite challenging at times but once the penny drops your eyes will open even further to the agenda and take you down paths you never thought possible. My whole perspective on the world has changed again.

Law, like politics, is designed on purpose to look boring, so most do not venture down this path. But the Freeman angle of dealing with the law takes the boring aspects out and makes it facinating. I know nothing compared to what others know, but I've seen enough evidence to know that this is a subject everyone and I mean every single one of us should know about and learn.

Jump on the bandwagon folks and watch the ride. When you're ready you will join it youselves.

Here's a reply I got from the Freeman who made the vid

Hey,

Thanks for your interest in what I'm doing.

I've followed with interest your video encounters with the police, they seem to be in desperate need of education on legal/lawful matters, and the DIFFERENCE between the two.

Please feel free to use any of the original material on my channel.

I'm working on a series explaining the freeman process I have been through. I have not yet perfected my lien, but the 'authorites' seem to leave me alone when I start identifying myself as a 'human being' and telling them that I understand the difference between that and the 'person'.

Suffice it to say, the 'lower ranks' who man the phones at HMRC, the Police, Treasury, etc, seem to be baffled by what I'm doing, they just don't seem to have been told that this is possible.

The upper echelons of these organisations - well, watch the colour drain from their faces when they realise I'm serious. Hahaha! ;)

You see the potential here folks?

[stickwhistler]

I'm also plotting on a Freeman conference, which will be so self empowering the ptb will not know what to do.


Keep us posted if you decide to do this.

May I suggest that the requirements should be that
Bursting Bubbles and Magnificent Deception should be
watched first, just so that people are at least clued up
to a similar level - otherwise there is just too much to
get your head around on one day (week!!!).
With Lawful Excuse is also very informative,
but you need to watch the others first.

The UK is a common law jurisdiction,
as are the other commonwealth countries,
Don't be put off thinking that this only applies to Canada.
The UK has most of the laws mentioned with the exception of
the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and Criminal Code.
The UK has similar phrasing in The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982,
Criminal Justice Act and others available from
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Home.aspx

The rest would be good at a conference,
where we could swap research and discoveries.
Please count me in. Ta! :)

[kimball13]

yes yes yes we do need to do this enmas.

as a boy i read a book called Dune author Frank Herbert, what is saw in it was the freeman was one of the key's

he advised that there would be wars about oil in the middle east if they continued down there course,,,,as well as puting what is happining in the world in a very artistic formant, ?it doe's give a few clue's/prophecys? Huh the news just said "quote keys to the kingdom" CNN:eek:

[steevo]

Thanks Dondaz. I am gonna try to learn this Freeman of the Land thing, it sounds like it's gonna take up alot of time, but I have to say that I have been wanting a worthwhile subject to get my teeth into for a while now and this might just be it.

1. BUT FIRST, I am gonna swat up on the BASICS of dealing with the police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE8rfefPQ24) and part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8XwehIHSnQ) so that I can have some IMMEDIATE useful information.

2. THEN I am gonna learn my rights on the police's "Powers of Entry (http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/GuidanceonPowersofEntry.pdf)". There is a pdf file on that page that can be downloaded.
A policeman told me that "PACE 1984 Powers of Entry sections 17 and 18" is what I need to learn but I cant see 17 or 18 on the pdf so MAYBE the policeman got it wrong ? I dont know.

3. LASTLY, it's the BIG ONE :D, I will learn "Freeman of the Land" :)

[cruise4]

There may be a problem with this 'freeman' stuff if Mary Croft is correct. If you want eventual access to your Corporate account which has been denied you by criminal activity by the bankers, government and the judiciary... then beware of becoming a freeman. Because as far as I can tell that leaves all the ill gotten gains in the hands of the criminals. All I'm saying is be very sure you know exactly how the systems work (and I don't believe any normal people do) before leaping into this one.

PS. What happened in this case then? Got a link direct to the story?

[boots]

There is another aspect to this freeman stuff which can give you your own country in a country.

Laws are laws once they are made, they stay put.

Under the Magna Carta and the 1684 bill of rights, if the Government or the Monarchy has committed or failed to upheld your rights or have done anything against you which is unfair you can abdicate from the commonwealth and start your own principality ie country, and all that goes with that.

Every country comes under the world courts and international conventions.

This has been done successfully many times.

Google principalities, and you can get a better idea as to what you will face and can do.

The pen is mighty than the sword.

This is the only way to defeat the NWO.

[stickwhistler]

There may be a problem with this 'freeman' stuff if Mary Croft is correct. If you want eventual access to your Corporate account which has been denied you by criminal activity by the bankers, government and the judiciary... then beware of becoming a freeman. Because as far as I can tell that leaves all the ill gotten gains in the hands of the criminals. All I'm saying is be very sure you know exactly how the systems work (and I don't believe any normal people do) before leaping into this one.

PS. What happened in this case then? Got a link direct to the story?

Just for now, forget about the Corporate Account bit.
There is something to it, but it is complicated,
and there is some controversy over it.

You can do the rest though.
You don't have to abandon your SIN :D ,
or leave society. If you study the videos,
read "With Lawful Excuse" which pulls everything
together from the films "Bursting Bubbles",
"Magnificent Deception" and "With Lawful Excuse"
you'll see. This is why I suggested in an earlier post
that at least "BB" and "MD" should be watched.

The book "With Lawful Excuse" can be bought
from http://www.lulu.com/content/1629768

Description:
This large full color graphic novel is the culmination of over 20,000 hours of study from Freeman-on-the-Land Robert-Arthur: Menard.
Peppered with humour and loaded with wisdom,
this work explains in an easy to understand way
the steps necessary to achieve complete emancipation from deceptive governments and out of control courts.

The download is £4.

If you go to the pub, your 4 quid will last less than 1 hour.
If you rent a video, your 4 quid will last less than 2 hours.

If you've never read this stuff, or seen the videos,
it'll take you a couple of hours to read it,
and at least 24 hours to re-read and try to understand
the enormity of what is being said.

You will be reading it many times.
The book is easy to read.
It is just that there is so much,
and when you realise the depth of the
deception that we have all been fed,
and in fact asked to be part of,
it is shocking, and you sort of go into shock.

Then you digest what you are learning.
Then you want to do something about it.

If the revolution isn't peaceful, it will be bloody.
This is a way to show 'the others' how to peacefully
act, to regain your humanity and power as a human being
instead of being a battery for the corporation.

To use an analogy:

In the Matrix, imagine Neo waking up
to find he is in a container, and his electronically
induced world is an illusion.

Now apply that to the society we live in.
The 'authorities' are the machine,
the police the agents, and your
knowledge about how they work
will set you free as in the construct.
There are rules, but they are your rules.
NUI and COR.
COR is peremptory - look that word up!

The Oxford Dictionary of Law 5th edition is available from http://www.scribd.com/
as a pdf, so you can search for words quickly.
Or if you want a hard copy - 6th edition from play.com for £9.


There is a way to do this, but you have to do the work.
If you don't have knowledge of it, you can't do it well,
and could get trapped by the sneaky words the admiralty
laws use. You really have to read & watch and do your own
research before you can give warnings about the Freeman route.

Read, cross check the laws on the statute database I posted earlier.

Look at www.tpuc.org.
The laws mention there are on the statute database.
Read that site. Cross check for yourself.
It is all there, right in front of us.

[myeika]

Hi there stickwhistler.

Many thanks for the link.....

Lots of reading to do....

This is so very interesting...

[clozaril]

what happend to the guy ho went to buckingham palace and declared the government an act of treason and petitioned to be no longer subject to it ?

good work dondaz !

we need a freeman movement over here in the UK

[lottie]

what happend to the guy ho went to buckingham palace and declared the government an act of treason and petitioned to be no longer subject to it ?

good work dondaz !

we need a freeman movement over here in the UK



www.tpuc.org.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LMkI4Y1Iing

Following the sending of my Constitutional Lawful Affidavits to Her Majesty the Queen regarding the miss-governance of our country and subsequent third party reply I received from senior correspondent Mrs. Sonia Bonici, Brian Gerrish a dear friend of mine decided to telephone Buckingham Palace to ask Mrs. Bonici a few questions relating to these matters.

What you are about to listen to is the conversation between Brian Gerrish and Mrs. Bonici, which to say the least, is quite revealing concerning my Affidavits, how they have been dealt with by Buckingham Palace and the subject of how this country is being sold out by Parliament to the EU.

[clozaril]

thanks for the heads up

added to favourites

[wise haven]

Thanks Dondaz

I've been researching this for a while now and will hopefully be able to add more input/info at the thinkfree forum.

Excellent effort mate.:)

[resistance]

Thank for the links and posts everybody, hopefully with some more research on my part i can add some usefull info too, but i'm in the early stages of learning this stuff at the moment and there is so much going on with it:confused:

[redhead]

Thanks for the heads up with the book With Lawful Excuse, I watched Bursting Bubbles sometime ago and this book ties up so many loose ends and at £4 for the pdf its a bargin. Everybody should read this book, freeman status here i come:D

[redhead]

There are rules, but they are your rules.
NUI and COR.
COR is peremptory - look that word up!




per·emp·to·ry Pronunciation Key - [puh-remp-tuh-ree]

–adjective 1. leaving no opportunity for denial or refusal; imperative: a peremptory command.
2. imperious or dictatorial.
3. positive or assertive in speech, tone, manner, etc.
4. Law. a. that precludes or does not admit of debate, question, etc.: a peremptory edict.
b. decisive or final.
c. in which a command is absolute and unconditional: a peremptory writ.

:D

[danster82]

not quite a Maynard and very emotional but still fair play to them

[vienna]

the freeman movement is of profound important - Dondaz wasn't overstating it's case

I'm at the notary/ making my claim of right stage

we need to get this out there before the big internet shutdown

also check out Mary Croft's interview on red Ice radio last week

[stickwhistler]

the freeman movement is of profound important - Dondaz wasn't overstating it's case ..............


...........we need to get this out there before the big internet shutdown



And so we are. :D

The freemen/freewomen 'in waiting' just need to pick it up, and do it.

Congrat's on doing your COR etc.

Lets us know when you've perfected it.

[baron von lotsov]

I can't make head or tail of this business. Can someone show me the various acts that relate to this idea? I don't want links to people selling books; I just want to see exactly how it works from a legal point of view. Thank you.

[baron von lotsov]

Hello. A question awaits all of you lawyers. See above.

[seercirra]

i had no idea this protest was going on. i wouldve gone if i had known.
next time, please message me about any protests. ill be there

[stickwhistler]

I can't make head or tail of this business. Can someone show me the various acts that relate to this idea?

Its about you deciding what you want.
Are you going to let bureaucrats mess you about,
or decide what you want to do.

It is about stopping officialdom telling you what to do,
and punishing you for failing in the minutia,
while its OK for then to screw up, and cause you grief
with no recourse available to you from them.

Putting bins out in the wrong day!
Smoking in your own van, and a plastic plod giving you a ticket!
Leaving your bin 18 inches too far from the road!
Being told to stop filming by cops.
Being told you can't exercise your democratic rights
to protest - unless you ask nicely (which makes it a privilege NOT a right!).
I'm sure you can find thousands of examples for yourself.

It is about self determination, as opposed to having your life proscribed by
anybody else, much less some faceless person who belongs to
Common Purpose or the lodge down the road, or some self inflated
pompous councillor, or some thug in a uniform.

Its about not having an ID card or being on a national database!


Try these to start with:

1. Magna Carta 1215/25
2. Treason Act 1351
3. Act of Supremacy 1558
4. Declaration of Rights 1689
5. Bill of Rights 1689
6. Treason and Felony Act 1848


All the above available from http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Home.aspx


Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
Bills of Exchange Act
Criminal Law
Criminal Justice



Throw in
www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/jurisprudence/jurisprudence-review/content/jurisreview_2001.pdf

In addition, a right is not something you weigh along with all the other possibilities; on the contrary, it is something you are obliged to accept whether you recognise it or not. A claim of right is ‘peremptory’ in the sense that you must comply with what it dictates irrespective of whether you recognise that that right maximises the sum of advantages or wealth or efficiency.
Rights can also be viewed as a pool of resources, assigned to the
litigants at the beginning of every trial.

page 256 UCL Jurisprudence Review 2001

Faculty of Laws
University College London
Bentham House

The Canadians & Americans work from the Uniform Commercial Code
and the Criminal Code.
The same things are scattered in UK law, but are there.

I ain't doing it for you.
You have to be able to argue your own case convincingly, in your own way,
otherwise it's like your dad doing your homework - you might get away with it to start with,
but apply pressure and they'll find out you don't really know it.

The link to the book I gave earlier will let you get a copy
of what the films try to get across.
At £4 it isn't breaking the bank from your end, and isn't making
Robert Aurthur Menard a fortune either.

Don't buy it! I have no link to it or the author.
It'll just be harder to transcribe the videos
so you can cross check and reference what is being said.
I know I find things easier to read in book form than
listen to dialog on the screen,
and you can take it to the little room with you, or read it anywhere
if you print it out - although it might be cheaper to buy it than
spend money on printer cartridges.

Happy reading.
See you in a week or so. :)

[exclamatio]

the thinkfree.ca website wont let me create an account :(

[zero1]

This is Britains first Freeman on the Land to cross paths with the police that's ever been caught on film. A Freeman is filming a peacful protest against the new world order in London. This gent refuses to give his name to two police officers and they try to pull the new SOCPA (Serious Organised Criminal Police Act), designed for gangsters and terrorists. Many people have already been falsely arrested and convicted under these statutes, when they have done no wrong.

They take these laws very seriously, untill they come across a Freeman on the Land. The first 4 mins is the relevent info:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zG26qiK4-RI

Being a Freeman on the Land is power, from what I have seen from truthers looking for answers to defeat the ptb and the nwo, this is the most effective way to do it.

The power of the Freeman and Common Law is fucking awesome. Learn this knowledge and you will become much more powerful than the government and their elite controllers.

For more info visit www.thinkfree.ca (http://www.thinkfree.ca) they also have a top troll free forum to answer all your questions.

Visit my Freeman on The Land channel for all the latest video information:

www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel (http://www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel)

Come on folks, get the questions flowing.

You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Very good, thanks for the ThinkFree link; added duly to my bookmarks. :) :cool:

[stickwhistler]

the thinkfree.ca website wont let me create an account :(


Try www.thinkfreeforums.org instead.

That appears to be the 'new' forum home.

The articles on thinkfree.ca are at the bottom of the page,
so you have to scroll down to even see they're there.
Worth looking at.

[cruise4]

"Just for now, forget about the Corporate Account bit."

I can't. This the crucial part to me. This where the seat of their power comes from and the initial criminal action that leads to everything else. I'm not sure the 'freeman' movement isn't a controlled opposition plot, believe or not. And the thing is whilst it 'may' bring some initial success, ultimately they couldn't give a monkey's and will kill and imprison you regardless. It's like a mob enforcement racket and you put up a protective screen. It might stop the first or second collector, but then the gang will arrive to burn down your whole establishment.

Now I'm not trying to discredit or knock the efforts of those that wish to go down this route, but 'ANSWER' it certainly isn't.

The ONLY answer is removing the scum. To me this is a distraction.

But thanks for the links and I will read with Lawful Excuse... but lets not pretend anything they are doing is lawful. It isn't. The Law is not Law. Judges are not Judges. And Lawyers aren't Lawyers. Its all total baloney based on Occultism.

[baron von lotsov]

Its about you deciding what you want...
I ain't doing it for you.


Look, the times I have spent explaining things that I know about to others on here and you tell me you can't be bothered. What kind of resistance is this, when a fellow anti-NWO person asks another a question and is told a load of gobbledygook? Either you know how it works or you don't. Actually I think you don't actually understand it yourself but ofcourse you can demonstrate otherwise if you do understand it.

[lightworks]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWLw7nozO_U&feature=related
yahooo
fuck the new world order

fuck the cops

fuck the government

death to all malevolent reptilian demons

[baron von lotsov]

All you people are doing is posting a bunch of links. Does anyone actually understand this so they can explain it to me in a precise unambiguous way? How can I stand up in a court and tell the judge to download a link when I'm on the receiving end of this shit. Get real people. I need acts, sections, laws dates and so on so I can make a case if need be, otherwise this is useless shit.

[john white]

All you people are doing is posting a bunch of links. Does anyone actually understand this so they can explain it to me in a precise unambiguous way? How can I stand up in a court and tell the judge to download a link when I'm on the receiving end of this shit. Get real people. I need acts, sections, laws dates and so on so I can make a case if need be, otherwise this is useless shit.

Yes Baron, Dondaz understands it: and so do I

Its about the foundation of common law: that is to identify ourselves as a child of god placed by god on the land to live free: that is what a "freemen on the land" is

The "law" as most of us have understood it is not able to impose itself on the sancitiy of the freeman enshrined in common law unless we allow it to

By understanding that we are a human being and not a "person", that is a fictional legal construct, we liberate ourselves from being bound my statute laws IE laws of contract, laws parliament, not God, passes

This is the heart of understanding the freemen concept: and its also revelatory in understanding how free masons see themselves and have managed to get away with their scams too: whilst withholding the true knowledge of the foundation of law and society from us

It sounds fantastic but it really does pan out

Therefore, busy yourself to check the links provided and get into the material: it is worth your energy and attention

[baron von lotsov]

"Therefore, busy yourself to check the links provided and get into the material"

Why? Surely if someone out of you lot has found something of value they could simply explain it in a way that is useful. As far as I'm aware this is bogus, as it does not accord with anything I have seen in law, and I have spent a few years reading law from experts, e.g. I have read books on common law and that sort of thing from people in the business of practicing it. So what I have read so far is just vague nonsense. If you claim something legally you have to refer to the case law and the statutes that have been passed, either recently or going right back. I'll give you an example of maritime law that I came across recently where if you rescue a boat you have salvage rights. There was a case of this when a captain chose to end up on the rocks rather than accept help from another ship because of this. A lot of it is very ancient but it only applies to the sea. It does not apply to the land though, as far as I'm aware. You can prove me wrong if you like but don't claim something with nothing to back it up with. How do I know it's not just another scam? It seems to have all the hallmarks of one.

[john white]

Baron don't tell me there's nothing in it when out of the other side of your mouth you say you cant be botherd finding out: that's only showing yourself up from this side of the keyboard :)

[bones]

I really feel that this is a possitive move for all of us free thinkers.....

I too am very interested in this, but right now am finding it hard to pull it all together.....

Like what would happen if we suddenly became seriousley ill, if we were not a child of the country - so to speak - would we still be allowed or even intitlled to medical assistance?

Is it the same for Canada as it is for here?

got lots more questions..... but want to get my head round these first!

Thanks for sharing with us, I am off to check the site out now!

Love n hugs

it is your common law right to medical care. !! but i suspect they would treat you then send you a bill!

[baron von lotsov]

Baron don't tell me there's nothing in it when out of the other side of your mouth you say you cant be botherd finding out: that's only showing yourself up from this side of the keyboard :)


I am trying to find out. I have asked the question on this thread numerous times, but its like getting blood out of a stone. I'm not saying it is a scam; I'm just trying to find out at this stage. Those who say it's good explain yourselves. And don't post any more links unless it is a link to a section of law used in your legal arguments. This is like challenge Anneka!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenge_Anneka

You have 24 hours to construct a legal argument that can be used in a British court of law using the Freeman concept. Your time starts now!

[bones]

i will anwser the question of whats it alll about!

basically when you register a child you create a person with duties and rights attributed to it, i.e police army navy benifits medical care wtc.

also you pay into taxation and have to bow to rules of society,

you can break away by

nui and cor.

notice of understanding and intent and right of claim.

example

your government in england is a lawful one
your goverment needs consent to govern you,
you vote they become your government if you dont and who ever gets in you accepted by default.
we live in a society and a society is a group of people with common goals.
society has statutes and acts of parliment, given the force of law.

if you deny consent statutes and acts dont effect you.

common law is not written but is gospel as its prevouse court rulings , i.e
right to travel, live, eat, defend yourself etc. common law also you agree you will not harm another human and basically will not commit fraud.

i have done a nui and cor but am not yet in a position to administer it.

currantly im trying to discharge a PNC penalty charge notice. and using menards work everything is going to plan.

if you want to see notices ive received and sent then go to

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2227

and read it all. hope you enjoy my work.

[stickwhistler]

I am trying to find out. I have asked the question on this thread numerous times, but its like getting blood out of a stone. I'm not saying it is a scam; I'm just trying to find out at this stage. Those who say it's good explain yourselves. And don't post any more links unless it is a link to a section of law used in your legal arguments.


You didn't look at post #30 then!

All the laws you need are there.
The statute database link is there.
Paste a law from #30 into the database, read and digest, think about it for a while.
That way you will be able to see the laws you desperately want,
from the governments own database - not one made up in a pub'.
You cry for proof, and yet seem to resist looking at the evidence.
What are you scared of - perhaps taking your own power back?
Look at tpuc.org.
John Harris explains things there, using the law.
Use the browser search facility if you can't see the word freeman.

I know you are an intelligent person Baron, so once you've done the above,
you'll be able to talk about it from a position of knowledge.


You have 24 hours to construct a legal argument that can be used in a British court of law using the Freeman concept. Your time starts now!

Is that an order?
Orders generate bills!
Go to McDonalds and give them an order, and see what happens next.
The immediate above is an example used by Robert Arthur : Menard.


Upon proof of full commercial liabilty, if I answer your questions, are we making a contract? :D

Is the contract signed by both parties, and if so, show me the original contract as proof. :D

However: Good will gesture from me to this forum, and all the people who are following this thread.

If you wait until Tuesday 19th pm, I'll do better than construct a legal argument.
I'll show you something that I've done - 'Chapter & Verse' - using the law.
I have to wait until Tuesday though for legal reasons, but it's looking good so far.
I'm not wimping out, or evading, just waiting until Tuesday 19th August 2008.
This does not form a contract, nor do I waive any common law rights, nor do I grant impersonem jurisdiction. :D

[brenbren]

brain hurting, but i feel good.

[h2pogo]

for any one who doesn't get this idea i will try and pass on what i have learned so far.
it starts with the magna carta.
the magna carta was a law created to keep the powers that be in line not just the people.
clause 61 of the magna carter says if tptb dont abide the law you dont have to abide their laws.
clause 61 was amended not long after wards as was allot of the magna carta over the following 400 or so years.
by that time tptb had become too oppressive the people rose up once more and wrote the bill of rights that reinstated the magna carta and made it even more powerfull and clearly stated was to last till the end of time and could not be changed ever.
these laws among others are what the so called free world has based its freedoms on.
These laws are there to protect us from what is happening.
what a freeman is doing is basically saying we are all subject to the law and if those that claim to govern us break the law then we are not subject to their law.
thanks for starting this thread.
i really think the freeman movement is the best way to resist the nwo.

http://www.tpuc.org

[baron von lotsov]

You didn't look at post #30 then!

I did actually. You listed some acts and told people to look them up. What I'm asking is legal justification for, let's say, what that guy claimed in the video of the London NWO protest. I have yet to see a convincing legal argument.

[baron von lotsov]

Is that an order?
Orders generate bills!


No, it's a challenge. Challenges generate credibility when someone can meet them.

[baron von lotsov]

for any one who doesn't get this idea i will try and pass on what i have learned so far.
it starts with the magna carta.
the magna carta was a law created to keep the powers that be in line not just the people.
clause 61 of the magna carter says if tptb dont abide the law you dont have to abide their laws.
clause 61 was amended not long after wards as was allot of the magna carta over the following 400 or so years.
by that time tptb had become too oppressive the people rose up once more and wrote the bill of rights that reinstated the magna carta and made it even more powerfull and clearly stated was to last till the end of time and could not be changed ever.
these laws among others are what the so called free world has based its freedoms on.
These laws are there to protect us from what is happening.
what a freeman is doing is basically saying we are all subject to the law and if those that claim to govern us break the law then we are not subject to their law.
thanks for starting this thread.
i really think the freeman movement is the best way to resist the nwo.

http://www.tpuc.org

I think you are getting closer to what I wanted to know but still there is a leap between the Bill of Rights etc and what is claimed at the start of this thread.
Law simply does not do such a general thing or else it would be entirely unworkable. The Bill of Rights is mainly about the sovereignty of our nation and the supremacy of Parliament as being above the courts and influence from Rome, e.g. the EU is illegal in our country. There might be a legal case of not being subject to EU laws under it though but the way they must work it is to pass the law in our national parliament after the directive is issued.

[steevo]

Thanks Dondaz. I am gonna try to learn this Freeman of the Land thing, it sounds like it's gonna take up alot of time, but I have to say that I have been wanting a worthwhile subject to get my teeth into for a while now and this might just be it.

1. BUT FIRST, I am gonna swat up on the BASICS of dealing with the police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE8rfefPQ24) and part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8XwehIHSnQ) so that I can have some IMMEDIATE useful information.

2. THEN I am gonna learn my rights on the police's "Powers of Entry (http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/GuidanceonPowersofEntry.pdf)". There is a pdf file on that page that can be downloaded.
A policeman told me that "PACE 1984 Powers of Entry sections 17 and 18" is what I need to learn but I cant see 17 or 18 on the pdf so MAYBE the policeman got it wrong ? I dont know.

3. LASTLY, it's the BIG ONE :D, I will learn "Freeman of the Land" :)

"Freeman of the land" I dont think was EVER meant to be used by us "the people". It's a game that WE were NEVER invited to take part in. Long term, being a "Freeman of the Land" is NOT gonna be the solution. BUT SHORT TERM i think that it's something that we should all MAYBE learn. I am gonna TRY to learn about it and MAYBE implement it, I dont know for sure yet.

Whilst the "powers that be" are in control of ALL OF OUR LIVES (even the "Freemen"), then I dont see there being much chance of them LETTING us live as "Freemen". They wont allow it. BUT, I am still gonna learn it because this sort of knowledge is another weapon that CAN be used against them.

[cruise4]

Whilst the "powers that be" are in control of ALL OF OUR LIVES (even the "Freemen"), then I dont see there being much chance of them LETTING us live as "Freemen". They wont allow it. BUT, I am still gonna learn it because this sort of knowledge is another weapon that CAN be used against them.

Exactly... I can't argue with that.

[lightworks]

i t would be nice if I could actually hear what the cops as well as the other guy in the video is saying.....its very unclear sound quality

[dondaz]

Some great responces here folks. This is real debate. Let's keep it up!

I first came across the Freeman in March 07 and since then I have slowly but surely delved into it. This is a not so easy to learn journey, and then some. Which is why it challeges your belief system in ways even Icke has never got into, and I've talked to him personaly about being a Freeman, vid coming soon.

I too have questioned the validity of the Freeman on the Land issues and the AntiTerrorist himself in particular, we've had some interesting little chats.

Is this all a distraction so we do what? Stop telling people about 911 and other aspects of the nwo agenda? Not for me it won't. The way I see it is they want 80% of us wiped out, no exceptions. If we learn and apply the Freeman on the Land school of thought what can they do to stops us? Kill us? They're going to do that anyway if we let them. As I have been told personally by a few Freemen, anyone can make you do something at the barrel of a gun.

Admirality Law and how they play it against us is a mind fuck of proportions never seen before, except by a select few in the system who use it.

It works just like any other aspect of the nwo agenda. There's what they tell us in the news and then there's the real agenda right along side it. We have our Common Law to protect us & to get around that they have created 'The System', which is Adirmality Law, along side. Now, Admirality Law also has two agendas running together. One for us and the other one for them. It has been written in a language that goes beyond doublespeak, but it is a language that can be learnt by any who has the grits and desire to stand on their own two feet and learn a real understanding of what it means to live as a Human Being on this planet. With Admirality Law, the real rules have been hidden and used only by a select few in positions of power.

Look at how hard it is for sheeple to believe 911 was a set up, but once you see the evidence, our walls of belief come crashing down around us. The Freeman way is kind of like that. Once the penny drops you will never see laws and the system the same way again. Whatever anyone thinks they know of Admirality Law, even most lawyers/soliciters/Barrasters and Judges, think again. This is a language made by judges, barrasters and BANKERS. Made for the elite. To protect them and enslave us. This is their Legal System exposed and countered by our Lawfull Common Law.

Admirality Law has been so carefully constructed that deception lies at the heart of every word. It's like symbolism, you see it but you don't get it and unless you learn about it you'll never know what it means.

The problem I see with being a Freeman on the Land is time. It can take a few years to learn and perfect, depending on your aptitude and the time spent in research and the vast areas it covers. So what we have to do in order to overcome this is have more people do the research and apply it in their day to day life and pass this info on. This way there will be more diverse ways and more simplified methods of fighting tptb at their own game.

As for the bonds etc attached to our birth certificate, let them have it for themselves. It's more honourable to just walk away from their fake monetary system all together. We don't need it. It's part of their destruction of us!

[baron von lotsov]

Some examples of cases involving Admiralty Law.

http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/

Just like I had already thought, it relates to the sea and not the land.

[dondaz]

OK baron, here's a simple court case to get your teeth into. Short and simple.
(http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=2653&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a)<H2>Failure to comply with Statistics Act (http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=2653&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a)

Last year, about June, the information gatherers showed at my door. I refused to accept or even hold and look at the papers they wanted me to fill out. I told them why. I could no longer represent this government. I told them about the lies our gov tells us. And then two more showed up, sent them away with same info, then two more....I wouldn't accept the registered mail they sent me, the even tried to get me to do the very short form telephone , but I respectfully declined.

This spring I got a summons in the regular mail.

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/download/file.php?id=699

Notice it's a "summons to a person" , and we all now know a person is the fiction created at birth by deception.

Second is "You are commanded in Her Majesty's name" .

Third is "you are warned ......failure to show....presumed guilty."

I sent them my letter of intent and understanding...

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/download/file.php?id=705

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/download/file.php?id=706

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/download/file.php?id=700

Sent copies to the three local court houses. I live in a rural area and wanted copies registered with the courts. The courthouse where I was to appear sent the letter back, but the other two stamped and filled the letters. I got the return one as evidence.

It was spring break long weekend both Friday and Monday were holidays, and court was on Thursday. Mail was held up by extended holidays.

I received no answer by Wednesday late afternoon, I went to court. My name wasn't on the court roster . So I showed them my "Summons" , and demanded to be heard in court. They wanted me to leave. I wanted proof that I was there, told them I would then take affidavits from the "other summoned people". They then let me appear in front of the Judge and said my charges were dropped. I asked who was going to pay me for my time. The Judge said "talk to the Fed Crown Prosecutor".

I sent them "The Bill" .

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/download/file.php?id=701

Notice the interest of 25% compounded daily.
I even gave them a discount if they paid promptly.

My letter to Fed Prosecutor...


April 2, 2008

To XXXXXXXXXXXXX

"Agents For the Director of Public Prosocutions"

Re: Courts File No. XXXXXXXXXXXXX


To whom it may concern.

Unfortunatly, I did not recieve your corespondence of "withdrawl of charge" in relation to above court file no.

Apparently , due to the "holiday" and it's relations with two weekends, the mail was late.

Enclosed is a photo copy of your envlope, (both sides) with one of the XXXXXX Post officer's date stamp, time, and signature of unopened envelope. March 27th 1:40pm, after court appearance in XXXXXXXXX, where it was entered in the court record of my appearence.

My "letter of intent" is a leagal and binding document, and I am now excersizing my "Claim of Right " to "charge" for my services.

The "Bill" has been enclosed.

Copies of all reletive documents are enclosed, the "Bill" is "original".

Continuation....

I sent those two by registered mail.

After getting back form court 35 klm each way, rented vehicle, I checked my mail, and there was mail from the Crown there in my box. We don't get mail delivered here, post office only with box numbers. I didn't open the mail, I took it to the front counter and had them date stamp and sign and witness the unopened letter.

sent a copy of that as well to the "Crown rep".

The two letters enclosed...

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/download/file.php?id=707


http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/download/file.php?id=708

I got no response so far coming up to the 6 months notice and recalculated bill. Anyone nkow a good intrest calculator?

It was actually April 1st I was going to send the bill, thought I better wait a day.

I actually wanted my time in court and turn the procedings around putting the gov on defence, and me on the oppence. I know too much about what is going on. I ran for MLA (provincial Gov) for the BC Marijuana Party in 2001. I predicted that the world bankers were up to something, and it was going to be big. That was just 3 months befor 911. Got that on video at one of my "all candidates public meetings at a local Collage". The price of gold was at $270 American / oz. Told everyone that this will be the last time they ever see gold at this price.

Gold is at $780 American now, after hitting $1000. It is about to take off for $2000 now very shortly.

I ran for MP with the Canadian Action Party in 2005-2006 elections, but I'll leave that for another time, as that is a story in it's self.

At this time I would like to thank Rob for all the hard work he has done, and setting up paving the way for many of us. I was already heading in this direction with similar attitude. Force the Gov to play it's hand, and then catch them in dishonor.

Now I need help in a plan of action for collection at the one year term. (next March). With that 25% interest compounded daily, I'm in no hurry. It's not about the money, it's about holding the Gov to the owness of it's own laws.

Plus......they never disputed my fee schedule, and that means that at any time in the future I'm called upon to "command to appear" I now have the right to charge for my representation of appearance.

I blanked all the reference to names so they can be used and passed around.

Enjoy

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=2653
</H2>

[dondaz]

Some examples of cases involving Admiralty Law.

http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/ (http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/)

Just like I had already thought, it relates to the sea and not the land.


Oh right. Now get in touch with the people from that site and point them in the direction of The Magnifcent Deception. They won't bother to answer you back. Because they only know what they are told. They're obviously not privy to the system that runs along side their own.

That link you have provided bares no significance to the Freeman. That's like comparing the BBC with the internet!

[dondaz]

May I suggest that the requirements should be that
Bursting Bubbles and Magnificent Deception should be
watched first, just so that people are at least clued up
to a similar level - otherwise there is just too much to
get your head around on one day (week!!!).
With Lawful Excuse is also very informative,
but you need to watch the others first.

I'm talking about a conference with Human speakers. Trying to get baron interested in having a Freeman talk at his possible event. But I'm pretty much self motivated to do it anyway, got some fantastic ideas sent to me from members, cheers guys!


Thanks Dondaz. I am gonna try to learn this Freeman of the Land thing, it sounds like it's gonna take up alot of time, but I have to say that I have been wanting a worthwhile subject to get my teeth into for a while now and this might just be it.

1. BUT FIRST, I am gonna swat up on the BASICS of dealing with the police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE8rfefPQ24) and part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8XwehIHSnQ) so that I can have some IMMEDIATE useful information.

2. THEN I am gonna learn my rights on the police's "Powers of Entry (http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/GuidanceonPowersofEntry.pdf)". There is a pdf file on that page that can be downloaded.
A policeman told me that "PACE 1984 Powers of Entry sections 17 and 18" is what I need to learn but I cant see 17 or 18 on the pdf so MAYBE the policeman got it wrong ? I dont know.

3. LASTLY, it's the BIG ONE :D, I will learn "Freeman of the Land" :)


Hey mate, your first two steps are part of the Freeman route anyway, being a Freeman on the land encompases dealing with the police and then some! Welcome to the journey;)

[dondaz]

Well, I'm just waiting for the police to pull me again for filming or just in general and waiting for the next police meeting and then I will put into practise what I have learned. I have many quastions to put to the police regarding the law now I understand a lot more. This is going to be interesting!:D

[frankanne]

Fascinating conversation between Brian Gerrish and Mrs. Bonici of Buckingham Palace.

http://www.tpuc.org/

I shall be phoning this Mrs. Bonici myself and asking why she has not sent John Harris the reply that she promised in that tape.

John sends his Affidavit to the Queen by Recorded Delivery, and The Palace say they didn't receive it, then they say they sent it on to the FCO? Then Mrs. Bonici denies sending a standard letter to John Harris, then when it's pointed out that her signature is on the letter, she says she didn't know anyting about it. And this is in response to a RECORDED DELIVERY Official Document, an Affidavit no less. What a complete and utter shambles.

I'll be phoning them and wanting answers.

[stickwhistler]

Well, I'm just waiting for the police to pull me again for filming or just in general and waiting for the next police meeting and then I will put into practise what I have learned.

It might be interesting to ask why they are disobeying guidelines from their assistant chief constable, bringing their force into disrepute.
When they ask what? !!!! - show them this.

http://www.epuk.org/Resources/819/acpo-police-media-guidelines

[dondaz]

John sends his Affidavit to the Queen by Recorded Delivery, and The Palace say they didn't receive it, then they say they sent it on to the FCO? Then Mrs. Bonici denies sending a standard letter to John Harris, then when it's pointed out that her signature is on the letter, she says she didn't know anyting about it. And this is in response to a RECORDED DELIVERY Official Document, an Affidavit no less. What a complete and utter shambles.

I'll be phoning them and wanting answers.

I know. Brian showed her up. She was trying to create plausible denibility but it didn't wash. Be sure to record her phone conversation for the world to hear! I got your pm, that will take some thinking about, but I will get back to you.

It might be interesting to ask why they are disobeying guidelines from their assistant chief constable, bringing their force into disrepute.
When they ask what? !!!! - show them this.

http://www.epuk.org/Resources/819/ac...dia-guidelines (http://www.epuk.org/Resources/819/acpo-police-media-guidelines)

Great link there. A good souce to quote from eh. Why is it they never tell you the exact laws/statutes/acts and their sections? Did you notice he said they need a court order to seize your film. I got them red handed now. Even my solicitor didn't know that one, if he did he kept it well quiet.

This is why the Freeman is so powerfull against their system, because they learn what those in office wont tell you!

[dondaz]

Taken from With Lawfull Excuse
http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u39/dazp5/with-lawfull-excuse-pic2.jpg

[dondaz]

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u39/dazp5/with-lawfull-excuse-pic3.jpg

[h2pogo]

I think you are getting closer to what I wanted to know but still there is a leap between the Bill of Rights etc and what is claimed at the start of this thread.
Law simply does not do such a general thing or else it would be entirely unworkable. The Bill of Rights is mainly about the sovereignty of our nation and the supremacy of Parliament as being above the courts and influence from Rome, e.g. the EU is illegal in our country. There might be a legal case of not being subject to EU laws under it though but the way they must work it is to pass the law in our national parliament after the directive is issued.

the claim at the start of the thread applied to canadian law i admit i did leap to english common law.
as you rightly say the eu is illegal in the uk which makes this government guilty of treason which there fore means we are not legaly obliged to support or obey this government.
we are all subject to the law and equal under the law so if it applies to a barron it applies to me as well.

[malvern]

this is something that we all should look into and post the results of our research.... thanks for sharing dondaz.





freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[baron von lotsov]

the claim at the start of the thread applied to canadian law i admit i did leap to english common law.
as you rightly say the eu is illegal in the uk which makes this government guilty of treason which there fore means we are not legaly obliged to support or obey this government.
we are all subject to the law and equal under the law so if it applies to a barron it applies to me as well.

Well common law in Canada and America can have a bearing on British common law but only as part of an argument where you are making a case on a point of law. Judges can be swayed by what the law is in other countries simply because a lot of it uses the same sort of reasoning, i.e. natural justice, which is all about fairness. This has its basis in logic and logic is a universal thing.

[stickwhistler]

A short time ago, I asked the question below, via WritetoThem.com of my MP.

If the UK is now subject to EU laws, which is apparently the case, is Queen Elizabeth II a subject of the EU, or Monarch of a sovereign country i.e. The United Kingdom?
I believe that she cannot be a monarch and a subject at the same time, and would respectfully ask you to ascertain her status.
Perhaps you would ask at Prime Ministers Question Time, or at some other time 'in the house' so that the question and reply will be on record via Hansard.


Two weeks went by – no reply. WritetoThem.com wrote to check if I had received a reply, to which I said no.
As chance would have it, the next day I did receive an email saying that this question couldn't be answered by the MP,
and that the house of commons library would have to be consulted.
Why the house of commons library I don't know, but that was the answer.

It is the only answer to date.

Meanwhile I was looking up the law as published by HMG,
and comparing it to the law as posted by John Harris of tpuc.org,
and checking various laws in comparison to what Robert Menard was saying via his videos -
Bursting Bubbles : Magnificent Deception : With Lawful Excuse, and the book titled With Lawful Excuse.

The UK doesn't have a Uniform Commercial Code, or a Crimes Act,
but does have equivalent legislation e.g. Supply of Goods & Services Act 1982, Criminal Law Act 1967, Criminal Justice Act 1988, Fair Trading Act 1973, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Treason Act 1351, Treason Felony Act 1848, Bill of Rights 1689, Bills of Exchange Act 1882, Magna Carta 1215 and others,
all currently on the statute books of the UK.

So confirming for myself there was a remedy in the law for the authorities choosing to act in accordance with some laws,
and ignore others, to suit themselves – that is to say they break their own rules whilst expecting the victim of their attention
to obey the minutia of the laws they themselves choose to operate on – I made a declaration,
and sent a Notice Of Understanding And Intent And Claim Of Right with that declaration to Her Majesty The Queen.

Proof of receipt was provided via Royal Mail.

Failure to register a dispute against the claims made has resulted in an automatic default and permanent
and irrevocable estoppal by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute, act or regulation against myself, Stickwhistler,
for exercising those lawful and properly established rights, freedoms and duties.
I therefore assume that the Understanding is shared and the Claims of Right made therein are valid, and have sent a default Notice to that effect.

Any action by anyone claiming authority over me in the Queens name, denying my Claim of Right, denies their own authority to have authority over me,
if they have sworn an oath to the Queen .

Sealed copies are available for presentation in any court, should the Royal Mail proof-of-delivery fail to satisfy.


pdf copies suitable for public forums are available from the link below.
You may have to register first, but it is free, and while you're there, look around at what others are doing.

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=2689&p=16690#p16690

[baron von lotsov]

Bull!:rolleyes:

Explain why you think it is bull.

[klinker]

You are such a pathetically feeble person. First you say what I said is bull and now when I ask you why, you make up this kind of dribble. Why do you ever bother posting on here when this is all you can contribute? It just makes you look idiotic.

Baron you seem to like taking a large dump on interesting and important threads or is this purely a coincidence? Just an observation.

[baron von lotsov]

Baron you seem to like taking a large dump on interesting and important threads or is this purely a coincidence? Just an observation.

I don't post on the others, there's no point. I just get people putting me down and I stand up for myself and let others know.

When someone can show me a practical example of this Freeman legal stuff, that has worked or is likely to work, then I'll be paying attention.

[Mo0n5tar]

Am I right in thinking the way to go is:

Notice of Understanding and Intent, get it signed (by a notary or Law professional), sealed and delivered to a sherrif, then if none of the claims within are refuted or addressed within a set time the document becomes part of the common law?

SO you can write that it is your understanding you are a sovereign being subject only to the laws of the creator as outlined in the KJV 1611 and not the acts and statutes of a governing body and unless denied or disproved it becomes true factual and all that entails?

[duckingdafta]

just a little added.. to 'understand' means in law you stand under the laws served upon you.. to 'comprehend' would be better wording...not that I know anything about it like.

[malvern]

Originally Posted by klinker
Baron you seem to like taking a large dump on interesting and important threads or is this purely a coincidence? Just an observation.

I don't post on the others, there's no point. I just get people putting me down and I stand up for myself and let others know.

When someone can show me a practical example of this Freeman legal stuff, that has worked or is likely to work, then I'll be paying attention.


did you not watch the vids.... or with your brain done some research for yourself.... sorry i do not have an open draw that you might see some papers in, and that i could tell you ( not show you ) what it is all about, so that 27years later you could post it on a site and then cry that noone replies to your post....

get real or change the way you treat others , the world does not spin around you, so stop spinning facts so that it does ... these rich friends you went to school with, was it a case that they would let you play football with them but you had to be the ball..,. and thats why one part of you hates them because no matter what you do ...you will never be a player in thier game just a ball to kick and put back in the games shed when they have finished ....
it does seem the case with you and the masons ....
I know you sail thier boats but you will never have your own, is this what truely rips you apart the wanting to be , knowning that you never will... even this baron name shit ,,,, wanter be bloodline .. well your not , you are in the shit with the rest of us....

the point to this is that Baron you seem to like taking a large dump on interesting and important threads or is this purely a coincidence?



freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[dondaz]

Baron, your diversary tactics are third rate. Did you not see the video at the begining of this thread? I saw a Freeman on the Land exercise his Common Law rights when the police tried to pull SOCPA on him and they gave up when he stated that he was not priviy to those Admirality Laws!

The whole point of a Freeman is to not get arrested in the first place. Staying in honour. Knowing how the law really works benefit the Freeman when he is falsely accused & has to defend his honour in court. Surely you can get to grips with that?

You talk a good talk sometimes baron, but when it comes time to get out there and stand up for yourself you make all sorts of excuses to stop yourself from going the whole distance. You are a master at making it look like you are a fighter but when it comes to the fight your arsehole puckers up faster than shit off a shovel and in the process you leave behind a foul stench in threads that you put down.

One minute you say we are dumb and can't write our own threads when we post links and the next minute you say writing isn't enough and you want links to info. You have chosen not to get into the case I have presented where a Freeman wins his case and how he does it, complete with official documents to further corroberate the story. You couldn't find any faults there eh baron so you avoided it!

People will respect you when you actually show us something of importance you have achieved in the fight against the ptb instead of just talking a good fight.

Clearly baron you haven't got a fucking clue about the Law, the system and the manipulation that goes on in The Law Society and courts.

Looks to me like you're just playing to an audience on here for a few brownie points. I want people to become self-empowered with the information I bring to this forum, you're just looking for followers and put people down when they don't look up to you and your oh so important researched threads. You can stick your intellectual superiority up your backside. I may not have the formal education you have had baron, but I can see a fake from a mile away mate.

If you don't want to learn this stuff then fine, but don't put it down and aviod posts to you when you know absolutely fuck all about the Freeman.

It makes it look like you have ulterier motives!

[baron von lotsov]

"Clearly baron you haven't got a fucking clue about the Law, the system and the manipulation that goes on in The Law Society and courts."



I have a lot of experience with the courts, from Magistrates to Crown Courts, to the High Court on two occasions and the top court in Italy this year which is the constitutional court (roughly translated). I have witnessed Mafia shit and all sorts, and we are talking about in the traditional home of the Mafia by the way. So you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Oh and I have dealt with the Law Society as well, it took them 3 months to reply!

[malvern]

If you understand the law so well, how come you keep ending up in court ? to use a system does not mean that you understand it, to drive a car do you have to know how the bigend drives the crank.....

This comman law is first about honor and courts are about dishonor, look into it baron...... We all should know and understand our rights but the system does not want this, hence nobody teaches it and then people think that it is unreal and people bush it aside...

the bill of rights worked for me when i questioned the council tax, they asked me to pull my appeal and they would give me an A band.... "prove" that it works....but no court.

[dondaz]

It's a shame you won't get into the Freeman issues I have pointed out in this thread. You have seen it but dare not go there eh baron!

Such is the power of truth!

Anyway, I hope you find your way and good luck with your conference!

[baron von lotsov]

If you understand the law so well, how come you keep ending up in court ?


Well I don't always personally. The last case I was helping someone out who was up shitcreek, and it ended up that the authorities were in that position after we took the case to the appeal court and then the main one in Rome. Other times it has been me doing the litigation, such as Crown Court appeals and an application I made for Judicial Review. It's not my fault we live in such a dodgy place. One thing I can say straight away is it is not easy, but that's not to say unwinnable.

My results have varied, I have lost some, I have won some and some the opposing party have backed down half way through. I recall the one where I went to a brief to appeal the case and he asked how much the fine was for the offence. When I told him he couldn't quite believe it with a 'how on earth did you manage that' kind of response. Sometimes you can do a better job yourself it seems!

[baron von lotsov]

It's a shame you won't get into the Freeman issues I have pointed out in this thread. You have seen it but dare not go there eh baron!

Such is the power of truth!

Anyway, I hope you find your way and good luck with your conference!

I'm not avoiding it, I'm just analysing the information as it drips out of this thread.

[h2pogo]

Well common law in Canada and America can have a bearing on British common law but only as part of an argument where you are making a case on a point of law. Judges can be swayed by what the law is in other countries simply because a lot of it uses the same sort of reasoning, i.e. natural justice, which is all about fairness. This has its basis in logic and logic is a universal thing.

as a UK subject i would be invoking British common law.
if i was brought in front of a court as a free man i could be the prosecutor on points of law the crown has broken.
until the crown is prov-en innocent there is no case against me.
surly a judge could respect that i am defending the laws they swear an oath to defend.
could they in fairness give me contempt of court for defending this natural justice which is the basis of common law??

[baron von lotsov]

You can only argue on a point of law in the High Court or Court of Appeal. If you are in a Magistrates court they will just read the law out to you and decide whether you are guilty of doing that thing at that time as it is on the charge sheet. If you argue anything else they will say it's not possible for them to deal with it. You can opt for your case to be heard in a Crown Court by a jury and then you would have to appeal to the High Court. If you win that, it means everyone after you will have the same rights automatically. It would mean you have made your own bit of law and your name will be in all the law books as so and so vs. the Crown. Lawyers for hundreds of years will argue in courts with the bit of law you created! I was involved in just that with the Italian job. Italian lawyers will be grateful.

[h2pogo]

You can only argue on a point of law in the High Court or Court of Appeal. If you are in a Magistrates court they will just read the law out to you and decide whether you are guilty of doing that thing at that time as it is on the charge sheet. If you argue anything else they will say it's not possible for them to deal with it. You can opt for your case to be heard in a Crown Court by a jury and then you would have to appeal to the High Court. If you win that, it means everyone after you will have the same rights automatically. It would mean you have made your own bit of law and your name will be in all the law books as so and so vs. the Crown. Lawyers for hundreds of years will argue in courts with the bit of law you created! I was involved in just that with the Italian job. Italian lawyers will be grateful.

Am i right in thinking it is every ones right to be heard in crown court by jury?
If so where is the harm in trying?
what might happen ?

[dondaz]

I'm not avoiding it, I'm just analysing the information as it drips out of this thread.

Take your distractions somewhere else baron. I don't care for your oppinion anymore because you have no honour and integrity. Go back to your worthless timewasting threads.

[stickwhistler]

.........could they in fairness give me contempt of court for defending this natural justice which is the basis of common law??


Have a look at this.

How to Respond to Contempt of Court, Judicial Attack

We cringe for people going into court, dealing with the "sons of vipers, offspring of serpents" in these outlaw courts today. So many people write to us and call us, as they are being rendered in the money machine every day, liquidated to the Funding Streams for the elite. The rendering is in the PROCESS and most people do not have experience to understand or recognize corrupt process when they are in the middle of it. Attorneys do - they created it and don't let everyone in on the "secret" (wink-wink) while you and your children are destroyed. To help all the people in courts right now who are discovering Sui Juris process and going in without attorneys, they need to know what to say when the judge turns into a raging dragon because they dared to ask a question or try to make the record, and to help keep from being arrested.

The rest of the article is available from below,
and is worth reading and learning.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070202062028/www.avoiceforchildren.com/documents/respond_to_contempt.htm

More articles from http://web.archive.org/web/20070202060856/www.avoiceforchildren.com/documents/index.html

[h2pogo]

exellent find stickwhistler.
contempt would be my greatest fear in court.
knowing the right words to use is the key.

[dondaz]

A short time ago, I asked the question below, via WritetoThem.com of my MP.

If the UK is now subject to EU laws, which is apparently the case, is Queen Elizabeth II a subject of the EU, or Monarch of a sovereign country i.e. The United Kingdom?
I believe that she cannot be a monarch and a subject at the same time, and would respectfully ask you to ascertain her status.
Perhaps you would ask at Prime Ministers Question Time, or at some other time 'in the house' so that the question and reply will be on record via Hansard.

Very interesting point! This is what I mean when we pool our resources, so much imagination comes out in the open for all to learn from.

Meanwhile I was looking up the law as published by HMG,
and comparing it to the law as posted by John Harris of tpuc.org,
and checking various laws in comparison to what Robert Menard was saying via his videos -
Bursting Bubbles : Magnificent Deception : With Lawful Excuse, and the book titled With Lawful Excuse.

Cross referencing with other sources is always a good idea. I have a few books on law that I have brought, Moriaty's Police Law, Keenans English Law and The Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies. Thinking of getting a few Blackstones, but what I really want is a master edition just as the ones the people who wrote it have, or as close to. I've seen all the films and have my own youtube Freeman channel. Vienna very kindly sent me copies of Robert Menards books, Bursting Bubbles and Letters From A Freeman, and all his films on dvd, plus the e-book With Lawfull Excuse. Cross referencing all this material shows consistancy in in the areas I have so far looked into. Such as the drivers liscence. Driving is only refered to in a commercial capacity and licences only for commercial activities.

This is an area I want to get into. Driving my care lawfully without a liscence. I have a little more learning to do before I do this but I will be recording my progress for others to share!

[h2pogo]

Take your distractions somewhere else baron. I don't care for your oppinion anymore because you have no honour and integrity. Go back to your worthless timewasting threads.

steady on the baron he seems to have a genuine interest in the subject and knowlage of law.
in being a freeman you will meet people with alot less Honor and integrity who will be trying to put you away.
for this to work i think unity is a good idea.

[airkraft]

This topic is fascinating.

I dont have the time myself to study up on it at the moment due to other commitments, but I thought I`d ask this question on behalf of a friend. I suppose I`ve got the wrong end of the stick on this subject, but just thought I`d ask.

He has had a 6 month driving ban due to the totting up procedure, but has appealed. The judge says he can afford to pay for a driver for 6 months while he is banned, he is self employed and works 80 hrs a week and needs his van to get around. He cant afford to pay a full time driver to be at his beck and call for 80 hrs. His solicitor has told him to accept the inevitable or risk losing his appeal, and having to pay £2000 in costs, and still getting a 6 mth ban. Can the freeman thing help him in some way ???

[dondaz]

You can also argue points of laws in Crown Court, I have defended myself in crown court and brought up points of law, and been found not guilty by a jury over it too!

[dondaz]

steady on the baron he seems to have a genuine interest in the subject and knowlage of law.
in being a freeman you will meet people with alot less Honor and integrity who will be trying to put you away.
for this to work i think unity is a good idea.

That's all it is mate, he SEEMS to have a genuine interest. You obviously not looked into barons habits on here have you. Anything that scares the ptb on here and barons right in there discrediting it using a guise of plausible denyability. He looks for people like you to stick up for him. So you go ahead and feed the fucking troll.

Baron don't give a flying fuck about this forum or anyone in it.

Let him stick up for himself. He started the shit in here. Why don't you get on the barons case. Are you that blind you can't see what he's doing? Because I'm open and truthfull you think I am to blame.

He'll get into stupid issues with you all day. But because I'm honest about it you don't like it and think you have to correct me.

[duckingdafta]

<<<not allowed to talk about baron.. got told off by a mod! :eek:

[dondaz]

<<<not allowed to talk about baron.. got told off by a mod! :eek:

Yeah, well I've had enough of being trolled on here and if anyone don't like me for speaking what I believe in then it's tough. Here's how it works:

Agent: Attack threads/members that are dangerous to the system, using plausible deniability techniques so as to seem innocent of attack.

Member: Shuts up and says nothing/Member responds by standing up for himself and exposes attack by agent.

Agent: Denounces member in anyway he can, complains to admin like they have been wronged, causing admin to get on case of member telling the truth!

Member: How can they let this happen? Fuck this rigged deck, I'm off

Agent: very pleased with himself for having further devided forum members and gains another stripe on his arm from his master

If someone trolls my thread and you can't see it, does it mean my thread hasn't been trolled or just that it has but you can't see it?

I know for a fact baron is trolling this thread in his own subtle ways, he knows this too. Where ever there is hope in this forum the baron spreads apathy and dispair. This is what he does. Check out his threads and watch the pattens of his manipulation. His MO is as clear as daylight. If you can't see what he's doing you really do need to research more into MK Ultra, tavistock, the delphi tecnique (for when his npt pals join the fun to create a diversary distraction) and all the rest availible out there. You know about mind manipulation and then some don't you baron. You are obsessed with it and pull those stunts on us all the time.

I've given you too much credit baron. I've had it with you totally. get into the issue I have presented, be a man, what's wrong with you baron 'wannabe' lotsov, this dumb brummie knows your game and is willing to stand up against your lies and deciet. I've met you baron. I could smell the fear on you from down the road. I know what that fear was now. It was fear of us who you met. You wouldn't look anyone in the eye. Why was this baron? Because you had to meet us to keep up the pretence that you are one our side.

See most folks on here are used to documents/photos or video as evidence. Contrary to what they believe, many on here are not in tune with their minds as much as they would like to think and do not read the signals that we give off to each other. Most do not use their intuition and instinct along with body language to inform themselves on their surroundings. This is why they can't see beyond plausible deniability. Some folks will always blame the person who is attact, and if those folks happen to be in a position of power, then low and behold the attact will be attact again. I have seen this happen and indeed been a victim of it myself.

I'm sick of these rats on here, which is why I speak out about them. I believe David Icke does the same thing! If it's good enough for him.

Baron don't even like Icke ffs. I hope you people take a closer look at this guy because he is helping with your downfall with his manipulation.

Keep away from me baron otherwise I'll put you all over the internet for the rat you are and make sure Glastonbury find out about you too, complete with billboard posters. I fucking mean it baron. You know I fight back!

You started this baron, I showed you respect and look how you treated me and this thread in return.

[stickwhistler]

May I respectfully suggest that we ignore people who are very obviously out to hi-jack this thread,
and get it locked or put into the flame pit,
or get somebody to post something that causes trouble between other members,
or breaches hosting rules, and gets the thread removed, etc.

As pointed out, this is exactly what they want. Why I don't know.
Fear of their taking back their own 'power', paid trolls for the PTB, ....(any other reason).

It doesn't really matter, the effect is important. Just skip over their posts.

As David Icke & Robert Menard both say:

THE hardest thing to do is treat them kindly - like a child,
no matter how much they have been a bastard to you.

IGnore!

[ronaldo]

Yeah, well I\'ve had enough of being trolled on here and if anyone don\'t like me for speaking what I believe in then it\'s tough. Here\'s how it works:

Agent: Attack threads/members that are dangerous to the system, using plausible deniability techniques so as to seem innocent of attack.

Member: Shuts up and says nothing/Member responds by standing up for himself and exposes attack by agent.

Agent: Denounces member in anyway he can, complains to admin like they have been wronged, causing admin to get on case of member telling the truth!

Member: How can they let this happen? Fuck this rigged deck, I\'m off

Agent: very pleased with himself for having further devided forum members and gains another stripe on his arm from his master

If someone trolls my thread and you can\'t see it, does it mean my thread hasn\'t been trolled or just that it has but you can\'t see it?

I know for a fact baron is trolling this thread in his own subtle ways, he knows this too. Where ever there is hope in this forum the baron spreads apathy and dispair. This is what he does. Check out his threads and watch the pattens of his manipulation. His MO is as clear as daylight. If you can\'t see what he\'s doing you really do need to research more into MK Ultra, tavistock, the delphi tecnique (for when his npt pals join the fun to create a diversary distraction) and all the rest availible out there. You know about mind manipulation and then some don\'t you baron. You are obsessed with it and pull those stunts on us all the time.

I\'ve given you too much credit baron. I\'ve had it with you totally. get into the issue I have presented, be a man, what\'s wrong with you baron \'wannabe\' lotsov, this dumb brummie knows your game and is willing to stand up against your lies and deciet. I\'ve met you baron. I could smell the fear on you from down the road. I know what that fear was now. It was fear of us who you met. You wouldn\'t look anyone in the eye. Why was this baron? Because you had to meet us to keep up the pretence that you are one our side.

See most folks on here are used to documents/photos or video as evidence. Contrary to what they believe, many on here are not in tune with their minds as much as they would like to think and do not read the signals that we give off to each other. Most do not use their intuition and instinct along with body language to inform themselves on their surroundings. This is why they can\'t see beyond plausible deniability. Some folks will always blame the person who is attact, and if those folks happen to be in a position of power, then low and behold the attact will be attact again. I have seen this happen and indeed been a victim of it myself.

I\'m sick of these rats on here, which is why I speak out about them. I believe David Icke does the same thing! If it\'s good enough for him.

Baron don\'t even like Icke ffs. I hope you people take a closer look at this guy because he is helping with your downfall with his manipulation.

Keep away from me baron otherwise I\'ll put you all over the internet for the rat you are and make sure Glastonbury find out about you too, complete with billboard posters. I fucking mean it baron. You know I fight back!

You started this baron, I showed you respect and look how you treated me and this thread in return.

Fair play, that was a good little rant about baron....

[dondaz]

Sorry about the rant folks:o, don't mean any disrespect to the good people of this forum.

The ultimate ignorance is the rejection of something you know nothing about and refuse to investigate.
– Dr. Wayne Dyer

[stickwhistler]

..... don't mean any disrespect to the good people of this forum.

None taken by this good person. :D

[duckingdafta]

;){never claim anything yourself..pass it on:} I heard a famous radio host describe it as NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) which is an excellent tool to use, but very dangerous if mis-used.

[h2pogo]

That's all it is mate, he SEEMS to have a genuine interest. You obviously not looked into barons habits on here have you. Anything that scares the ptb on here and barons right in there discrediting it using a guise of plausible denyability. He looks for people like you to stick up for him. So you go ahead and feed the fucking troll.

Baron don't give a flying fuck about this forum or anyone in it.

Let him stick up for himself. He started the shit in here. Why don't you get on the barons case. Are you that blind you can't see what he's doing? Because I'm open and truthfull you think I am to blame.

He'll get into stupid issues with you all day. But because I'm honest about it you don't like it and think you have to correct me.

]

I will try to make my point again more clear.
In becoming a freeman wou will come accross others like the baron who will argue your right to do so for many reasons.
Being sucsesfull and staying free it is important you win the argument.
I was defending the barons right to argue and be objective which i personally welcome as on this forum hope fully the argument will be won by fair reason.
I also wanted to suggest a freeman would be stronger united in some sort of network or movement or some thing.

[dondaz]

I will try to make my point again more clear.
In becoming a freeman wou will come accross others like the baron who will argue your right to do so for many reasons.
Being sucsesfull and staying free it is important you win the argument.
I was defending the barons right to argue and be objective which i personally welcome as on this forum hope fully the argument will be won by fair reason.
I also wanted to suggest a freeman would be stronger united in some sort of network or movement or some thing.

I understand what you're saying and I agree with you. Fair reason is always the best way forward in any debate. I always strive to improve myself and learn new and better ways of doing things. Baron is a Trojan Horse & would disrupt a convent if so ordered. You give a guy like that an inch and he takes everything. You will not convince him in any way shape or form about the Freeman way. He's not here to learn. He thinks he knows everything already. Robert Menard wouldn't convince him. Because the baron has an agenda to disrupt, not to get involved and learn like most of us. The whole idea of being a freeman is keeping those system thinking rats who seek to do us harm at bay. Baron included.

Yes, we do need unity and there is much unity in this forum. Anyone who knows me will tell you I'm an ok guy and don't cause trouble on here. I just stand up for myself. Learning the Freeman way is helping me to be more diplomatic in dealing with these issues.

Anway, going to post another case for people to get their teeth into!

[baron von lotsov]

Am i right in thinking it is every ones right to be heard in crown court by jury?
If so where is the harm in trying?
what might happen ?


They are trying to reduce the number of offences where you can get a jury trial. It used to be any criminal offence you had an automatic right. The thing is the Crown Court is expensive, and even about 10 years ago one of them was boasting that they had reduced their expenses to £7000/hour! Now if you get found not guilty then nothing happens except you walk. If the jury finds you guilty though it usually means a bigger sentence. They take it into account somehow, although they shouldn't, and the same goes with when pleading guilty as opposed to not guilty and then being found guilty. I know with this one they work it as saying that if you plead guilty they will hear your mitigation and this can reduce the sentence, whereas that does not come into effect when you plead not guilty. They always have their ways, some legal and others just by applying prejudice.

[baron von lotsov]

You can also argue points of laws in Crown Court, I have defended myself in crown court and brought up points of law, and been found not guilty by a jury over it too!


You can say what you like to a jury and if the jury finds you not guilty then you walk. They are supposed to decide only on the case being dealt with and the judge orders them to do that specific thing. However, after that it’s up to them. If you appeal on a point of law from a magistrate’s court it has to be heard in the High Court. If they decide to accept it then it becomes part of law for everyone, but the Crown court cannot do this.

[dondaz]

Here's a Freeman on the Land with no mot, no number plates, no insurance and carrying an unregistered gun in his car.

April 19 (A Date That Will Live in Infamy), 2008

I finally received tickets from two NC State Troopers for several failures to comply with North Carolina DMV statutes. On April 17, 2008, I appeared in pro per to argue my defense for case #08CR700204-200 in the Fifth District Court of North Carolina, Judge John C. Carroll presiding.

The charges against me were violations of NCGS 20-111.1(1) - no registration; NCGS 20-313(A) - no proof of financial responsibility/insurance; and NCGS 20-183.8(A)(1) - no inspection sticker, two counts of each.

I had been stopped on January 19th and February 10th and charged with the same offenses. According to Judge Carroll, I was looking at up to $810.00 in fines and nearly two years in jail.

It is worthy of note that I have been traveling the public highways for over a year without any titles or other contractual documentation on my automobiles.

I appeared before the District Judge on March 20, 2008, for the initial appearance hearing. At that time, my trial date was set for April 17th.

I stood "mute" at that hearing in response to the ADA's calendar call, although he had only given four options: Motion; Attorney; Guilty; and Not Guilty.

Afterwards, I made four written filings to the clerk: Notice of Objection to Jurisdiction, Demand to Dismiss, and Demand for a Jury Trial; Demand for a Speedy Trial; Memo in Support of Demand to Dismiss; and Brief in Support of Demand to Dismiss; about fifty pages in all.

At the trial on April 17th, I was called forward by the judge and asked if I would be needing an attorney. When I told him I would be acting on my own behalf, he asked, "You do know what they call a person who represents himself?"

I said, "Yes, Sir. He has a fool for a client." I wish I had added that the "Lawyer-Client Relationship" is defined as the "representation of one who is incompetent, retarded or insane." I may be a fool, but I am not an idiot. I added that I was not "representing myself because I was myself.

When asked how I would plead, I again said, "I stand mute, your Honor."

Judge Carroll replied, facetiously, "Was that 'moot'?"

I responded, "M-U-T-E".

Judge Carroll stated that was not one of my choices. I either had to enter a plea of "Guilty" or "Not Guilty".

I continued to "Stand Mute". He advised me that there could be no trial if I did not enter a plea. I informed him that in my opinion entering a plea would grant jurisdiction over me to the court, and I would only "Stand Mute"; since it was my understanding such a position did not grant jurisdiction; and my entire argument was based upon lack of jurisdiction.

He then told me the court had jurisdiction, to which I responded, "Are you assuming jurisdiction or can you prove jurisdiction?"

He said, "You're not going to make a mockery of this court. There are 600 cases waiting downstairs of which yours is one, and you come in here and think you have all these rights…..Well, you do have rights; but the court has jurisdiction, so either you enter a plea or you're going to jail."

I countered with my continued objection to entering a plea, and the judge said to me that if I was having trouble understanding him he had been to Iraq for a year, and if it would help he could speak some Iraqi for me. (Judge Carroll is a NC National Guard Lt. Col., and spent almost twelve months in Iraq with the Army JAG last year amidst great local fanfare and publicity fighting in an illegal, unconstitutional war.)

I then said, "You were in Iraq thinking you were fighting for our freedom, but you were wrong. I stand before you today to defend my freedom and rights in my own country."

He followed up with, "It says here you are a retired Lieutenant Colonel. You've been around for a while. Which branch?"

I answered, "Yes, I've been around the block a few times. I was Army Infantry and Air Force."

"How long were you in?", he then asked.

I replied, "23 years, but I don't accept any retirement pension or benefits; and I have declined any Social Security benefits. I refuse to grant any jurisdiction by accepting a pension and becoming a 'US Person'."

He said, "A lot of people come in this court who are not US citizens, and they enter a plea." (This is true. We have a huge number of illegal aliens in North Carolina.)

I responded, "There is a lot of difference between a US 'Person' and a 'citizen'", but he apparently didn't know the difference.

I continued to "Stand Mute", telling him that my case was totally based upon the court's not having jurisdiction over me unless I volunteered it; and I had no intention of entering a plea voluntarily.

He then surprised me by saying to the bailiff, "Take him to jail."

The bailiff took my arm and began to guide me away. I paused to hand my file folder to my son who had come forward on previous instruction to take it. I turned and requested Judge Carroll to allow me one more question, which he did. I asked if I was being jailed because I was in contempt of court. He said I was in contempt and that was why I was going to jail. I asked, "If I enter a plea of 'Not Guilty' under threat of going to jail if I don't, will you accept that?". He said, "Yes. You would not go to jail."

So, I entered a plea of "Not Guilty under threat of going to jail if I don't", and he was fine with that.

"Now we can have a trial", he said. I moved back to my seat in the gallery, thinking we had to wait for my notices and demands to be heard and for a jury to be set, when the judge motioned for me to come back up front to the defendant's table. I did so, and asked if we were going to have a trial then and there. When he told me that was correct, I reminded him I had filed a demand for dismissal and a notice of objection which had not been heard. He said he had read my briefs and was denying my demands. When it became clear to me that we were moving forward with a bench trial, I demanded to know where my jury was.

I was told that one does not get a jury in a district court criminal trial, but only in a civil trial. He said I could appeal the ruling of the court to superior court after I was found guilty, and then I would get my trial by jury. While I didn't agree with that, we moved forward over my objections.

As the ADA was preparing to try me, the judge said, "My advice to you, not that you think you need my advice, is to bring a lawyer with you the next time you come to this court and read up on the statutes."

I replied, "Your Honor, lawyers don't practice the same law as I do, and I have already read the statutes."

The ADA introduced the case, stating my charges, and called his first and only witness, the trooper who had given me the first set of tickets.

Nothing was mentioned about the trooper who had issued the second set of citations, and I intended to hold that omission until later in the trial; nor was he in the courtroom. Trooper B.R. Phillips took the witness stand and testified in response to the ADA's questions concerning my stop and my behavior during the stop. He stated he had noted my license plate was "plastic" with green trees on it, but it was not a State-issued plate; so he pulled me over at around midnight on January 10th on what he termed a "State road", but which in reality was a federal highway.

He testified that I had immediately begun to tell him that he had no jurisdiction to pull me over, and that his laws did not apply to me, only "the defendant's law applied to him", he said.

The judge then asked him if he had asked me if I were from another planet.

The trooper said, "No."

"Well, did you ask him if he was from Pluto?", asked the judge.

Trooper Phillips said, "No, Sir."

"Did you ask him if he spoke English?" the judge inquired further.

"No", said the trooper.

Changing directions, the judge then asked, "Did he have a weapon in the car?",

to which the trooper replied, "Yes, but he didn't tell me right away. Only after a few minutes into our conversation did he tell me had a weapon, and he apologized for not having told me sooner, saying he had forgotten about it."

"Was the gun registered?", asked the judge.

"No, Your Honor. It did not turn up in the database."

The ADA then sat down, and the trooper returned to his seat in the jury area.

I asked whether or not I was going to be allowed to cross-examine the witness, and the judge told me, "Not in this court".

I objected.

Without a doubt I was going to be found guilty and sent to jail for the maximum sentence.

But, after a brief pause, and without allowing me to produce any evidence or witnesses or to argue my position at all, Judge Carroll then said, "Mr. Sullivan, you are 'Not Guilty'."

I said, "Did you say 'Not Guilty'?"

"Yes, I have ruled you are not guilty. Have a good day, Mr. Sullivan."

I was dumbfounded.

My son rushed forward to gather me up, and we left the building.

I said, "What just happened?" He said, "You won. You're not guilty." To which I responded, "Would the word 'enigmatic' be appropriate for what just happened?" He said that was a perfect word.

Putting our heads together, It may have been that Judge Carroll realized that nothing he did during that trial mattered a tinker's damn after I had been forced under threat and duress to involuntarily grant jurisdiction to the court. Further, in this state, the accused has a right to a trial de novo by appealing from District Court to Superior Court; and the result from the district court would have been overturned anyway.

Regardless, for whatever reason, this acquittal was a major victory in my book, and, "ONE SMALL STEP FOR MAN. ONE GIANT LEAP FOR LIBERTY."

I asked the bailiff as we were leaving the courtroom if an order would be issued for my trial. She told me that it would and that I could probably pick up a copy the next day. I did that very thing and put a copy in each one of my vehicles in case this traffic stop situation ever repeats itself. This win sets a huge precedent to me and vindicates all these months of my efforts to get arrested.

My cars have had a Confederate flag license plate on the rear with "PRIVATE PROPERTY" tattooed over it with my personalized "No to Israel" plate on the front for most of the past year, and Ron Paul stickers on the bumpers. I also had magnetic signs on at times which said, "PRIVATE PROPERTY/NOT FOR HIRE" and "STOP/DELAY THIS VEHICLE AT YOUR OWN RISK" just to make sure I got their attention.

NOTE: My grounds for lack of jurisdiction were as follows:

1. The stops took place on federal highways, but the testifying officer was careful to state that the stops were on a State road which is congruent with the federal highway;

2. Lack of due process in the service of the "summons and complaint";

3. The State was a party to this action, so the original jurisdiction was with the SCOTUS;

4. No probable cause since the elements of the citations did not constitute a "threat to public safety" (State v. Ivey, NC Sup. Ct., 2006);

5. My vehicles do not have titles, so are non-jurisdictional, non-commercial "private property" protected by the state and federal constitutions and not subject to state jurisdiction unless a common law crime has been committed; and,

6. "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways is a common right, but he exercise of that right may be regulated or controlled in the interest of public safety." Honeycutt v. Scheidt, 254 NC 607 (As quoted in the "Uniform Driver's License Act" aka, NCGS 20-16, Annotated).

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=1041

Such is the power of a Freeman on the Land!

[dondaz]

Here's a little example of the word getting out in Canada about Freemen on the Land.

Well...

Several weeks ago, I had family in town visiting and we thought we would go to a club for some beer and dancing...

As we were standing in line, it was noticed that the club we were going is a member of "BarWatch" They had a fancy sign posted outside that stated "If you do not want to have your ID scanned, and your picture taken(yes, this is what they do), then see the manager...

Well...

I thought GREAT! I'll talk to the manager and get this sorted out.

Nope...

I was informed by a bar staff member(re:Bouncer/Manager) that there was no manager there, and I should shut up. Needless to say, I was firm and persistant in my request. I began by indicating the sign(which is posted outside the establishment) and began talking to the rest of the people in line with me about this. The Bar staff did not appreciate this much, and indicated they would 'kick me out of line'.

Needles to say, I kept talking to others in line about this requirement.

At this point, the bouncer picked me up and put me out of line. In a slight bit of shock. Having been assaulted by the bouncer, i went to find a police officer to file a report. I was lucky enough to have an office just around the corner. I approached him and told him I had been assaulted by a bouncer and wished to file a report.

Initially the officer did not want to help me. At this point I asked the officer

"Are you refusing to do your job?"

I was lucky enough to have a female officer next to us, who was listening and the officer i was speaking with then followed me to the club to investigate.

The officer then went to speak with the employees at the bar. When he came out, he told me he would make a report...

And this is where it gets juicy...

When he asked for my name, I gave him my 'first' name. When he asked for my last name I told him I did not have one...

BAM!

He ran...

He ran so fast, i've never seen a cop run like that before.

I thought, WOW! He must have had some emergency or something http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif

So, at this point, i walked up to the police station. It was night and the front door was locked. I rang the buzzer, and a female dispatch answered and WOULD NOT LET ME IN the building.

I relayed what happened, and she talked to the officer. She then informed me he did not 'run' because of another call, but because:

I WOULD NOT COMPLETE THE REPORT!

I informed her that this was not the case, he simply ran and did not allow me to finish the report.

So, i gave her my full family name and she would still not let me in. Finally, an officer came out and let me in to the cop shop to talk to him.

At this point, he told me to come back the next day and he would not file the reporT!

I was standing firm at that point, but the officer then said if I did not leave the cop shop, he would Arrest me for being Drunk(which i was not, though i had had a few).

I had made the mistake of bringing someone with me, and the officer then began to 'puff up' and get in our faces.

I then asked the officer that if i chose to stay he would use force on me, to which he replied "yes".

He put himself between me and my friend, and began talking to my friend who got all riled up.

At this point, i did not want to sit in the drunk tank all night, so we left.

But i consider it a victory none-the-less. It would seem that the police here in the lowermainland/vancouverisland have a new policy regarding this, as the cop ran imediately upon hearing i had no 'last' name.

Peace.

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=1882

The motto of this story is the police pick and choose who they do business with and they don't want to help a Freeman because he has no person/strawman attached to him. Which shows they are just a corporation offering a service to signed up members only!

This is what is going to happen in this country soon, I can feel it!

[stickwhistler]

I just read something, in 'News' somewhere else, that made me laugh.

"Hopefully we can prevent their NWO and bring about the FWO (Free World Order)"

Yay! :D

[dondaz]

"Hopefully we can prevent their NWO and bring about the FWO (Free World Order)"

Yay! :D

That is definately a better way of looking at it!

Here's a few basics on how their Admirality system works and how they came up with it, very interesting this is:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aZqb0TW15EE

[lesactive]

Hi, new here and when I saw this thread I thought I'd share my first 'awakened' encounter with a state agent.

A little background first: I'd heard of the Freeman philosophy back in the 80's but when I checked into it, while very intriguing, I couldn't see how it could possibly work. The PTB being as apparently immovable as they purport I decided to carry on with my studies and put these silly notions aside.... for now.

Then, back in 2004, I was handed a flyer to a seminar being held in London, Ontario by Robert-Arthur: Menard. As those who've also viewed his videos or read his work, I experienced an epiphany. "No ****ing way", I thought. There has to be a catch and by gum I'm going to find it. I spent the next six months poring over statutes, law dictionaries and 'freedom forums' trying to find a chink and having failed in my cynical quest for falsehoods I had to admit that this path was one that was definitely worth pursuing.

Being single with no dependants (apart from my bulldog) I would only be risking my own security in fulfilling my newly found duty to uphold a lawful standard of behaviour and making sure that those who would presume authority without my consent would know about it. It didn't take long for a chance to test it out.

As Rob has said many times, "You don't need to know the answers, you just need to ask the right questions."

At the time, I was renting an apartment in a fairly large complex (in London, Ontario). I went out with my dog for a walk and was immediately approached by a By-law officer from London Animal Services. The conversation went roughly like this. (edited for concision)

Dawg: Hi. I see you don't have a license for your dog.
Les: Good day to you too! That's right, he doesn't have a license.
Dawg: He has to have one.
Les: Oh? Are you sure about that?
Dawg: Yes. All residents who own a dog in the City of London must have a license for it.
Les: Really? Hmmm, I wasn't informed of this when I moved onto the area. There were no notices or indication for such a thing. Why does he need a license? Is it unlawful to have a dog?
Dawg: No, but you must get a license for him.
Les: Why?
Dawg: IT'S THE LAW!! (he got upset very quickly)
Les: The law? What law? I've never heard of such a law before. Sounds silly to me.
Dawg: It's the London By-law blah blah blah
Les: Oh, I see. So it's a municipal statute?
Dawg: That's correct.
Les: Then it's not a law is it?
Dawg: What?
Les: As far as I know a statute is given the force of law through the consent of the governed but is not itself a law.
Dawg: It's a law alright.
Les: I think it's gross negligence. As an officer you have to distinguish between statutes and laws. I suggest you allow me to carry on about my business.
Dawg: Are you going to be difficult?
Les: I hope not but that depends on you.
Dawg: Well, I have to write a citation for you to get your dog licensed
Les: I'm not going to stop you but I don't understand what you're asking of me.
Dawg: (heavy sigh) What don't you understand?
Les: Your words. Are you using legal terminology? Because I'm not a lawyer.
Dawg: Okay, which words don't you understand?
Les: Frankly, all of them but let's start with resident. What is a resident?
Dawg: You live there (pointing at the apt building), you're a resident.
Les: No, I live here (pointing at my body) I rent an apartment there.
Dawg: No, you live there.
Les: Do you see me there? I'm pretty sure I'm standing in front of you.
Dawg: You're being ridiculous.
Les: Am I now? I tell you the truth and you call me names. Tell me, how long does someone have to be in a given area for them to be considered a resident?
Dawg: Uhhh....
Les: Do you know what the word means, legally speaking?
Dawg: Do you?
Les: Yes! But that doesn't mean I understand it.
Dawg: O fer...
Les: Next word: what is a license, legally speaking?
Dawg: It's permission to do something.
Les: Am I a child? Why would I need permission to do something that harms no one?
Dawg: What do you mean?
Les: Legally, a license is permission to do that which would otherwise be unlawful. What is unlawful about having a dog?
Dawg: silence
Les: Okay, last one - can you tell me, factually and specifically, what is the City of London?
Dawg: YOU'RE IN IT! (totally annoyed by this point)
Les: Really? So you're saying that the City of London is the ground I'm standing on which extends out to a certain boundary?
Dawg: That's right.
Les: Okay, so it's a real thing then?
Dawg: Yes, of course.
Les: So, from where do you get your authority to issue citations to complete strangers?
Dawg: I get my authority from the City of London!!
Les: That's awesome!! Can I do that?
Dawg: Can you do what?
Les: Well, you just told me that the City of London was the ground that I'm standing on and that you get your authority from it. Is this ground magical?
Dawg: What are talking about?
Les: I see on your citation pad there that it says, "The Corporation of the City of London." Now that we know that it's actually a corporation that gives you your alleged authority, can you produce a contract with my name on it that would hold me liable to its rules?
Dawg: You don't get to agree, I have jurisdiction.
Les: How did you get jurisdiction over me? I've never sworn an oath nor signed a contract with the city.
Dawg: That's enough, I'm writing you a citation.
Les: I'm not stopping you.
Dawg: What's your name?
Les: Uhh, I don't like to give that out to strangers.
Dawg: What!?! You have to give me your name or I can't fill out this citation.
Les: Ooh, that's rough for you eh? My name is a very valuable, intangible security asset and I don't allow anyone to use it without my consent. I do not consent. What will you do if I don't provide a name?
Dawg: Look if you don't give me your name I can call the police down here and they will COMPEL you to give your name and if you don't you'll be arrested and I'll impound your dog.
Les: I don't like threats.
Dawg: I'm not threatening you.
Les: I must consider that what you just told me constitutes a threat to my personal security and an attempt to steal my private property. Tell you what, you call the police because I want to talk with them about this?
Dawg: Why do you want to talk to them?
Les: I want to know to what can be done about a certain by-law officer who doesn't understand the words he is employing in his office constituting gross negligence, uttering threats against my security and my property and attempting to extort money from me under duress. Are you bonded?
Dawg: Well, yes.
Les: Good! I'll need your bond number, the name of your bonding agent, and the name of the insurance company that underwrites it.
Dawg: What do you need that for?
Les: Well, when the police arrive and if they agree with what I have to say I will then proceed in laying charges against you, seizing your bond, cashing it in and making sure you never work in any law enforcement capacity again. Your full name and badge number please?
Dawg: Hang on, I'll be right back.
Les: I'll be here.

He walked back to his van, got in, rummaged around for a few seconds inside then started it up and took off. I saw him again a few months later but didn't get more than a cursory glance from him. The conversation lasted about 15 minutes and there were quite a few more points I raised with him that got no response. Man, I was high as a kite after that!

No arguments, just questions. Never argue or you go into dishonour. The only time I made a statement was when I was, IMO, threatened. Accept every claim but always, always ask for proof. No proof, no claim. Acting in gross negligence is always illegal, especially for them.

cheers!

[notthisshitagain]

Hi, new here and when I saw this thread I thought I'd share my first 'awakened' encounter with a state agent.

A little background first: I'd heard of the Freeman philosophy back in the 80's but when I checked into it, while very intriguing, I couldn't see how it could possibly work. The PTB being as apparently immovable as they purport I decided to carry on with my studies and put these silly notions aside.... for now.

Then, back in 2004, I was handed a flyer to a seminar being held in London, Ontario by Robert-Arthur: Menard. As those who've also viewed his videos or read his work, I experienced an epiphany. "No ****ing way", I thought. There has to be a catch and by gum I'm going to find it. I spent the next six months poring over statutes, law dictionaries and 'freedom forums' trying to find a chink and having failed in my cynical quest for falsehoods I had to admit that this path was one that was definitely worth pursuing.

Being single with no dependants (apart from my bulldog) I would only be risking my own security in fulfilling my newly found duty to uphold a lawful standard of behaviour and making sure that those who would presume authority without my consent would know about it. It didn't take long for a chance to test it out.

As Rob has said many times, "You don't need to know the answers, you just need to ask the right questions."

At the time, I was renting an apartment in a fairly large complex (in London, Ontario). I went out with my dog for a walk and was immediately approached by a By-law officer from London Animal Services. The conversation went roughly like this. (edited for concision)

Dawg: Hi. I see you don't have a license for your dog.
Les: Good day to you too! That's right, he doesn't have a license.
Dawg: He has to have one.
Les: Oh? Are you sure about that?
Dawg: Yes. All residents who own a dog in the City of London must have a license for it.
Les: Really? Hmmm, I wasn't informed of this when I moved onto the area. There were no notices or indication for such a thing. Why does he need a license? Is it unlawful to have a dog?
Dawg: No, but you must get a license for him.
Les: Why?
Dawg: IT'S THE LAW!! (he got upset very quickly)
Les: The law? What law? I've never heard of such a law before. Sounds silly to me.
Dawg: It's the London By-law blah blah blah
Les: Oh, I see. So it's a municipal statute?
Dawg: That's correct.
Les: Then it's not a law is it?
Dawg: What?
Les: As far as I know a statute is given the force of law through the consent of the governed but is not itself a law.
Dawg: It's a law alright.
Les: I think it's gross negligence. As an officer you have to distinguish between statutes and laws. I suggest you allow me to carry on about my business.
Dawg: Are you going to be difficult?
Les: I hope not but that depends on you.
Dawg: Well, I have to write a citation for you to get your dog licensed
Les: I'm not going to stop you but I don't understand what you're asking of me.
Dawg: (heavy sigh) What don't you understand?
Les: Your words. Are you using legal terminology? Because I'm not a lawyer.
Dawg: Okay, which words don't you understand?
Les: Frankly, all of them but let's start with resident. What is a resident?
Dawg: You live there (pointing at the apt building), you're a resident.
Les: No, I live here (pointing at my body) I rent an apartment there.
Dawg: No, you live there.
Les: Do you see me there? I'm pretty sure I'm standing in front of you.
Dawg: You're being ridiculous.
Les: Am I now? I tell you the truth and you call me names. Tell me, how long does someone have to be in a given area for them to be considered a resident?
Dawg: Uhhh....
Les: Do you know what the word means, legally speaking?
Dawg: Do you?
Les: Yes! But that doesn't mean I understand it.
Dawg: O fer...
Les: Next word: what is a license, legally speaking?
Dawg: It's permission to do something.
Les: Am I a child? Why would I need permission to do something that harms no one?
Dawg: What do you mean?
Les: Legally, a license is permission to do that which would otherwise be unlawful. What is unlawful about having a dog?
Dawg: silence
Les: Okay, last one - can you tell me, factually and specifically, what is the City of London?
Dawg: YOU'RE IN IT! (totally annoyed by this point)
Les: Really? So you're saying that the City of London is the ground I'm standing on which extends out to a certain boundary?
Dawg: That's right.
Les: Okay, so it's a real thing then?
Dawg: Yes, of course.
Les: So, from where do you get your authority to issue citations to complete strangers?
Dawg: I get my authority from the City of London!!
Les: That's awesome!! Can I do that?
Dawg: Can you do what?
Les: Well, you just told me that the City of London was the ground that I'm standing on and that you get your authority from it. Is this ground magical?
Dawg: What are talking about?
Les: I see on your citation pad there that it says, "The Corporation of the City of London." Now that we know that it's actually a corporation that gives you your alleged authority, can you produce a contract with my name on it that would hold me liable to its rules?
Dawg: You don't get to agree, I have jurisdiction.
Les: How did you get jurisdiction over me? I've never sworn an oath nor signed a contract with the city.
Dawg: That's enough, I'm writing you a citation.
Les: I'm not stopping you.
Dawg: What's your name?
Les: Uhh, I don't like to give that out to strangers.
Dawg: What!?! You have to give me your name or I can't fill out this citation.
Les: Ooh, that's rough for you eh? My name is a very valuable, intangible security asset and I don't allow anyone to use it without my consent. I do not consent. What will you do if I don't provide a name?
Dawg: Look if you don't give me your name I can call the police down here and they will COMPEL you to give your name and if you don't you'll be arrested and I'll impound your dog.
Les: I don't like threats.
Dawg: I'm not threatening you.
Les: I must consider that what you just told me constitutes a threat to my personal security and an attempt to steal my private property. Tell you what, you call the police because I want to talk with them about this?
Dawg: Why do you want to talk to them?
Les: I want to know to what can be done about a certain by-law officer who doesn't understand the words he is employing in his office constituting gross negligence, uttering threats against my security and my property and attempting to extort money from me under duress. Are you bonded?
Dawg: Well, yes.
Les: Good! I'll need your bond number, the name of your bonding agent, and the name of the insurance company that underwrites it.
Dawg: What do you need that for?
Les: Well, when the police arrive and if they agree with what I have to say I will then proceed in laying charges against you, seizing your bond, cashing it in and making sure you never work in any law enforcement capacity again. Your full name and badge number please?
Dawg: Hang on, I'll be right back.
Les: I'll be here.

He walked back to his van, got in, rummaged around for a few seconds inside then started it up and took off. I saw him again a few months later but didn't get more than a cursory glance from him. The conversation lasted about 15 minutes and there were quite a few more points I raised with him that got no response. Man, I was high as a kite after that!

No arguments, just questions. Never argue or you go into dishonour. The only time I made a statement was when I was, IMO, threatened. Accept every claim but always, always ask for proof. No proof, no claim. Acting in gross negligence is always illegal, especially for them.

cheers!

Rofl! This is awesome! I can totally see him, waving hands in the air, all frustrated because "you don't understand him". Oh, and I loved the "Is this ground magical?" HAHAHAHA :D

[bones]

Hi, new here and when I saw this thread I thought I'd share my first 'awakened' encounter with a state agent.

A little background first: I'd heard of the Freeman philosophy back in the 80's but when I checked into it, while very intriguing, I couldn't see how it could possibly work. The PTB being as apparently immovable as they purport I decided to carry on with my studies and put these silly notions aside.... for now.

Then, back in 2004, I was handed a flyer to a seminar being held in London, Ontario by Robert-Arthur: Menard. As those who've also viewed his videos or read his work, I experienced an epiphany. "No ****ing way", I thought. There has to be a catch and by gum I'm going to find it. I spent the next six months poring over statutes, law dictionaries and 'freedom forums' trying to find a chink and having failed in my cynical quest for falsehoods I had to admit that this path was one that was definitely worth pursuing.

Being single with no dependants (apart from my bulldog) I would only be risking my own security in fulfilling my newly found duty to uphold a lawful standard of behaviour and making sure that those who would presume authority without my consent would know about it. It didn't take long for a chance to test it out.

As Rob has said many times, "You don't need to know the answers, you just need to ask the right questions."

At the time, I was renting an apartment in a fairly large complex (in London, Ontario). I went out with my dog for a walk and was immediately approached by a By-law officer from London Animal Services. The conversation went roughly like this. (edited for concision)

Dawg: Hi. I see you don't have a license for your dog.
Les: Good day to you too! That's right, he doesn't have a license.
Dawg: He has to have one.
Les: Oh? Are you sure about that?
Dawg: Yes. All residents who own a dog in the City of London must have a license for it.
Les: Really? Hmmm, I wasn't informed of this when I moved onto the area. There were no notices or indication for such a thing. Why does he need a license? Is it unlawful to have a dog?
Dawg: No, but you must get a license for him.
Les: Why?
Dawg: IT'S THE LAW!! (he got upset very quickly)
Les: The law? What law? I've never heard of such a law before. Sounds silly to me.
Dawg: It's the London By-law blah blah blah
Les: Oh, I see. So it's a municipal statute?
Dawg: That's correct.
Les: Then it's not a law is it?
Dawg: What?
Les: As far as I know a statute is given the force of law through the consent of the governed but is not itself a law.
Dawg: It's a law alright.
Les: I think it's gross negligence. As an officer you have to distinguish between statutes and laws. I suggest you allow me to carry on about my business.
Dawg: Are you going to be difficult?
Les: I hope not but that depends on you.
Dawg: Well, I have to write a citation for you to get your dog licensed
Les: I'm not going to stop you but I don't understand what you're asking of me.
Dawg: (heavy sigh) What don't you understand?
Les: Your words. Are you using legal terminology? Because I'm not a lawyer.
Dawg: Okay, which words don't you understand?
Les: Frankly, all of them but let's start with resident. What is a resident?
Dawg: You live there (pointing at the apt building), you're a resident.
Les: No, I live here (pointing at my body) I rent an apartment there.
Dawg: No, you live there.
Les: Do you see me there? I'm pretty sure I'm standing in front of you.
Dawg: You're being ridiculous.
Les: Am I now? I tell you the truth and you call me names. Tell me, how long does someone have to be in a given area for them to be considered a resident?
Dawg: Uhhh....
Les: Do you know what the word means, legally speaking?
Dawg: Do you?
Les: Yes! But that doesn't mean I understand it.
Dawg: O fer...
Les: Next word: what is a license, legally speaking?
Dawg: It's permission to do something.
Les: Am I a child? Why would I need permission to do something that harms no one?
Dawg: What do you mean?
Les: Legally, a license is permission to do that which would otherwise be unlawful. What is unlawful about having a dog?
Dawg: silence
Les: Okay, last one - can you tell me, factually and specifically, what is the City of London?
Dawg: YOU'RE IN IT! (totally annoyed by this point)
Les: Really? So you're saying that the City of London is the ground I'm standing on which extends out to a certain boundary?
Dawg: That's right.
Les: Okay, so it's a real thing then?
Dawg: Yes, of course.
Les: So, from where do you get your authority to issue citations to complete strangers?
Dawg: I get my authority from the City of London!!
Les: That's awesome!! Can I do that?
Dawg: Can you do what?
Les: Well, you just told me that the City of London was the ground that I'm standing on and that you get your authority from it. Is this ground magical?
Dawg: What are talking about?
Les: I see on your citation pad there that it says, "The Corporation of the City of London." Now that we know that it's actually a corporation that gives you your alleged authority, can you produce a contract with my name on it that would hold me liable to its rules?
Dawg: You don't get to agree, I have jurisdiction.
Les: How did you get jurisdiction over me? I've never sworn an oath nor signed a contract with the city.
Dawg: That's enough, I'm writing you a citation.
Les: I'm not stopping you.
Dawg: What's your name?
Les: Uhh, I don't like to give that out to strangers.
Dawg: What!?! You have to give me your name or I can't fill out this citation.
Les: Ooh, that's rough for you eh? My name is a very valuable, intangible security asset and I don't allow anyone to use it without my consent. I do not consent. What will you do if I don't provide a name?
Dawg: Look if you don't give me your name I can call the police down here and they will COMPEL you to give your name and if you don't you'll be arrested and I'll impound your dog.
Les: I don't like threats.
Dawg: I'm not threatening you.
Les: I must consider that what you just told me constitutes a threat to my personal security and an attempt to steal my private property. Tell you what, you call the police because I want to talk with them about this?
Dawg: Why do you want to talk to them?
Les: I want to know to what can be done about a certain by-law officer who doesn't understand the words he is employing in his office constituting gross negligence, uttering threats against my security and my property and attempting to extort money from me under duress. Are you bonded?
Dawg: Well, yes.
Les: Good! I'll need your bond number, the name of your bonding agent, and the name of the insurance company that underwrites it.
Dawg: What do you need that for?
Les: Well, when the police arrive and if they agree with what I have to say I will then proceed in laying charges against you, seizing your bond, cashing it in and making sure you never work in any law enforcement capacity again. Your full name and badge number please?
Dawg: Hang on, I'll be right back.
Les: I'll be here.

He walked back to his van, got in, rummaged around for a few seconds inside then started it up and took off. I saw him again a few months later but didn't get more than a cursory glance from him. The conversation lasted about 15 minutes and there were quite a few more points I raised with him that got no response. Man, I was high as a kite after that!

No arguments, just questions. Never argue or you go into dishonour. The only time I made a statement was when I was, IMO, threatened. Accept every claim but always, always ask for proof. No proof, no claim. Acting in gross negligence is always illegal, especially for them.

cheers!

excellant post.

[majicdragon]

Im in Dondas. I'll really do this. I need it. A freeman of the north. Yes. could this be the way?... Is it?

[klinker]

Hi, new here and when I saw this thread I thought I'd share my first 'awakened' encounter with a state agent.

A little background first: I'd heard of the Freeman philosophy back in the 80's but when I checked into it, while very intriguing, I couldn't see how it could possibly work. The PTB being as apparently immovable as they purport I decided to carry on with my studies and put these silly notions aside.... for now.

Then, back in 2004, I was handed a flyer to a seminar being held in London, Ontario by Robert-Arthur: Menard. As those who've also viewed his videos or read his work, I experienced an epiphany. "No ****ing way", I thought. There has to be a catch and by gum I'm going to find it. I spent the next six months poring over statutes, law dictionaries and 'freedom forums' trying to find a chink and having failed in my cynical quest for falsehoods I had to admit that this path was one that was definitely worth pursuing.

Being single with no dependants (apart from my bulldog) I would only be risking my own security in fulfilling my newly found duty to uphold a lawful standard of behaviour and making sure that those who would presume authority without my consent would know about it. It didn't take long for a chance to test it out.

As Rob has said many times, "You don't need to know the answers, you just need to ask the right questions."

At the time, I was renting an apartment in a fairly large complex (in London, Ontario). I went out with my dog for a walk and was immediately approached by a By-law officer from London Animal Services. The conversation went roughly like this. (edited for concision)

Dawg: Hi. I see you don't have a license for your dog.
Les: Good day to you too! That's right, he doesn't have a license.
Dawg: He has to have one.
Les: Oh? Are you sure about that?
Dawg: Yes. All residents who own a dog in the City of London must have a license for it.
Les: Really? Hmmm, I wasn't informed of this when I moved onto the area. There were no notices or indication for such a thing. Why does he need a license? Is it unlawful to have a dog?
Dawg: No, but you must get a license for him.
Les: Why?
Dawg: IT'S THE LAW!! (he got upset very quickly)
Les: The law? What law? I've never heard of such a law before. Sounds silly to me.
Dawg: It's the London By-law blah blah blah
Les: Oh, I see. So it's a municipal statute?
Dawg: That's correct.
Les: Then it's not a law is it?
Dawg: What?
Les: As far as I know a statute is given the force of law through the consent of the governed but is not itself a law.
Dawg: It's a law alright.
Les: I think it's gross negligence. As an officer you have to distinguish between statutes and laws. I suggest you allow me to carry on about my business.
Dawg: Are you going to be difficult?
Les: I hope not but that depends on you.
Dawg: Well, I have to write a citation for you to get your dog licensed
Les: I'm not going to stop you but I don't understand what you're asking of me.
Dawg: (heavy sigh) What don't you understand?
Les: Your words. Are you using legal terminology? Because I'm not a lawyer.
Dawg: Okay, which words don't you understand?
Les: Frankly, all of them but let's start with resident. What is a resident?
Dawg: You live there (pointing at the apt building), you're a resident.
Les: No, I live here (pointing at my body) I rent an apartment there.
Dawg: No, you live there.
Les: Do you see me there? I'm pretty sure I'm standing in front of you.
Dawg: You're being ridiculous.
Les: Am I now? I tell you the truth and you call me names. Tell me, how long does someone have to be in a given area for them to be considered a resident?
Dawg: Uhhh....
Les: Do you know what the word means, legally speaking?
Dawg: Do you?
Les: Yes! But that doesn't mean I understand it.
Dawg: O fer...
Les: Next word: what is a license, legally speaking?
Dawg: It's permission to do something.
Les: Am I a child? Why would I need permission to do something that harms no one?
Dawg: What do you mean?
Les: Legally, a license is permission to do that which would otherwise be unlawful. What is unlawful about having a dog?
Dawg: silence
Les: Okay, last one - can you tell me, factually and specifically, what is the City of London?
Dawg: YOU'RE IN IT! (totally annoyed by this point)
Les: Really? So you're saying that the City of London is the ground I'm standing on which extends out to a certain boundary?
Dawg: That's right.
Les: Okay, so it's a real thing then?
Dawg: Yes, of course.
Les: So, from where do you get your authority to issue citations to complete strangers?
Dawg: I get my authority from the City of London!!
Les: That's awesome!! Can I do that?
Dawg: Can you do what?
Les: Well, you just told me that the City of London was the ground that I'm standing on and that you get your authority from it. Is this ground magical?
Dawg: What are talking about?
Les: I see on your citation pad there that it says, "The Corporation of the City of London." Now that we know that it's actually a corporation that gives you your alleged authority, can you produce a contract with my name on it that would hold me liable to its rules?
Dawg: You don't get to agree, I have jurisdiction.
Les: How did you get jurisdiction over me? I've never sworn an oath nor signed a contract with the city.
Dawg: That's enough, I'm writing you a citation.
Les: I'm not stopping you.
Dawg: What's your name?
Les: Uhh, I don't like to give that out to strangers.
Dawg: What!?! You have to give me your name or I can't fill out this citation.
Les: Ooh, that's rough for you eh? My name is a very valuable, intangible security asset and I don't allow anyone to use it without my consent. I do not consent. What will you do if I don't provide a name?
Dawg: Look if you don't give me your name I can call the police down here and they will COMPEL you to give your name and if you don't you'll be arrested and I'll impound your dog.
Les: I don't like threats.
Dawg: I'm not threatening you.
Les: I must consider that what you just told me constitutes a threat to my personal security and an attempt to steal my private property. Tell you what, you call the police because I want to talk with them about this?
Dawg: Why do you want to talk to them?
Les: I want to know to what can be done about a certain by-law officer who doesn't understand the words he is employing in his office constituting gross negligence, uttering threats against my security and my property and attempting to extort money from me under duress. Are you bonded?
Dawg: Well, yes.
Les: Good! I'll need your bond number, the name of your bonding agent, and the name of the insurance company that underwrites it.
Dawg: What do you need that for?
Les: Well, when the police arrive and if they agree with what I have to say I will then proceed in laying charges against you, seizing your bond, cashing it in and making sure you never work in any law enforcement capacity again. Your full name and badge number please?
Dawg: Hang on, I'll be right back.
Les: I'll be here.

He walked back to his van, got in, rummaged around for a few seconds inside then started it up and took off. I saw him again a few months later but didn't get more than a cursory glance from him. The conversation lasted about 15 minutes and there were quite a few more points I raised with him that got no response. Man, I was high as a kite after that!

No arguments, just questions. Never argue or you go into dishonour. The only time I made a statement was when I was, IMO, threatened. Accept every claim but always, always ask for proof. No proof, no claim. Acting in gross negligence is always illegal, especially for them.

cheers!


Brilliant. This could be a Monty Python sketch. :D

[heebeejeebee]

Love It!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[stickwhistler]

Little video I found about UK income tax from a freeman perspective

youtube.com/watch?v=PrhApYOWgzM


For some reason this isn't embedding so put the 3xw's and a dot in front of the above to watch it.

The guys youtube channel
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=21stCenturyPolitix

[baron von lotsov]

None taken by this good person. :D

People who ask questions are bad of course. You still have not explained the legal arguments regarding the freeman business. I'm sure it's bad for you that some people won't take it on trust.

[dondaz]

People who ask questions are bad of course. You still have not explained the legal arguments regarding the freeman business. I'm sure it's bad for you that some people won't take it on trust.

Look at you. Take your ignorance somewhere else baron. People who ask questions are good. It's people like you who avoid points that have been presented and act like you know what you are talking about when clearly you know nothing. I have present 3 examples of how a Freeman takes on the system and wins and we've not heard a whisper about it from you.

You still have not explained the legal arguments regarding the freeman business.

This thread is full of legal and lawfull arguments. Yet the baron refuses to see them. Baron you haven't got the intelligence to realise you are digging a hole for yourself. You're trying to play to an audience but you have run out of cards to play with. Soon you will realise that your hole is six foot deep. My guess is you will be pulling the lid over your own coffin then.

Here's a little example of a Freeman taking on the system and winning:


Hi yall,

I don't know if you guys will consider this a success story or not as it doesn't involve sending any paper work or notices of any kind but it is kind of exciting to me. I removed all evidence of any contracts with the state from my truck about a month ago and have been traveling that way ever since. No tags, stickers, licenses, nothing. I even put a piece of masking tape over my VIN and printed "PRIVATE" on it.

I was returning home the other night from a meeting in Austin and was traveling on a 4 lane highway through the country doing about 90 mph when I passed a state trooper. They immediately got behind me and paced me for a while. Then they changed lanes and came right up beside me. I looked at them briefly and nodded and continued traveling at about 80 mph. (The speed limit here was 60) The trooper got back behind me and I figured this is it. But he just backed off and let me go. They must know that they can't stop a pickup with no tags on it unless they witness a crime. That is the only thing I can come up with to explain it.

Cheers everyone!

http://www.thinkfreeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=810


So baron, why did the police not stop this guy? Not like they had better things to do eh? You going to say this isn't any good because he has no paperwork or court case to prove it.:rolleyes:

What do you think of this Baron?

NOTICE OF STATUS AND WARNING

TO: OFFICERS AND/OR AGENTS OF THE US GOVERNMENT:

I, Robert-Wayne: Boyd AM a MAN, an American National, a Freeman, born near a town called Sinton in Texas. I am NOT a corporate citizen/subject/person of the United States corporation, who is subject to the exclusive admiralty/maritime jurisdiction that congress enjoys over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings as described in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution for the united states of America. Any presumed authority based on a previously signed contract or presumed acceptance of a benefit notwithstanding.

WARNING!

ANY attempt to exercise the above described jurisdiction on I, me, my, myself will be considered a trespass on my God given rights and I, me, my, myself WILL seek remedy to the full extent of the law.

IF, after having been served this notice, you persist in any unlawful action against I, me, my, myself it becomes a willful act and therefore could be a violation of Title 18 USC, section 242, and possibly 241 if any other person becomes involved.

I offer you forgiveness if you cease and desist immediately, otherwise,

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!


With honor and all God given rights claimed,

________________________________________
Robert-Wayne: Boyd, Sui Juris,


Received By:

__________________________________________________ ______________________
Agents Name, Title and ID#: This is not an admission of guilt
_________________
Robert-Wayne: Boyd

[duckingdafta]

People who ask questions are bad of course. You still have not explained the legal arguments regarding the freeman business. I'm sure it's bad for you that some people won't take it on trust.

why haven't YOU explained how you manage to 'sway' a judge... seems you accuse others of your own actions!.. fucking hypocrite pops to mind but if I call you one. you'd only report me as if it actually mattered..seems you want everyone to become your teacher .. what's up? ... ran out of friends to say it's credible research..

[baron von lotsov]

"This thread is full of legal and lawfull arguments."

Most I have read are gibberish and have no legal basis. Indeed I have spotted mind control in a lot of copy and pastes, and so I have not bothered to read on further. What I was asking for is for someone to explain it in their own words, and if you can't do that it must mean you don't understand yourself.

A legal argument, in case you are unaware, is the use of sections of the law, which have been passed by some body that has the power to do so, i.e. Parliament and the higher courts, and it is based on reason. If you can do this then I will take note, but I think it is very foolhardy for people to quote a whole load of gibberish to a judge. It won't work and will do you no good what so ever, indeed it is likely to do you harm, since it will have distracted you from what you should be doing when in such a position, and that is to build a proper and lawful defense. I'm all for people defending themselves against state injustices and people suing people who break the law in a way that leaves you out of pocket. I mean going on just a few simple consumer laws you could achieve a great deal based on how corporations daily break the law, but learning stuff that is wrong and then failing will just leave you less inclined to do this in the future.

[klinker]

People who ask questions are bad of course. You still have not explained the legal arguments regarding the freeman business. I'm sure it's bad for you that some people won't take it on trust.

Sometimes it's best to keep your mouth shut to leave some doubt in people minds that you might be a fool rather than confirm their suspicion by speaking.

[baron von lotsov]

why haven't YOU explained how you manage to 'sway' a judge...

The Italian case involved a couple of articles from the European Convention on Human Rights.
http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/328

My friend's American case was a plea of entrapment. My application for Judicial Review was involving an unfair decision and based on natural justice where the plaintiff backed out as the papers were being filed. Basically each case is pretty unique to the next one.

[baron von lotsov]

Sometimes it's best to keep your mouth shut to leave some doubt in people minds that you might be a fool rather than confirm their suspicion by speaking.



You obviously don't take heed of your own advice.

[klinker]

You obviously don't take heed of your own advice.

Corectamundo. I am a gibbering muppet BUT I don't disrupt important and interesting threads or any threads for that matter. ;)

[jonahmc]

Kissing the courts goodbye.

Essential listening for anyone who wants to go down the Freeman
path. From the US but good for any common law country. No bullshit discusions on real court events. Jonah

http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Kennedy/08/01/Kennedy_012008_200000.MP3

http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Kennedy/08/01/Kennedy_012008_210000.MP3

http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Kennedy/08/01/Kennedy_012708_200000.MP3

http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Kennedy/08/01/Kennedy_012708_210000.MP3

[jonahmc]

Here:


http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Kennedy/08/01/Kennedy_012008_200000.MP3

http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Kennedy/08/01/Kennedy_012008_210000.MP3

http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Kennedy/08/01/Kennedy_012708_200000.MP3

http://arc.republicbroadcasting.org/Kennedy/08/01/Kennedy_012708_210000.MP3

[jonahmc]

can't post the links
so just check
http://www.freedomfiles.org/

Jonah

[dondaz]

Most I have read are gibberish and have no legal basis. Indeed I have spotted mind control in a lot of copy and pastes, and so I have not bothered to read on further. What I was asking for is for someone to explain it in their own words, and if you can't do that it must mean you don't understand yourself.

The evidence is right there in front of you. You are trying to put this down but have no case. All I see from you is a bunch of denials with no basis on which to base your vague oppinions. You call that critical thinking.

It's ok baron. You keep up with brushing all this off with no reasons to state your case and I'll keep posting the successful stories, which scare you to the core. We'll see who wins out and who takes notice of you.

Baron, the greatest reseacher ever to join the Icke forum, yet he's too scared to research the Freeman subject?

As JW is fond of saying, 'keep it nice and fluffy!

Don't want to get into the real issues that can make a difference to everyones lives.

[lesactive]

What the good Baron doesn't get yet is that it's not about legal wrangling. It's about fiction and reality. The legal world is purely fictional and it's trying to impose itself on the factual. When you separate belief (supported by violence) from truth the difference becomes glaringly obvious. They can not operate against the man unless there is a legitimate complaint involving injury, damage or breach of contract and even if there is a legitimate complaint the human charged must consent.

Fiction/reality; have you ever touched a law? A corporation?

The reason you won't find any of these remedies in case law, if successful, is that the cases will be dismissed and sealed. It happens every time. They don't want to set precedent with this as that would harm the monopoly. For the most part, remedy is achieved well before the battlefield is entered.

So, Baron, if you're looking for evidence of this within their recent court records you won't find it. We're outside the cage.

I'm not familiar with UK statutes but here are a few examples from Canadian legislation which we may use against them.

From the Interpretation Act:

“person” includes a corporation and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law; (“personne”)

"Canada" , for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada;

In the common language, "includes" is an encompassing and limiting term and should follow the ancient maxim: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. 11 Co. 58.

So, what is missing from the above definitions? It's not just about what is written, it's equally about what is not written. Do you see 'human, woman, man' in the definition of 'person'? Do you see 'land' in the definition of Canada (for greater certainty). Do you begin to see how Maritime law comes into play with that definition?

Our Criminal Code (law that has been codified) also evidences this concept as I'm sure does yours. Therein is a distinction between 'every person who...' and 'any one who...' commits an act. I am not a person though I have one to use in commerce if I so choose. The person is evidenced by the legal name:

2. (1) For all purposes of Ontario law,

(a) a person whose birth is registered in Ontario is entitled to be recognized by the name appearing on the person’s birth certificate or change of name certificate, unless clause (c) applies;

It's not my name if I am merely 'entitled' to use it. I don't have full control of it because they have a prior claim. That is why I am commonly known as john henry of the Doe family and not DOE, JOHN HENRY. The only entities that are permitted to be fully capitalized, according the Rules of English Grammar, are corporations and dead people. Hence, the fully capitalized name is also known as a 'nom de guerre', name of war.

Instead of moaning how impossible this is, stick your head in the rabbit hole and take a look for yourself within 'your' statutes. If you think the gov't has your best interests in mind you are in for a shock if you delve deep enough.

[lesactive]

To illustrate just how psychopathic these lawyers are, check this out from section 165-166 of the Australian GST Act 1999:

""For the purposes of making a declaration under this subdivision, the commissioner may:

(a) treat an event that actually happened as not having happened; and

(b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened, and, if appropriate, treat the event as:

(i) having happened at a particular time; and
(ii) having involved a particular action by a particular entity; and

(c) treat a particular event that actually happened as;

(i) having happened at a time different from when it actually happened; or,
(ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity)."

Would you put your life in the hands of people who would compose legislation like that?

[Mo0n5tar]

A little light hearted look at Legalese:

Disorder In The Court


These are from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and now published by court reporters who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place.

ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
___________________________

ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
____________________________________
ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
WTNES: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
WITNESS: I forget.

ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
____________________________________
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
____________________________________
ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
WITNESS: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
WITNESS: My name is Susan.
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo?
WITNESS: We both do.
ATTORNEY: Voodoo?
WITNESS: We do.
ATTORNEY: You do?
WITNESS: Yes, voodoo.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
___________________________________
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: Uh, he's twenty-one.
_______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Would you repeat the question?
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Uh....
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.


ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
WITNESS: Oral.
______________________________________
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy on him!
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
WITNESS: Huh?
_____________________________________
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

[horseflesh]

I actually stumbled upon a video about this a couple of weeks ago...

coincidence? ;):D

Very interesting, thanks for all the info guys.

I'll certainly be looking into this more.

[godspeed]

good posts just what im looking for...i think the main objective of the freeman is to keep your ass out of jail in these dark days...if you've done that for yourself this year you deserve a pat on the back cos its tough out there and they just cant wait to catch u out from all directions...i recently had a run in with the cops after i got accused of doing some damage by a neighbour with a vendeta against me...5 times in one week they battered on my door like im the most wanted ever...i phoned a good lawyer and was told this ...if you have not broken any law you are under no obligation whatsoever to speak to police or answer your door or go down to cop shop to talk to them...after they tell one of your neighbours they just want a word with you...under any circumstances give them nothing....so i did and im still free to tell you so.
last week i got a letter from sheriff saying he had enough evidence to charge me...but on this occasion will let it go (evidence of what i dont know as i was not spoken to by police or sheriff officer) i seen it as a small victory as we have suffered enough at the hands of the law lately were we failed to keep an innocent man from jail...but it happens everyday to other people and its not true justice...its a shambles so its best to keep yourself right with the law in the first place is what i learned with this experience.freedom is everything i think its the only way to be and for anyone whoever lost it even briefly in a police cell its not were you want to be....live or die for it..we shall have it as its our birthright.

[lesactive]

As long as you remain in honour it is impossible (except through fraudulent attachment) to break a LAW. Statutes are all about contracts. Laws are immutable, (don't kill, steal and etc.) while statutes are rewritten everyday.

If the sheriff starts to push and makes demands of you simply ask for proof claim upon his full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury and ask for certified copies of the statutes he/she is claiming you broke. I guarantee you that they won't produce certified copies even though they are obligated to do so if asked.

There are many ways to approach the situation. The sheriff is your servant, make them serve you. Besides, it sounds like harassment to me.

[friendsinthesky]

I was returning home the other night from a meeting in Austin and was traveling on a 4 lane highway through the country doing about 90 mph when I passed a state trooper. They immediately got behind me and paced me for a while. Then they changed lanes and came right up beside me. I looked at them briefly and nodded and continued traveling at about 80 mph. (The speed limit here was 60) The trooper got back behind me and I figured this is it. But he just backed off and let me go. They must know that they can't stop a pickup with no tags on it unless they witness a crime. That is the only thing I can come up with to explain it.

Cheers everyone!


Isn't speeding committing a crime?

Anyway, it's a fascinating topic.

[lesactive]

Isn't speeding committing a crime?

Define "crime".

I would say that unless the traveller has breached the peace, caused damage to property or harmed someone then no 'crime' has been committed.

Was it illegal? Most definitely.

Was it unlawful? No.

No license, no harm, no crime.

[friendsinthesky]

Define "crime".

I would say that unless the traveller has breached the peace, caused damage to property or harmed someone then no 'crime' has been committed.

Was it illegal? Most definitely.

Was it unlawful? No.

No license, no harm, no crime.

That makes some sense, but I've no idea of the 'law definition'. Maybe someone will clarify.

[klinker]

That makes some sense, but I've no idea of the 'law definition'. Maybe someone will clarify.

I believe most motoring offences in the UK are not 'criminal' offences. Perhaps someone can clarify?

[godspeed]

As long as you remain in honour it is impossible (except through fraudulent attachment) to break a LAW. Statutes are all about contracts. Laws are immutable, (don't kill, steal and etc.) while statutes are rewritten everyday.

If the sheriff starts to push and makes demands of you simply ask for proof claim upon his full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury and ask for certified copies of the statutes he/she is claiming you broke. I guarantee you that they won't produce certified copies even though they are obligated to do so if asked.

There are many ways to approach the situation. The sheriff is your servant, make them serve you. Besides, it sounds like harassment to me.
thanks mate , i think it is harrassment from the cops and my neighbour as i am on my own and the family witness for each other when the cops come,mostly its just been verbal exchanges and i cant understand why the cops had so much time for 2 women argueing but then its what story they are telling on you that gets the cops attention...for all i know im being accused of being violent which im not....anyway cos they did'nt get me they are now trying to evict me from my home....so im fucked whichever way i turn and these mob rule idiots wont be laughing at me if that happens..for if im made homeless again i will make sure they cant sleep in peace either and it starts all over again...just cos professionals in law are only hearing one sided stories and acting on them....thats why its a shambles i think.

[dondaz]

The legal world is purely fictional and it's trying to impose itself on the factual. When you separate belief (supported by violence) from truth the difference becomes glaringly obvious. They can not operate against the man unless there is a legitimate complaint involving injury, damage or breach of contract and even if there is a legitimate complaint the human charged must consent.

Welcome to the forum Lesactive, thank you for joining the thread and enlightening us with your amazing insight into the Freeman Philosophy and how the Law really works.

There's a lot of good people on this forum very interested in this subject, some more advanced than others, but I think most of us are still trying to grasp the basics and have yet to reach that learning curve. I'm in for the duration on this one.

The reason you won't find any of these remedies in case law, if successful, is that the cases will be dismissed and sealed. It happens every time. They don't want to set precedent with this as that would harm the monopoly.

So this is how they do it. I knew there was a scam going somewhere that they were using to stop this info getting out through their own stsyem. Sealing the case after they lose it. Figures. Is there no way of getting to look at sealed cases? There must be. Why do they actually keep them if they don't wan't anyone to look at them? For appeals?

For the most part, remedy is achieved well before the battlefield is entered.

Yes, I have read many cases where the Freeman has averted the wrath of the corporation through his quick witt and knowledge of the Law. It's like you guys are Jedi Knights at times, that's the power I see in Freeman Philosophy. There is no dark side to being a Freeman on the Land.

In the common language, "includes" is an encompassing and limiting term and should follow the ancient maxim: Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. 11 Co. 58.

:confused:

The only entities that are permitted to be fully capitalized, according the Rules of English Grammar, are corporations and dead people. Hence, the fully capitalized name is also known as a 'nom de guerre', name of war.

I believe where ever there's Admirality Law at work, this is actually a state of war. Meaning they are at war with the people who they are imposing Admirality Law on. So, if this is the case, then Admirality Law is some type of psychological war machine in it's own right.

A little light hearted look at Legalese:

Disorder In The Court

Very funny mate. Had me in bits, nice one!:D

To illustrate just how psychopathic these lawyers are, check this out from section 165-166 of the Australian GST Act 1999:

OMG. That is seriously f*^"*d up legislation! Only evil people stoop so low!

I believe most motoring offences in the UK are not 'criminal' offences. Perhaps someone can clarify?

I believe they come under The Road Traffic Acts, which are Statutes, not Laws, but are backed by the force of Law, if you have contracted with the government to abide by those statues. Your 'Person' is the contract that binds you to their system. There are many ways they will try to link you to your 'person' and the idea is to avoid that at all costs. Thereby removing any obligation to road traffic statutes.

Some great responses folks, thanks!

[dondaz]

"Human laws are only copies of eternal laws. Those eternal laws are peculiar to man, for only man, on earth, is a rational being. The test of validity for the state's laws is their conformity to reason. . . .

Learned men know that 'Law is the highest reason, implanted in Nature, which commands what ought to be done and forbids the opposite. This reason, when firmly fixed and fully developed in the human mind, is Law. And so they believe that Law is intelligence, whose natural function it is to command right conduct and forbid wrongdoing."

-Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order.

[dondaz]

Anyone seen the baron?:D

[dondaz]

Here's what David Icke has to say about Admirality Law, from a newsletter last year. I sorted this with admin before I posted this.

Straw 'People'

The 'real' you, on the level of the living, breathing, free sovereign 'you', operates under Common Law. This is defined as: 'The unwritten law developed primarily from judicial case decisions based on custom and precedent. It developed in England and constitutes the basis for the legal systems of most of the states in the United States.'

(http://www.kellyinsurance.com/glossa....glossary.html (http://www.kellyinsurance.com/glossary/legal.c.glossary.html))

The government/corporation system controls, not through Common Law, but Admiralty Law, which is known in the United States as the Uniform Commercial Code. This is the law of contracts and to entrap us they have to get us to contract with them, even though they don't tell us we are doing so.

The sting has been set up so that when you register with the 'Federal Government' in any way by accepting a Social Security number, driver's licence, or any of the other official federal documents, you are, unknowingly, agreeing to become an asset-employee of the 'government' corporation. From that moment you become responsible for financing the corporation's state of bankruptcy.

When you pay taxes or a court or parking fine and such like, you are servicing the bankruptcy by paying that money to 'government' agencies that are nothing more than debt-collecting agencies for the creditor banks.

They enslave the people in their law of contracts by creating a fictional entity using our names written in all upper case. When we are born they use the birth certificate to form an account in trust and create the fictional upper case entity or 'straw man'. Black's Law 6th Edition defines a straw man as:

'A front; a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principle may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser, or to accomplish some other purpose otherwise not allowed.'

Another definition is: "a man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety."

The definition of surety is:

'One who has contracted himself to be answerable for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another ... One who undertakes to pay money or perform other acts in the event that his principal fails to do so; the surety is directly and immediately liable for the debt..'

So this is the way the fraud is played. They create a fictitious 'straw man' trust at birth and the trust uses the newly born's name in all uppercase. If the free sovereign is called, say, john bloggs - all lower case - the trust is called JOHN BLOGGS.

Look at the documents we receive from taxation offices, any government department, banks, courts, police and so on. Look at your passport. Invariably they will spell your name in all uppercase because these organisations are operating under commercial law and only have jurisdiction over commercial entities - i.e. the upper case trusts. They have no jurisdiction under Common Law over 'you', the living, breathing, free sovereign.

What they do is trick us into standing surety for the trust and becoming liable for its commercial operations and debts. This is done by us signing their documents, applying for licences and in countless other ways.

I have asked lawyers, court clerks and police officers why they always use our names in uppercase. They had no idea. The overwhelming majority of those working for the system are ignorant of what they are administering and enforcing. That's how the Illuminati work throughout what we call 'society'.

This is an area Icke himself has delved into, hopefully he may be researching the Freeman philosophy and write another newsletter about it!

[seanie]

brilliant tread dondaz, i've been researching this for the last couple of nights and i think i know the concept, one good thing if people are getting caught up in the language, if you type into google legal define "xxxxxxx" it will bring back the legal definetion, also dondaz do you know if this applys to ireland as well

[lesactive]

if you type into google legal define "xxxxxxx" it will bring back the legal definetion

Be wary of this method of legal sleuthing. I would suggest using both a modern definition and an older definition for comparison. Lawyers also write the dictionaries and consequently the meanings change over time, often to fit the legislation. Again, I'm not in the UK so I'm not sure which books you would look for but I'll give you an example of the disparity evident over the years using the most relevant word in this discussion.

Etymology:
person
c.1225, from O.Fr. persone "human being" (12c., Fr. personne), from L. persona "human being," originally "character in a drama, mask," (your legal character)possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask."

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856) (sexist terminology left intact!)
(excerpt)
PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called (by them, don't let them use their words to describe you) natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

Interpretation Act (Canada)
“person” includes a corporation and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law; (“personne”)

Be thorough, do your due diligence.

[lesactive]

Welcome to the forum Lesactive, thank you for joining the thread and enlightening us with your amazing insight into the Freeman Philosophy and how the Law really works.
Thank you for your kind words!

There's a lot of good people on this forum very interested in this subject, some more advanced than others, but I think most of us are still trying to grasp the basics and have yet to reach that learning curve. I'm in for the duration on this one.
Some of the subjects that people are into on this board are out of my range of knowledge or interest (shape-shifters!) but I try to keep an open mind without letting my brain fall out. Though I do agree that I see a lot of good, earnest people here looking for truth and that to me is the most difficult part; getting out of your comfort zone long enough to pique your curiosity.

The learning curve is very steep indeed. I've been studying for 4 years now and have only taken rudimentary practical steps toward freedom. The most important things are to know who you are (you are not a name), who the creditor is (you) and why you are doing this.


So this is how they do it. I knew there was a scam going somewhere that they were using to stop this info getting out through their own stsyem. Sealing the case after they lose it. Figures. Is there no way of getting to look at sealed cases? There must be. Why do they actually keep them if they don't wan't anyone to look at them? For appeals?

AFAIK there is no way to access these files. Many have tried. Even those whose cases were dismissed are unable to get their hands on court records. This is why it is critical to bring witnesses and hire a court reporter or if you can, bring a recording device with you. Most courts won't allow video cams but you can sometimes sneak a voice recorder past security.

Yes, I have read many cases where the Freeman has averted the wrath of the corporation through his quick witt and knowledge of the Law. It's like you guys are Jedi Knights at times, that's the power I see in Freeman Philosophy. There is no dark side to being a Freeman on the Land.

HAHA! Not quite Jedi. Our only 'force' is the power of truth. The truth is that you are the authority until such time as you give it away either willingly or through your silence. If you don't object you are seen to agree. Another maxim of law: Truth dispels fiction. I'm agnostic but the preamble to the Canadian Constitution states: "Canada is a nation founded upon the recognition of the supremacy of God and the Rule of Law". God, being supreme, is at the top of a hierarchy. Who's number two in that hierarchy? Hint: look in the mirror.

:confused:

Tell me about it! There are many essays on the words, 'include', 'includes', 'including'. All BS if you ask me. When a word is definitively described in law they will use the term, "means". Though that doesn't mean that a judge won't disregard your 'interpretation' of the word or statute. They like to play at being gods.

I believe where ever there's Admirality Law at work, this is actually a state of war. Meaning they are at war with the people who they are imposing Admirality Law on. So, if this is the case, then Admirality Law is some type of psychological war machine in it's own right.

Precisely. It's a war of attrition. They've very slowly chipped away at the meaning of words through many avenues of propaganda, most of which are right in front of you. What is the best way to hide something? Put it in the open.

OMG. That is seriously f*^"*d up legislation! Only evil people stoop so low!

Yeah, I love that one too. As Oliver Wendell Holmes (American Supreme Court judge) has said about legalese, "What wonderful magic!"

I believe they come under The Road Traffic Acts, which are Statutes, not Laws, but are backed by the force of Law, if you have contracted with the government to abide by those statues. Your 'Person' is the contract that binds you to their system. There are many ways they will try to link you to your 'person' and the idea is to avoid that at all costs. Thereby removing any obligation to road traffic statutes.

To remove yourself you must rescind your signature from all contracts with them directly. If I were you though I wouldn't rescind your tax number just yet. In Canada, there is a legal and lawful method of filing your return whereby you charge your person for your labour (energy) spent in 'earning' the money for it (the person). http://www.detaxcanada.org/ Your labour is your private property and you've exchanged it at par for money or credit. There is no income as income is defined as a gain or profit. There is no profit on an equitable exchange. What they see is that you are using their fiat currency and there must be a return to the source. Any 'money' you tuck away is like bleeding the economy. They want it all.

As a side note: I'm involved in a group of about 90 people here in Canada who've tendered an offer to the Canada Revenue Agency whereby we will give them 100% of our earnings. We don't want the money. Are we nuts? I don't think so. They can either accept our offer or turn it down but it's in their best interest to accept. If they accept then they'll be paying for our expenses. If they don't accept then according to commercial law they are forbidden from coming back at us later and asking for less than our original offer! Personally, I find the idea brilliant. If one tenders lawful payment and the payment is refused then the debt is discharged, wiped clean.

Glad to be here and to see a serious interest in this subject that affects us all.

Cheers!

p.s. to sign FOR your person (as agent): PER: autograph

[duckingdafta]

As a side note: I'm involved in a group of about 90 people here in Canada who've tendered an offer to the Canada Revenue Agency whereby we will give them 100% of our earnings. We don't want the money. Are we nuts? I don't think so. They can either accept our offer or turn it down but it's in their best interest to accept. If they accept then they'll be paying for our expenses. If they don't accept then according to commercial law they are forbidden from coming back at us later and asking for less than our original offer! Personally, I find the idea brilliant. If one tenders lawful payment and the payment is refused then the debt is discharged, wiped clean.

Glad to be here and to see a serious interest in this subject that affects us all.

Cheers!

p.s. to sign FOR your person (as agent): PER: autograph

That is a genius idea.. I'm going to run that passed a few people I know to see what the effects would be in UK.

[stickwhistler]

Freemen

Security of the Person by Robert Menard new version is now available :)
309 Mb : 1hr 36min.

You know you want to. :D

[john white]

Freemen

Security of the Person by Robert Menard new version is now available :)
309 Mb : 1hr 36min.

You know you want to. :D

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=436798682226252164&ei=VVqySLPjO5KuiwK6i7HzDA&q=Security+of+THE+PERSON+robert+menard

[cruise4]

Went to court today and had a preliminary meeting with a Council tax official. I explained about no money and no benefits etc. and he said he was going to go ahead. I then mentioned 4 corner rule, we are equal, bills of exchange, order numbers etc. and he said OK we won't go ahead today after all and said go and get CT benefit and we'll argue about back dates later. He was even agreeing with me that it's all gangsterism and the Police are Mob enforcers. I have a hunch he knew something about the conspiracy world. Quite a decent bloke for a change.

I decided to do this because...

1. I wasn't really prepared for the legal arguments
2. I hadn't complied with the necessary preliminaries
3. Whilst prepared to go to Jail, the current talk of chipping prisoners is an additional concern over and above the usual
4. It's a fight too early and I can do more out than in

I did talk to everyone in the waiting room, most of whom were CT cases. They now know all about the freeman movement and some were going in that day saying 'are we equal' etc. All were VERY interested in what I had to say and the Court Officials disappeared rapidly as people started to grasp it's all a con trick. They all said they are getting online to check this out.

Not a wasted day at all.

These courts are scared of all this!

[stickwhistler]

Went to court today and had a preliminary meeting with a Council tax official. I explained about no money and no benefits etc. and he said he was going to go ahead. I then mentioned 4 corner rule, we are equal, bills of exchange, order numbers etc. and he said OK we won't go ahead today after all and said go and get CT benefit and we'll argue about back dates later. He was even agreeing with me that it's all gangsterism and the Police are Mob enforcers. I have a hunch he knew something about the conspiracy world. Quite a decent bloke for a change.

I decided to do this because...

1. I wasn't really prepared for the legal arguments
2. I hadn't complied with the necessary preliminaries
3. Whilst prepared to go to Jail, the current talk of chipping prisoners is an additional concern over and above the usual
4. It's a fight too early and I can do more out than in

I did talk to everyone in the waiting room, most of whom were CT cases. They now know all about the freeman movement and some were going in that day saying 'are we equal' etc. All were VERY interested in what I had to say and the Court Officials disappeared rapidly as people started to grasp it's all a con trick. They all said they are getting online to check this out.

Not a wasted day at all.

These courts are scared of all this!

Round of applause for cruise4. http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/owen/council.gif

[cruise4]

Not looking for applause. I just posted for information's sake and it helps to know others are doing a bit. But I don't think you were being sarcastic. I tell you, when everyone is looking at you and taking notice of what you say, you FEEL like a leader... who'd have thought it. :D

[stickwhistler]

Not looking for applause. I just posted for information's sake and it helps to know others are doing a bit. But I don't think you were being sarcastic. I tell you, when everyone is looking at you and taking notice of what you say, you FEEL like a leader... who'd have thought it. :D


I wasn't being sarcastic in the slightest, on the contrary,
congratulations are in order for your result - no prosecution etc - and
showing you have courage and moral fibre in a scary situation.

You posted your experience for the benefit of others,
and that in it itself can be a brave thing to do.

Well done.

[lesactive]

I would call that a win, way to go. It's all about damage control and you did well. Applause is in order.

Keep spreading the news!

[dondaz]

They can either accept our offer or turn it down but it's in their best interest to accept. If they accept then they'll be paying for our expenses.

Expenses for what? Is this a court case you are refering to or some type of arbitration process?

Security of the Person by Robert Menard new version is now available :)
309 Mb : 1hr 36min.

Good find stickwhistler, but did you have to tease us and withold the link:D

Good to see you studying this subject JW. Look forward to tapping your brains soon mate. Gonna lend you my two Bob Manard books, as you saw the other day they are very funny and insightfull.;)

Went to court today and had a preliminary meeting with a Council tax official. I explained about no money and no benefits etc. and he said he was going to go ahead. I then mentioned 4 corner rule, we are equal, bills of exchange, order numbers etc. and he said OK we won't go ahead today after all and said go and get CT benefit and we'll argue about back dates later. He was even agreeing with me that it's all gangsterism and the Police are Mob enforcers. I have a hunch he knew something about the conspiracy world. Quite a decent bloke for a change.

Yes, there are many like that working for the system, some will even give you a few good tips if you pull the right strings.

I did talk to everyone in the waiting room, most of whom were CT cases. They now know all about the freeman movement and some were going in that day saying 'are we equal' etc. All were VERY interested in what I had to say and the Court Officials disappeared rapidly as people started to grasp it's all a con trick. They all said they are getting online to check this out.

Not a wasted day at all.

Brilliant mate. This is what it's about, planting the seeds and people will soon be standing up for themselves. I salute your efforts Cruise.

People are looking for answers more than ever now, this is good news. Here's a typical example of a group of good people who are fighting the drivers licence statutes but lack the information to counter the authorities:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz1kbmDqsyc

There are perhaps millions of good people contesting the system and if they were privy to this information they would be beating the system at their own game.

Here's Charlie Sprinkle, he hasn't had a driving license for over 30 years. This is an amazing little story of Charles Sprinkle, Governer Ronald Regan, Mrs Regan, the police and Common Law. Oh and child kidnapping:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jFRYrJ14jus

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jFRYrJ14jus

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=p45OxqgVS2k

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=p45OxqgVS2k

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eQzSXgbs108

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eQzSXgbs108

[dondaz]

Did you know our Common Law allows us to make up our own courts, complete with a jury of 12. We can prosecute all these decievers in government ourselves, and we can try corrupt judges, businessmen and BANKERS. Here's a few very interesting facts about Common Law:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dVY0FWEiYV0

[dondaz]

Remember folks, we have to study and learn these ways in order to apply them.

[synergy777]

hello bro, hope everything is well.

have you any good links on uk common law, magna carta etc. as i need to learn this stuff.

[dondaz]

hello bro, hope everything is well.

have you any good links on uk common law, magna carta etc. as i need to learn this stuff.

Everything is going ok mate, thanks. Hope it's the same for you:) Good idea syn, I've got just the remedy, I'll get some pdfs I have up and posted tomorrow. Bill of Right, Common Law, all sorts of very usefull info. I'm off to bed now, but I'll get it sorted on the morrow!;)

[synergy777]

nice 1 bruv, i will look forward to the pdf's. cheers. catch you tommorrow then, take care.

[lesactive]

Expenses for what? Is this a court case you are refering to or some type of arbitration process?

Expenses for the necessities and comforts of life as a right in the share of the wealth of Canada. If we give them all the money that we 'earn', we become creditors and no longer wear the shackles of debtor upon whom all charges are laid. By waiving the benefit of using their currency (for which we are taxed) we step outside the game of commerce and close the circuit. The person now accepts all charges -- the person (transmitting utility) is a creation of the state and has no money -- creator/owner pays.

The person was created for us to use for our benefit, they simply neglected to point that out to us and so we assumed to be surety by using the name and signing as if we were it, using it for ID. I believe the English BC's still have the warning on them, do they not? "Not valid for Identification" or something similar? I know I've seen one to that effect.

It's our own fault for not paying attention to the warning. The Birth Certificate cannot identify you, it is a record of the facts so certified, an event, a birth. Your signature is nowhere on it.

It may come to court but we're hoping the truth will out before it gets there. Our group is approaching this whole thing from quite a different angle than NoUI and CoR's. We aren't making any claims. We're simply putting the truth on the table in front of them and telling them to deal with it.

[stickwhistler]

Did you know our Common Law allows us to make up our own courts, complete with a jury of 12. We can prosecute all these decievers in government ourselves, and we can try corrupt judges, businessmen and BANKERS.


I wonder if they'd let us borrow a court.
If the courts are public buildings, and they belong to the people,
as access is a function of ownership, we ought to be able
to use a court .....

But I'll bet the court services won't go for it.
If so it might be inferred that the courts are indeed a private
concern.
Interesting question to ask my lovely MP,
but don't hold your breath for a sensible answer.

Edited to add that the question has been asked, as per below:

I understand that court buildings are public property
Would you be able to ascertain if this is so, or a false understanding?

I have studied the following web site;
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/index.htm
but found nothing about ownership there.

Would you please ask the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs
or the Lord Chancellor for their opinion.

If the courts are public buildings, as access is a function of
ownership, how would a common law court (as opposed to
administrative/civil law) be able to access the buildings and
facilities?

[klinker]

Everything is going ok mate, thanks. Hope it's the same for you:) Good idea syn, I've got just the remedy, I'll get some pdfs I have up and posted tomorrow. Bill of Right, Common Law, all sorts of very usefull info. I'm off to bed now, but I'll get it sorted on the morrow!;)

This would be great. If you can get those up today I can print them off for reading material over the next couple of weeks on me hols.

Cheers.

[grenadene]

I'm so enjoying this thread... it has to be the most important tool to reclaiming back some of our freedoms :)

Thanks for all the great info guys !

[lesactive]

The courthouse in my city has its hours of business posted on the doors. They are no longer 'law' courts; they are commercial administrative courts and they are there to tell you that you broke their rules and must pay. They are publicly funded and privately run by the Law Society of which you are not a member.

You may ask to use their courts and I'm sure you'll get a lot flushed faces and blustering replies but I doubt they'll allow you access in they way you seek. A common law court can be held anywhere suitable for such a proceeding.

If you want to turn what is initially an administrative procedure into a common law procedure in their courts you have to rebut the presumptions made by the agent in the form of an affidavit. List the facts: you are a human and not a person. This is a common law jurisdiction. No one has been harmed..... etc

A negative averment is also a handy tool to use in that regard:

I conditionally accept these charges upon verified proof of claim:

That I am not a free will human being and,

That any contracts between myself and the corporation known as, “The Province of Ontario,” have not expired and,

That Ontario’s Interpretation Act is not used to interpret enactments of the corporation known as, “The Province of Ontario,” from the language known as Legalese into common English and,

That Ontario’s Interpretation Act does not clearly exclude free-will human beings, not acting as legal representatives of a fictional corporation, from being included in the legal definition of the word, “person,” and,

That at any time during the incident in question there was any evidence that I was acting as a legal person as defined by Ontario’s Interpretation Act....

and etc.

They must rebut these point by point or it stands as the truth.

You serve these notices on them before court so that they are aware of your status and you stick with it if you have to go to court. They will try to drag you into their jurisdiction with tricks even after being served these papers. Answering to the name charged is only one way, though the most critical. Responding to 'Sir' or 'Mr' would also do it as would sitting when the judge tells you to sit.

Marc Stevens has some great info on dealing with courts in the states. Different rules but basically the same logic can be applied anywhere.

http://adventuresinlegalland.com/

[liammassey]

Wow, this topic is a real eye-opener isn't it?! Christ, I've always wondered how if the Law was supposed to be applied to man, then why the hell is uit only suit-wearing, rich bastards who know what it's all about!?

Mad. I'll certainly be looking into this a LOT more.

Thanks dondaz and lesactive for your insight!

[dondaz]

Sorry these are a bit late. Here's a few links to various documents that will shed some light on some of the history regarding OUR RIGHTS and FREEDOM, theirs also law dictionaries of relevence:

Magna Carta 1215 - pdf

http://www.natural-person.ca/pdf/Magna_Charta.pdf (http://www.natural-person.ca/pdf/Magna_Charta.pdf)

The Oxford Law Dictionary! - torrent

http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/49640912/law?tab=summary (http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/49640912/law?tab=summary)

Blacks Law Dictionary 1st & 2nd Edition. - torrent:

http://www.mediafire.com/?xjz1mhyd9fb

Ballentine's Law Dictionary 3rd Edition:

http://www.citizenlaw.com/legaldict.htm (http://www.citizenlaw.com/legaldict.htm)


Why Do We Obey Government Laws?

http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/MYBOOK.HTM (http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/MYBOOK.HTM)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights!

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)


International Bill of Human Rights!

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet2Rev.1en.pdf (http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet2Rev.1en.pdf)

Other useful Links, these may apply to different countries:

http://www.natural-person.ca/

http://www.citizenlaw.com/ (http://www.citizenlaw.com/)

Well, I have a few questions I'll ask tomorrow, in the meantime, here's a couple of Case Law as an example of how things work in making it into the Law Books:

ARREST

A peace officer cannot legally make an arrest without a warrant for an offense claimed to have been committed in his presence, under Code, §§ 5099, 5196, which he himself provokes or brings about. State v. Small, 184 Iowa, 882, 169 N. W. 116; Leighton v. Getchell, 169 N.W. 649. SCOTT v. FEILSCHMIDT (191 Iowa, 347) 182 NORTHWESTERN REPORTER

Although the evidence showed that Hinton knew Sims and Myers, and knew that they were deputy sheriffs, it was the duty of Sims to inform him to consider himself under arrest, or by some other language convey to Hinton the idea that he was attempting to arrest him. Instead of doing that, he used the language of a highwayman, "Put up your hands". And, by the way, during these times it is well known that some officers of the law have turned bandits. If it had been shown that Hinton was a desperate and dangerous criminal, a well-known killer, or a would-be killer, Sims might have been justified in proceeding as he did. Gurley v. Tucker (Miss.) 155 So. 189. 'Must every man, innocent or guilty, put up his hands whenever commanded to do so by an officer, whether in the daytime or nighttime, and regardless of the situation and surroundings without being informed by the officer of the reason for the command? We think not. Hinton v. Sims 155 So. 141 (Miss); 158 SOUTHERN REPORTER

:D:D

I have more good info I need to get uploaded to the net, Keep reading folks.:)

[stickwhistler]

Cheers dondaz for the links etc.

The Oxford Law Dictionary.
The 5th edition is on http://www.scribd.com/
you'll have to register to download but it is free,
or free to read if you don't want to register/download it.

It is easier to search for words if you have it on yer hard drive though.

6th edition - play.com £8.99 delivered.

Halsbury’s Law of England, is the 'standard' used in the UK
but costs an arm & both legs to get.
The complete set consists of over 80 volumes :eek:

Anyone know of a friendly online university library?
i.e. you don't have to be a student there to access it :)


Hansard - the parliamentary report can be useful for getting quotes
to use in a discussion.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pahansard.htm

e.g. an official might say blah, blah, blah ( officialese for can't, won't or
couldn't give one mate).
You could then quote Hansard as the latest authority,
and remind them that they are acting disreputably,
and failing to show due diligence and duty of care.
i.e. risking their job by ignoring the latest ruling etc.

The UK Statute Law Database is the official revised edition of the primary legislation
of the UK available online, but it is not fully up to date.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/

The Citizens Advice Bureau files are updated every two weeks,
so you could check there - it means a visit & wait though.

Although a lot of the Freeman stuff is from Canada (UCC & Criminal Code)
there are equivalent acts/statutory instruments in the UK.
Some are the same name e.g. Bills of Exchange Act,
others are hidden in things like;
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Police Reform Act 2002, Local Government Act.
The Civil Procedure Rules, The Criminal Procedure Rules etc


Sometimes there are several dates for one act,
and if they're both on the statute database,
then you need to read them both e.g. Bills of Exchange Act.

Also don't forget Scotland has slightly different law to England & Wales,
so check it if it applies to you.

Happy reading!

[theninja]

Great Thread!!!

You can find more info on UK Common Law here:

http://www.tpuc.org/node/290

[stickwhistler]

Further reading sources for people getting into the mind-set of judges.

http://www.venables.co.uk/caselaw.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldjudgmt.htm

Some of these cases are interesting because they show
how verdict 1 can be overturned or upheld as verdict 2,
and then how that verdict can be overturned or upheld as verdict 3.

e.g.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080730/vanco-1.htm

if you look at the right, near the top you will see a pdf available,
which saves 'saving' html or text pages.

IMHO it also shows how TPTB keep going until they get the result
they require, and not - again IMHO - necessarily a just judgment
i.e. we will try to keep screwing you over until we get our way.

Occasionally there is a win for the little guy though ( which would be you and me),
which is very important for us all e.g.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd061206/barker-1.htm - an planning issue that basically said that an
Environmental Impact Assessment must be carried out for certain types of planning applications
and not just rubber stamped because it suits the planning authority.

[synergy777]

dondaz cheers bro, have downloaded the magna carta, thanks.

[dondaz]

Expenses for the necessities and comforts of life as a right in the share of the wealth of Canada. If we give them all the money that we 'earn', we become creditors and no longer wear the shackles of debtor upon whom all charges are laid. By waiving the benefit of using their currency (for which we are taxed) we step outside the game of commerce and close the circuit. The person now accepts all charges -- the person (transmitting utility) is a creation of the state and has no money -- creator/owner pays.

Right, I see. The more I read this info the more it makes sense.

It's our own fault for not paying attention to the warning. The Birth Certificate cannot identify you, it is a record of the facts so certified, an event, a birth. Your signature is nowhere on it.

Good point. I've actually used my BC as evidence of ID and they accept it without question. The mind boggles!

It may come to court but we're hoping the truth will out before it gets there. Our group is approaching this whole thing from quite a different angle than NoUI and CoR's. We aren't making any claims. We're simply putting the truth on the table in front of them and telling them to deal with it.

Looking forward to seeing the results of this. Personally I think they will go into denial mode. It's like the truth is a virus to them and it is to be avoided at all costs. Usually at this stage they turn violent!:eek:

Good info on setting up Common Law courts.

Marc Stevens has some great info on dealing with courts in the states. Different rules but basically the same logic can be applied anywhere.

http://adventuresinlegalland.com/ (http://adventuresinlegalland.com/)

Yeah, he has some great information on youtube too, check this out folks, he's awesome:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=s-T_R2wZwr4


Further reading sources for people getting into the mind-set of judges.

http://www.venables.co.uk/caselaw.htm (http://www.venables.co.uk/caselaw.htm)

http://www.publications.parliament.u...d/ldjudgmt.htm (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldjudgmt.htm)

Some of these cases are interesting because they show
how verdict 1 can be overturned or upheld as verdict 2,
and then how that verdict can be overturned or upheld as verdict 3.


Yes, it can seem quite mixed up at times but once you start to understand how the syatem works it all becomes clear as daylight. Stick it out folks and you will understand.

Keep the info flowing folks. Anyone have any new info feel free to post it. Nice one!

[Mo0n5tar]

Maritime Admiralty pdf, are you lost at sea? (http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2007/02/125031.pdf)

Based on American system but useful info therein.

[stickwhistler]

http://

video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3217921377956329335&ei=e6TQSNKnGJCsiAK1gpzEAg&q=human+rights

This is a 3 hour 23 minute video explaining how to deconstruct statutes.
Very clearly explained, and very well worth watching,
even if you know the arguments already.

It is another perspective on the freeman issue.
It is presented differently to Robert Menard's style,
but very watchable.

Again based in Canada, but the methods apply in the UK.

481 Mb download, so it'll take a couple of hours
but I repeat it is worth the time to download and watch it.
I'll rate it 10/10 for explaining clearly - in one go - how you
can make this work for you.
Paper and pen might be useful too to jot down little
phrases and time indicator so you can find them again
easily in the video.

This site software is hiding the embedding for some reason,
so copy/paste the link above without the gap into your browser.

Enjoy :D

[boots]

BUMP....



1966 – The Federal Tax Lien Act: The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the
U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code)
Since the declaration of bankruptcy, when our bodies and labour were pledged to pay for it, they stripped
us of our title and rights and replaced these with privileges and benefits. We are now slaves/ chattel because
we have unwittingly entered into adhesion contracts, albeit without full disclosure to the terms and conditions,
thereby making them invalid and fraudulent; however, we are still bound to the terms until we undo the
damage by rebutting the presumption. Statutes of Commerce – the UCC/ PPSA and all connected with it –
Bills of Exchange Act, Conveyance and Law of Property Act, Courts of Justice Act – replaced laws for
natural beings with statutes for fictional entities. But we can not play a fictitious game; we need fictitious
entities to play. So the gov’t created that game-token for us – the Strawman – and they tricked us by making
the name of the Strawman appear to be the name that represents us. This is so we will think that it is we of
whom they speak when they say words like ‘person’, ‘resident’, etc. except that we are not a ‘person’ or a
‘resident’. ‘person’ within the game applies to a fictional, non-existent, corporate, artificial, governmentcreated
entity, which has nothing to do with us other than the name they gave it seems as if it is the name we
use to represent us.
The entity to which the statutes refer and apply is always ‘person’ or ‘persons’. However, we know that
this entity is a government-created fiction and does not exist. The feds/banksters have surreptitiously and
carefully put the name of this corporate fiction into upper case letters to differentiate it from the real, flesh and blood living soul yet also to con us into believing it is us.

Thank you Mary Elizabeth Croft.

[h2pogo]

thanks stikywhistler interesting talk.
abit long still listening.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3217921377956329335&ei=e6TQSNKnGJC%20siAK1gpzEAg&q=human+rights

so far got to the bit about free will.

[foleybhoy]

hi guys,
just wanted to say this thread has been very helpful,
its a subject that has grabbed my attention big-time, i cant read enough about it. cheers for the links and advice,
wont be long till im able to contribute something .

keep it coming,
thinkfree

[tom bombadil]

bump

[h2pogo]

How to serve a notice of intent and what to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ft_Qbx84rw

and or cheq out the following
http://www.tpuc.org

[bones]

hi guys and girls , ide just like to add since i posted last month ive completed my affadavit and sent it to the queen envoking article 61 of the magna carta.

she didnt respond so has accepted it by proxy.

ive drafted the second affadavit and got signed by solicitor thursday confirming it that it is now in effect.

i can leagally withold my taxes and allegiance now...

bones :aka freeman on the land alan of the redgrift family...

[lottie]

hi guys and girls , ide just like to add since i posted last month ive completed my affadavit and sent it to the queen envoking article 61 of the magna carta.

she didnt respond so has accepted it by proxy.

ive drafted the second affadavit and got signed by solicitor thursday confirming it that it is now in effect.

i can leagally withold my taxes and allegiance now...

bones :aka freeman on the land alan of the redgrift family...

Excellent...how does it work now then? do you have a job etc? how'dya go about explaining taxing issues with wages etc? what about driving and insurance?and bank accounts?
:)

[bones]

Excellent...how does it work now then? do you have a job etc? how'dya go about explaining taxing issues with wages etc? what about driving and insurance?and bank accounts?
:)

right !!! im self employed so its easyier for me, techically im just not supporting the queen so im not to a shamed to admit im not fully out of the party just yet.

i have however drafted a nui and cor at this time so after i get it witnessed by 3 solicitors i will be sending it to the relevant depts like hmcr,dvla gordon brown etc!!!

but ive been side tracked by winston shrouts material where i take controll of my strawman and use it for commercial redemption, like bc bonds etc.

so im stuck between a rock and a hard place.

ill just see where the yellow brick road takes me.

regarding insurance etc its a bit complicated as my wife who is not a freeman and she still needs to drive etc. so for this to happen she needs to do what im doing.
but she wont just yet...
threre is no law requiring you or i to pay tax and register you property...
you are just obligated and you are fooled into thinking must is a requirment its not.

is synonomus with may.

deception my friends...

this will be the game im going to play over the next few weeks...

[boots]

hi guys and girls , ide just like to add since i posted last month ive completed my affadavit and sent it to the queen envoking article 61 of the magna carta.

she didnt respond so has accepted it by proxy.

ive drafted the second affadavit and got signed by solicitor thursday confirming it that it is now in effect.

i can leagally withold my taxes and allegiance now...

bones :aka freeman on the land alan of the redgrift family...


Bloody great and positive news bones:).

I'm just getting into the first part, you have done and I haven't come across anyone who has actually told me the step by step process and how it go's.

Is there a public account you operate from as well as a private one???


The public one pays you bill.s ei electricity, rates, car registration?

I have Black's law dictionary and have been told NOT to use any words that the PTB use. Is this true, whats your experience.


.

[boots]

Hi bones.

quote:
but ive been side tracked by winston shrouts material where i take controll of my strawman and use it for commercial redemption, like bc bonds etc.


What happen here, why was is it a distraction?


.

[Mo0n5tar]

Man I decided to put this study on hold, in my current situation it is too much too soon I feel, the Commercial Redemption is a fascinating process!

Gonna keep it in mind for a few years and hopefully in that time many more people will have achieved positive results.

Best Wishes and every success!

[airkraft]

Thanks for posting Bones.

I`m very interested in what you`re doing.

[godspeed]

on the great deception thanks for that vid dondaz some more info to blow the cobwebs away...i always knew i had some kind of birthright and now i know some more...:D

[bones]

well i was all for abandoning my strawman, but winston shrout has showed me that i can use it and use commercial redemption instead.

like accept for value, and using my birth bond as surety.

i have claimed 3 copys of my birth cert and have sent for my EIN number.
employee ident number from america.

together i send i birth cert with my ein to our finance minister using a ucc1 form and he sets up an account for me so i can use my bond account.
the bond is also used to pay off debts like credit cards,mortgages and loans.

look for mary elizebeth crofts free pdf online.

i recommed any one to watch solutions in commerce on google. but its complicated works, i dont know very much yet.this is why ive been sidetracked...

mind blowing!!!

if you want to see my affadavit il post it signed by a solicitor.
but its pretty much the same as john harris affadavit from march 2008.

regarding accounts i havnt changed that part yet, as i need to use cheques cos im self employed.

feel free for more questions...

[boots]

well i was all for abandoning my strawman, but winston shrout has showed me that i can use it and use commercial redemption instead.

like accept for value, and using my birth bond as surety.

i have claimed 3 copys of my birth cert and have sent for my EIN number.
employee ident number from america.

together i send i birth cert with my ein to our finance minister using a ucc1 form and he sets up an account for me so i can use my bond account.
the bond is also used to pay off debts like credit cards,mortgages and loans.

look for mary elizebeth crofts free pdf online.

i recommed any one to watch solutions in commerce on google. but its complicated works, i dont know very much yet.this is why ive been sidetracked...

mind blowing!!!

if you want to see my affadavit il post it signed by a solicitor.
but its pretty much the same as john harris affadavit from march 2008.

regarding accounts i havnt changed that part yet, as i need to use cheques cos im self employed.

feel free for more questions...


Thanks for the reply.

I wish i could use the stuff from Mary Croft but I have been told that it doesn't work in Australia. although Australia is a registered corporation at the US Securities commision. Geezz it gets confusing.

I;ll be thinking of more questions to ask you soon. Thanks for this bones.

.

PS have you seen/heard the interview with Mary Croft on red ice creations. She is brilliant.

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2008/08aug/RICR-080807.php


.

[signalnorth]

Here's what David Icke has to say about Admirality Law, from a newsletter last year. I sorted this with admin before I posted this.



This is an area Icke himself has delved into, hopefully he may be researching the Freeman philosophy and write another newsletter about it!

So does accepting a drivers licence or similar invalidate any chance of ever becoming a freeman of the land? (shit I typed Freemason by mistake their first!)

[lottie]

So does accepting a drivers licence or similar invalidate any chance of ever becoming a freeman of the land? (shit I typed Freemason by mistake their first!)


you'd have to 'give up' your licence if you wanted to be a freeman along with everything- NI number, Tax Code, Passport etc...

[bones]

what do you do when you apply for a licence?

submit, give in too..
application, to plead ,to petition or to beg.
for permission to sumthing completley lawful in common law.

and when you register ya motor, you hand over ownership to the DVLA, and you get user title, and pay an anual tax for using it.

check your v5 you are the keeper not owner, thats why when you dont have tax they can remove it for crush or sell.

it is not a legal requirment to register your car , only record it with the dvla to let em know that its on the road. then claim of right in a notorized letter, telling them its your right to travel on public roads. if they say its a legal requirment then ask them to prove it in a sworn affadavit upon full commercial liability.

they wont reply back!!!

this will be my future event so watch this space...

[friendsinthesky]

In the name of religion, these guys are making anyone associated to the freeman of land laws, to sound like a crazy person.

Kingdom Of Yahweh (http://http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24645550-2702,00.html)

Font Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print November 13, 2008
Article from: The Australian
VICTORIAN police are monitoring a religious cult that refuses to acknowledge Australian laws or the constitution.

Members of the Kingdom of Yahweh, based in Melbourne's northern suburbs, refuse to register their vehicles, obtain driver's licences or register guns.

They even make their own number plates.

[bones]

In the name of religion, these guys are making anyone associated to the freeman of land laws, to sound like a crazy person.

Kingdom Of Yahweh (http://http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24645550-2702,00.html)

wow thanks for that !!! interesting to see that they are taking a notice of whats going on, they have no other way of explaining the movement except to lable it wrong.

[lottie]

In the name of religion, these guys are making anyone associated to the freeman of land laws, to sound like a crazy person.

Kingdom Of Yahweh (http://http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24645550-2702,00.html)

they've gotta be a 'cult' ...the bloody outlaws!! :rolleyes:

[yozhik]

Hi Folks,

So happy I found this forum!!

I've watched Bursting Bubbles, Magnificent Deception, The Illusion, etc etc etc ... and am planning all the next steps ... BUT ... am stuck on where to start.

Let me explain ...

I was born in Australia, issued a New Zealand birth certificate and am a British citizen ... now living in Central Europe ... so I genuinely do not know where to start.

From whom or where can I start my claims and to whom do I send my notices? :confused:

[bones]

Hi Folks,

So happy I found this forum!!

I've watched Bursting Bubbles, Magnificent Deception, The Illusion, etc etc etc ... and am planning all the next steps ... BUT ... am stuck on where to start.

Let me explain ...

I was born in Australia, issued a New Zealand birth certificate and am a British citizen ... now living in Central Europe ... so I genuinely do not know where to start.

From whom or where can I start my claims and to whom do I send my notices? :confused:


go to thinkfreeforums.org and ask there, as im not sure . or thinkfree.ca.

[captaincaper]

WOW 20 pages this is really good stuff I think im understanding (some) of it :)

A couple of questions if I may, I sort of understand whats to gain but If I became a freeman what would I loose (UK) rights to doctor/hospitals? All state benefits I presume, suppose I have a wife and kids where would they stand if I were to become a freeman? Would they also loose entitlement to the above, I dont give a shit about me I just want to stick it to tptb but not at their expense.

The birth certificate thing is intresting, I was thinking as it doesnt contain my signature and I was a baby when I was registered thus could never agree/give my consent should it not be void anyway?

Hope some of the educated can provide me with some answers :)

Keep up the good work, I will be going back to reasearching now :)

[stickwhistler]

WOW 20 pages this is really good stuff I think im understanding (some) of it :)

A couple of questions if I may, I sort of understand whats to gain but If I became a freeman what would I loose (UK) rights to doctor/hospitals? All state benefits I presume, suppose I have a wife and kids where would they stand if I were to become a freeman? Would they also loose entitlement to the above, I dont give a shit about me I just want to stick it to tptb but not at their expense.

The birth certificate thing is intresting, I was thinking as it doesnt contain my signature and I was a baby when I was registered thus could never agree/give my consent should it not be void anyway?

Hope some of the educated can provide me with some answers :)

Keep up the good work, I will be going back to reasearching now :)

You will not lose the right to medical treatment under the NHS
e.g. doctors, casualty for injury, dental work (although you will have to pay the NHS fees if applicable) etc.

The Birth Cert' is an exception to the hearsay rules of evidence
i.e. it is accepted (in the UK) that you were born at the time/date/place
on the certificate, even though under other circumstances, this would not be acceptable to e.g. the courts.

If you go down the Freeman route, it should not affect anything to do with your wife and children.
There are precedents for this in Uk law i.e. your wife cannot be made to pay for your errors or transgressions.
If you have already paid e.g. Nat' Ins, then you should be entitled to
the benefits in regard to that payment i.e. pension rights.
You would not of course be entitled to full pension rights unless
you made an extra payment (as some women are invited to do)
because of a gap between claiming child benefit which accrues pension credits,
and working after the kids have gone to school to contribute via Nat' Ins payments.
Personally I am not worried about the full pension thing
because when I get to retirement age, things will be different to today,
and I'll worry about it when/if I get there.

[captaincaper]

Personally I am not worried about the full pension thing
because when I get to retirement age, things will be different to today,
and I'll worry about it when/if I get there.

Just what I was thinking :)

Thanks for your swift reply I feel I will be becoming active in the next 20 pages of this thread....:)

Back to the reading.......

[stickwhistler]

The below is a video recorded by UKIP,
however ...

Whatever your politics, this is a video worth downloading and watching.
It is not about UKIP!
It is the most detailed history of the UK constitution I have seen,
even surpassing Mr Albert Burgess's videos.
There are photographs of historical documents,
and if you listen the source of these documents is mentioned,
so if inclined you could get copies yourselves.
The documents are deconstructed into plain English,
so the arguments are very easy to follow.

Listen to where statutory instruments are subservient
to the Bill Of Rights, and why TPTB use them to con us.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5870448176654937710&ei=0BscSYSqJ6Ky2gLgtMjyBg&q=Magna+Carta

[equinox]

Nice one Dondaz! I will read through what everyonehas been posting later, but i did have a look at the thinkfree site and watched the first film, this is all very interesting, i'll have to find out if i can pay off my overdraft with my birth certificate! sounds too good to be true, but who knows eh?

I will definitely look much deeper into this.

[malvern]

"The Freeman on the land "does need your time to understand, but it is time well spent ...


good for you bones......... been busy sending your letter to PHILADELPHIA
The next Letter to Henry Paulson :D



Freedom is the grandchildren We are the caretakers

[h2pogo]

you'd have to 'give up' your licence if you wanted to be a freeman along with everything- NI number, Tax Code, Passport etc...

why would a freeman have to give up these things?
surely a UK freeman invoking law full rebellion from magnacarta would be free to do what he wants.
would one also have to give up tax credits and housing benefit even if illegal unavoidable taxes are greater than the benefits?

[vienna]

this is probably one of the most important threads on this forum

here's some more info to bump this to the 1st page


There are two Crowns operant in England, one being Queen Elizabeth II. Although extremely wealthy, the Queen functions largely in a ceremonial capacity and serves to deflect attention away from the other Crown, who issues her marching orders through their control of the English Parliament. This other Crown is comprised of a committee of 12 banks headed by the Bank of England (House of Rothschild).

They rule the world from the 677-acre, independent sovereign state known as The City of London, or simply 'The City.' The City is not a part of England, just as Washington is not a part of the USA.

The City is referred to as the wealthiest square mile on earth and is presided over by a Lord Mayor who is appointed annually. When the Queen wishes to conduct business within the City, she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple (Templar) Bar where she requests permission to enter this private, sovereign state. She then proceeds into the City walking several paces behind the Mayor. Her entourage may not be clothed in anything other than service uniforms.

In the nineteenth century, 90% of the world's trade was carried by British ships controlled by the Crown. The other 10% of ships had to pay commissions to the Crown simply for the privilege of using the world's oceans.
The Crown reaped billions in profits while operating under the protection of the British armed forces. This was not British commerce or British wealth, but the Crown's commerce and the Crown's wealth. As of 1850, author Frederick Morton estimated the Rothschild fortune to be in excess of $10 billion. Today, the bonded


The aforementioned Temple Bar is the juristic arm of the Crown and holds an
exclusive monopoly on global legal fraud through their Bar Association franchises. The Temple Bar is comprised of four Inns of Court. They are; the Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn. The entry point to these closed secret societies is only to be found when one is called to their Bar. The Bar attorneys in the United States owe their allegiance and pledge their oaths to the Crown. All Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association located at the Inns of Court of the Crown Temple.

The Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license that bleeds Canada and Great Britain white, while the Middle Temple has license to steal from America. To have the Declaration of Independence recognized internationally, Middle Templar King George III agreed in the Treaty of Paris of 1783 to establish the legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, referred to internally as the Crown Temple States (Colonies). States spelled with a capital letter 'S,' denotes a legal entity of the Crown.
At least five Templar Bar Attorneys under solemn oath to the Crown, signed the American Declaration of Independence. This means that both parties were agents of the Crown. There is no lawful effect when a party signs as both the first and second parties. The Declaration was simply an internal memo circulating among private members of the Crown. Most Americans believe that they own their own land, but they have merely purchased real estate by contract. Upon fulfillment of the contract, control of the land is transferred by Warranty Deed. The Warranty Deed is only a
'color of title.' Color of Title is a semblance or appearance of title, but not title in fact or in law. The Warranty Deed cannot stand against the Land Patent.

The Crown was granted Land Patents in North America by the King of England.
Colonials rebelled at the usurious Crown taxes, and thus the Declaration of
Independence was created to pacify the populace.

Another method used to hoodwink natural persons is enfranchisement. Those cards in your wallet bearing your name spelled in all capital letters means that you have been enfranchised and have the status of a corporation. A 'juristic personality' has an equity relationship with the Crown.

These invisible contracts include: birth certificates, citizenship records, employmentagreements, driver's licenses and bank accounts. It is perhaps helpful to note herethat contracts do not now, nor have they ever had to be stated in writing in order tobe enforceable by American judges. If it is written down, it is merely a writtenstatement of the contract.

Tax protestors and (the coming) draft resistors trying to renounce the parts of these contracts that they now disagree with will not profit by resorting to tort law(fairness) arguments as justification. Judges will reject these lines of defense as they have no bearing on contract law jurisprudence. Tort law governs grievances where no contract law is in effect.

These private agreements/contracts that bind us will always overrule the broad general clauses of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (the Constitution being essentially a renamed enactment of English common law). The Bill of Rights is viewed by the Crown as a 'bill of benefits,' conferred on us by them in anticipation of reciprocity (taxes). Protestors and resistors will also lose their cases by boasting of citizenship status. Citizenship is another equity agreement that we have with the Crown. And this is the very juristic contract that Federal judges will use to incarcerate them. In the words of former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, "Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements." The balance of Title 42, section 1981 of the Civil Rights Code states, ".citizens shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind" What we view as citizenship, the Crown views as a juristic enrichment instrumentality.

It also should be borne in mind that even cursory circulation or
commercial use of Federal Reserve Notes effects an attachment of liability for the payment of the Crown's debt to the FED. This is measured by your taxable income. And to facilitate future asset-stripping, the end of the 14th amendment includes a state of debt hypothecation of the United States, wherein all enfranchised persons (that's you) can be held personally liable for the Crown's debt. The Crown views our participation in these contracts of commercial equity as being voluntary and that any gain accrued is taxable, as the gain wouldn't have been possible were it not for the Crown. They view the system of interstate banks as their own property. Any profit or gain experienced by anyone with a bank account (or loan, mortgage or credit card) carries with it - as an operation of law - the identical
same full force and effect as if the Crown had created the gain.
Bank accounts fall outside the umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection because a commercial contract is in effect and the Bill of Rights cannot be held to interfere with the execution of commercial contracts. The Crown also views bank account records as their own private property, pursuant to the bank contract that each of us signed and that none of us ever read.

The rare individual who actually reads the bank contract will find that they agreed to be bound by Title 26 and under section 7202 agreed not to disseminate any fraudulent tax advice. This written contract with the Crown also acknowledges that bank notes are taxable instruments of commerce.
When we initially opened a bank account, another juristic personality was created. It is this personality (income and assets) that IRS agents are excising back to the Crown through taxation.

A lot of ink is being spilled currently over Social Security. Possession of a Social Security Number is known in the Crown's lex as 'conclusive evidence' of our having accepted federal commercial benefits. This is another example of an equity relationship with the Crown. Presenting one's Social Security Number to an employer seals our status as taxpayers, and gives rise to liability for a reciprocal quid pro quo payment of taxes to the Crown.

Through the Social Security Number we are accepting future retirement endowment benefits. Social Security is a strange animal. If you die, your spouse gets nothing, but rather, what would have gone to you is divided (forfeited) among other premium payers who haven't died yet.

But the Crown views failure to reciprocate in any of these equity attachments as an act of defilement and will proceed against us with all due prejudice. For a person to escape the tentacles of the Crown octopus, a thoroughgoing study of American jurisprudence is required. One would have to be deemed a 'stranger to the public trust,' forfeit all enfranchisement benefits and close all bank accounts, among other things.

[signalnorth]

Just been listening to Mary Croft on Red Ice, she talks about Birth Bonds (as does the Canadian guy who's name I think is Menard 'Bursting Bubbles of deception' etc)

Has anyone done any investigation into this as regards the situation in the UK?
Some people on this forum seem very well informed about the whole freeman on the land situation and as this is a branch off it so to speak, I wondered if they had come across it and how it might apply to us in the UK.

[apekteina lordosis]

i read the first few pages of this thread and i can see how important learning about this stuff is. however right the now i am so damn angry that i have to put days/weeks/months/years worth of effort into it. we shouldn't have been put in this position in the first place. nuff said.

[lesactive]

Thought you folks might like to see the Mission Statement that the group of 'givers' that I'm involved with agreed to before going down this path of redemption.

Mission Statement, subject to amendment.
Vic Beck
June 20, 2007

We are autonomous men and women who are recipient/bearers of a birth certificate, not of the class or status of the person(s) nor do any or all recognize any name registered as if that name identifies one or all of us, nor is one or all of us a name. We are with simple minds.

We recognize that it is not our will that birth events shall be registered and that a birth certificate is required for us to interface with business, government, CANADA and PROVINCES. We have come to recognize a birth certificate as a trap. We know from experience that we can be arrested for failing to identify ourselves with government identification or name, and that if we do it will be used against us more often than not to get something from us, often under threat and intimidation. Damned if we have one and damned if we do not, no apparent neutral ground.

We have heard judges, justices of the peace, crown attorneys, lawyers, government agents, and others, say that a name has nothing to do with a matter before the court or at all for that matter. We recognize that if a name is not entered onto an instrument evidencing a debt or other obligation that the instrument would be of no value and quashed; thus as it is at the time of this writing, we recognize that it is not in our best interest that births/names are registered and attached to the human body since it is government, CANADA, PROVINCES, corporations, banks, those in the know and that issue only debt (corporate bodies) that benefit directly or indirectly from our use of a birth certificate as a required identifier.

Based on the information we were given or other wise obtained from third parties that should or ought to know the truth and on an awakening conscience, we recognize the following to be an accurate account.

We recognize that the people have not been fairly compensated for the fruits of our labour (production) that equates into the assets/property/goods and services for sale and that back government issued debt (T-bills, bonds, etc). We recognize that a birth certificate is not evidence of the identity of the recipient/bearer, that the bearers name is not on it, and that the same identification is used to establish social insurance and other accounts in the same name (registered legal name/personality) the promise to pay employment income is paid to. And if the people have been paid directly it was with a promise to pay (evidence of debt) which we recognize as meaning the obligation to the people has not been fulfilled.

cont....

[lesactive]

Title in said production has not passed due the non payment, compounded by the fact that what is circulated and accepted as money (legal tender) is nothing more than a promise to pay and not payment.

Either way, we recognize that the people hold a claim here. It is our will and desire in recognition of the fact that the governments, CANADA, PROVINCES, are insolvent, that same issue only debt, that the people (recipient of birth certificate) service said debt, are the source of the production (goods and services/collateral) backing that and other debt, and that CANADA is our ship (estate) in which we birth certificate recipients have an interest, to give over the value of our claim (interest/equity) unconditionally in order to effect release of all affected parties of any or all outstanding debts and related burdens.

We recognize that we do not own anything while here on earth but our interests, health, equitable, liberty, sovereignty, uses, life, free will, treat others as we like to be treated, etc. We also recognize every man woman and child as having an equal share/interest in the assets in CANADA, our land, and in the prosperity of CANADA, the PROVINCES, and other corporations from which people (our greatest asset) and nature reap the same.

We know we can pledge our interest (equity/estate) we have in the name appearing on the birth certificate to a bank for a loan in order to facilitate the purchaser (same name) but would rather give it freely where it serves the greater good. Note what the Queen did when she took reign as reported by the Monarchist League of Canada. "$1.40 is the cost per head of the Monarchy to residents of the United Kingdom, in return for which the Queen gives back the equivalent of $6.69 to each subject in revenue from the Crown Estate which the Queen surrendered to the Treasury at the beginning of her Reign".

It is our will and desire to do the same as the Queen or that which would bring about similar results. We recognize it as the only way we can help our country (estate) and the people, shy of continuing as a source of revenue, aiding and abetting in the sinking of CANADA due the accumulation of debt, party to a business plan (not our purpose), or dying for the benefit of same.

We know for absolute certain that not one of us certified or registered any information that is alleged to have something to do with the birth of our body.

cont...

[lesactive]

We recognize the fruits of our labour (production) as our birth right and that no man or woman is required to pay for such rights but by the payment already made by way of sweat equity (labour so invested). We recognize something for nothing as unjust enrichment and/or theft. We recognize that, governments, CANADA, the PROVINCES, Bank of Canada, and any corporation, are incapable of paying for the aforementioned production/collateral or claim with substance but with more promise to pay, therefore: we will settle for unencumbered/untaxed use (peaceful possession and enjoyment) of the fruits of our production (sweat equity) and of our land as our home and the necessary fruits of it as payment (settlement).

Remember the song we sang in school. This land is your land, this land is my land, this land is our land. No mention of a thing called crown land, however, that is not to suggest that the crown does not have and is not entitled to have an interest in our land.

We exist on this planet in a body that has necessities of life and did enter this world without legal permit with the birth right to life, liberty, use of our land, mother earth, nature, water, air, property, labour, ("interests"), and the fruits/uses of same without permit and/or participation in commercial activity (buying and selling).

We believe that if our birth rights or interests are trespassed upon that the trespasser may subject him herself to a charge of attempted murder or other consequences.

Tendered for us, this calendar date June 20th, 2007, in good clear conscience, with love, in the pursuit of oneness, to the one(s) with the power and authority and conscience to cause to be done what any reasonable man or woman of conscience is likely to should the knowledge of the aforementioned circumstances be delivered to him or her what is happening to his or her family.

CANADA - the corporation
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000230098&owner=include&count=40

ONTARIO PROVINCE OF - the corporation
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000074615&owner=include&count=40

What a judge quoted with respect to registration of birth and birth certificates

C. Birth certificates
28. Registration of births is governed by the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 ("the 1953 Act"). Section 1(1) of that Act requires that the birth of every child be registered by the Registrar of Births and Deaths for the area in which the child is born. An entry is regarded as a record of the facts at the time of birth. A birth certificate accordingly constitutes a document revealing not current identity but historical facts.
31. The Government point out that the use of a birth certificate for identification purposes is discouraged by the Registrar General, and for a number of years birth certificates have contained a warning that they are not evidence of the identity of the person presenting it . However, it is a matter for individuals whether to follow this recommendation.

We recognize that we in Canada did not receive the luxury of such a warning.

If you would like to share in the cost of sharing this information freely, to be added to our e mailing list, or to arrange a speaking engagement, send an e-mail indicating such to bb@trytel.net. All is free to copy and give away provided it is given freely. Not for commercial use or purposes without consent in writing. Nothing contained herein or said on the accompanying CD is meant as any form of advice. It is deemed that you have a mind and that you know how to use it; be responsible.

Cheers!

[oiram]

How to get out of the matrix
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=615152&postcount=23
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42361

[john white]

I still havnt heard a soud argument why as a freeman i couldnt claim benefits if i am still paying taxes which are unavoidable.
It is the one thing that put most people off being a freeman as most people are on benefits of some sort.

One potential option that I happen to know is being explored is setting up a bond connected to your NAME bond that the NAME bond pays out to for purposes of "maintenance of the human"

In otherword's, you pay yourself "benefits" from the income of your NAME bond

I'm not saying that has proven to be workable, but I know its being worked on

[masterreptileguy]

This is Britains first Freeman on the Land to cross paths with the police that's ever been caught on film. A Freeman is filming a peacful protest against the new world order in London. This gent refuses to give his name to two police officers and they try to pull the new SOCPA (Serious Organised Criminal Police Act), designed for gangsters and terrorists. Many people have already been falsely arrested and convicted under these statutes, when they have done no wrong.

They take these laws very seriously, untill they come across a Freeman on the Land. The first 4 mins is the relevent info:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zG26qiK4-RI

Being a Freeman on the Land is power, from what I have seen from truthers looking for answers to defeat the ptb and the nwo, this is the most effective way to do it.

The power of the Freeman and Common Law is fucking awesome. Learn this knowledge and you will become much more powerful than the government and their elite controllers.

For more info visit www.thinkfree.ca (http://www.thinkfree.ca) they also have a top troll free forum to answer all your questions.

Visit my Freeman on The Land channel for all the latest video information:

www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel (http://www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel)

Come on folks, get the questions flowing.

You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.


Fawwwwcking tiiight to see this, mate. I have one on my youtube favorites from the states. A lot of similar things going on in it. I can't find it now I'll send it when I do.

[malvern]

Right the "Bond" or off set account is set up in your STRAWMAN name at birth. This is your public account that deals with EVERYTHING to do with the public you/strawman ie fines, rego, fees and court appearances that cost you "money". It is worth about 1 billion dollars you cannot draw on it for things like living expenses. Those thing ie living expenses are what you PRIVATE account deals with.


living expenses can be put in the public ... ie detb on a credit card .... also wondering if the human could bill the person for the care the person the human has undertaken..... also ,could, say your family bill you for the improved protection that they now fall under ..... AFV the comman law family bill for improving education, health, transport and security.....and as for child care ...what is the bill for looking after one of the queens children? It is your DUTY to do your best for the family is this not public .......

Some times it seems that public is private and private public ....



freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[malvern]

http://www.prosperityuk.com Read it,resent it,reform it.



this seems to be looking at the same problem but from a more mainstream view ...... it's info is correct but noware is it stating take back control of your bond as the answer....... as the system we are in the debt is repaid by the government off setting the paperwork , does not the same happen with the bond ?




freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[tien an]

brilliant tread dondaz, i've been researching this for the last couple of nights and i think i know the concept, one good thing if people are getting caught up in the language, if you type into google legal define "xxxxxxx" it will bring back the legal definetion, also dondaz do you know if this applys to ireland as well

Hi seanie, I stumbled across this, which may be a good starting point for you... http://www.bailii.org/

All the best.

[tien an]

http://

video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3217921377956329335&ei=e6TQSNKnGJCsiAK1gpzEAg&q=human+rights
Enjoy :D
Hi there.

Could you explain how to download this please?

Many thanks in advance.

[signalnorth]

So just wondering , if I was to take the freeman route in the UK , would I still be able to operate a bank account in my new name or is all that side of commerce closed off to me once I become a freeman of the land?

By the way google Vic Beck interview , for info re whats going on in Canda in this whole area

[signalnorth]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3217921377956329335&ei=e6TQSNKnGJC%20siAK1gpzEAg&q=human+rights

This video is great. Again Canadian, BUT, the point he makes about the alternative meaning of words in statutes is compleatly releveant to us in the Uk and anywhere else come to that.. Watch only from about 1.25 if you wnat to see that part. Its' amazing, it's gobsmacking and it's a tool I am sure for US to start to use against TPTB. We've just been ignorant...but Boy are we all just about to wake up!

[ag3nt5mith]

http://herebegames.com/StarGateWarsNew/viewtopic.php?f=167&t=128083

There is a thread discussing the freeman in the link.

I found it by accident which was a lucky thing.

There is a Notice of understanding and intent and a claim of right, which as far as I know is hard to find as it applies to the UK. Lots of other links and stuff for you to go over.

Also I had an idea about getting this information to go viral:-

http://paypalsucks.com/forums/

Lets start a freeman topic on there, I'm sure that the 1000s of anger paypal customers would love to know the information on the power of the Freeman-on-the-Land in binding these corporate bastards.

Food for thought, this topic needs to be pushed more as it offers us a peaceful remedy, on mass it would change everything for the better.

Namaste.

[tien an]

Dear all,

I'd first of all like to thank Stickwhistler and Dondaz (in particular) for their contributions not only to this thread but to my 'enlightenment' as far as this subject is concerned. I spent the best part of 10 hours (last night) reading the thread from start to finish (and following 95% of the links) and don't consider a minute of it wasted.

Remind me to buy both of you a beer if we ever meet up!

This is without doubt the most important thread on the site and I'd like to ask the moderators (even though I haven't been here long) to give the thread the prominence it deserves...preferrably with a link from the homepage!

I feel that the last few pages of the thread have degenerated...not that the points made are not valid, they are, but they are hair-splitting and largely irrelevant in face of the following:

Has it occurred to anyone that
a) Should the economy (and the £) collapse completely and leave us without the means to feed ourselves and our families, becoming a Freeman on the Land (whether officially or not) may well be necessary to survive and indeed get along with our neighbours?
b) Becoming a Freeman on the Land (en masse) could well become a movement that precedes and leads to total chaos and anarchy?

Elizabeth Mary: Croft quotes from the Mayan Calendar that 2008 will be the year of the "end of manufactured lack".
Whether what is being referred to is the lack of either food or money doesn't really matter - the one will beget the other.
The scenes playing in my imagination are far from paradise, I can tell you and I therefore ask all that are interested in this 'movement' (which it seems to be fast turning into), to think long and hard about the ramifications of becoming a FOTL.

If you become one too soon, you may well be blamed (and persecuted) for having instigated anarchy/chaos. It may also be detrimental to your well-being if you give up your job/benefits too soon...for obvious reasons.

If you leave it too late, you may not be in time to have established your behaviour and be sufficiently versed in the necessary terminology and ever-ready answers (sorry - questions) for the various agents of the Crown that will no doubt be on the streets in such times.

Being a FOTL may turn out to be either the cause or the result of the downfall of the Government, the economy...the situation at hand.

I for one will be prepared to make the move either just before or just after 'IT' happens.
(I'm having to get my skates on; there's quite a lot to get through).

I urge you to consider the above carefully.

Please pick holes in my logic.
Without resorting to personal insults, rip my hypothesis to shreds.
Prove me wrong.

[lesactive]

[QUOTE=tien an;623508]
Has it occurred to anyone that
a) Should the economy (and the £) collapse completely and leave us without the means to feed ourselves and our families, becoming a Freeman on the Land (whether officially or not) may well be necessary to survive and indeed get along with our neighbours?

Indeed, responsibility makes for good neighbours.

b) Becoming a Freeman on the Land (en masse) could well become a movement that precedes and leads to total chaos and anarchy?

I seriously doubt that would ever happen. The most important elements of this whole philosophy are honour and personal responsibility for yourself and the well being of others. You cannot pull this off if you seen to be acting dishonourably.

I would estimate a 5 to 10% freeman rate AT BEST. More likely 3%. The other 90 to 95% being quite content in their 'benefits' glaze over at the thought of not doing what they're told. I've been at this for a few years and have noticed that many people just don't care or have the time or will to follow up on what even they agree seems true.

The scenes playing in my imagination are far from paradise, I can tell you and I therefore ask all that are interested in this 'movement' (which it seems to be fast turning into), to think long and hard about the ramifications of becoming a FOTL.

If you become one too soon, you may well be blamed (and persecuted) for having instigated anarchy/chaos.

Sage advice, there is much to think about, much to study. You certainly don't want to risk losing your house, having power cut off or being arrested because you made an improper assumption.... and all those things and worse have happened. This is serious and underlies the whole pretense of the 'movement', namely: an awakening consciousness to the true nature of the game and how to get out of it if it's best for you. Know thyself.


Being a FOTL may turn out to be either the cause or the result of the downfall of the Government, the economy...the situation at hand.

Nah, if done right it could actually benefit the economy. As it is now, every thing that is in my possession that is in the legal name on the birth certificate I have is owned by the gov't. I've pledged its equitable asset value to them to help offset the public debt but I retain use of it.

This shouldn't be approached out of anger or fear but out of a sense of love, giving and a true desire to bring about a better form of society. As cheezy as it sounds it's the truth. If you're approaching this in a selfish or vexatious manner it just won't work.

I for one will be prepared to make the move either just before or just after 'IT' happens.
(I'm having to get my skates on; there's quite a lot to get through).

Will you still have the chance when 'IT' happens?

I urge you to consider the above carefully.

Good post.

[stickwhistler]

This is from a satirical posting, however the words do ring true with regard of TPTB view of the people of this world.

"It is after all only natural that we should be rulers of your lives and that you give us half your money so we can determine how you may spend the remainder.
It is only natural that the words we claim are your laws can only be created and interpreted by us and that we can use those words to throw you in jail
for refusing to obey us and follow our orders."

Time to break our chains!

[ban freekmasons]

brilliant thread and a wake up call for the sheeple

[boots]

A Suggestion to say in court when your a defendant.

Magistrate: Mr (Name)

You: Sir, I humbly wish to plead guilty to the facts. (never say charge)(This may be sufficient if not continue)

I wish to apologies for any dishonours cause by me as a result of this matter and i wish to tender payment in order to keep all parties commercially whole, but I have no money, so I tender my exemption and authorize the court to do what ever it needs to do to settle and close this matter with prejudice.

I all so require a full accounting of all the bonds in this particular matter.

(What this says is you want the bonds so you can settle and close the bonds once in your possession, but they will do it for you.)

Should the magistrate ask any questions at this point it is only a TEST to see if you really know who you are if you testify then you will slip back as debtor/slave but if you answer an *averment you will show you are truly the creditor and pass the test. So answer.

Sir, I am happy to answer your question that Blah Blah Blah as long as you can show that it would not be giving me any disability to testify and that you are not now testing me of my standing as a FREEMAN (on the land) and that your intent is not to test nor to injure me by attempting to possibly create a controversy where none exist.

You may also say....as long as you can show I haven't already shown my intent to the court to honourable settle and close this matter and give permission to off set the debt and zero the account.


* A positive declaration or affirmation of fact.


.

[tracker]

this thread is aursome .

brilliant .

maybe we should all brush up on these laws after all .
even though its full of shite , it is their shite that runs the masses .

if many of us here brushed up on these laws it could make us more stronger .

after all , we have to learn the nature of the beast to know it , and




how to beet it .

[angelthecat]

Ive read a lot about the freeman movement, and seen presentations from both Robert-Arthur Manard and Wiston Shrout. it all seems logical and enlightening but I do think that they are missing one little concept that is eluding everybody. That is that the common man can change the laws that he finds offensive to civil liberties, The truth is a jury has the power to overturn a law. this is certainly not explained when a Judge is summing up but quite the opposite when he informs a misguided jury that they must follow the letter of the law. (in itself it is a criminal offense to misguide a jury). Educate 1 in 48 and a quarter of all trials will be informed


http://www.signofjonah.co.uk/build/lessons/new/jury_ed.htm[/URL]

people cannot enforce rules on their creator, so how can government enforce rules on their creators(THE PEOPLE)

[stickwhistler]

people cannot enforce rules on their creator, so how can government enforce rules on their creators(THE PEOPLE)


Greed. Ignorance. Selfishness.

Armed with unthinking, mind controlled,
uniformed policy enforcement thugs carrying tasers,
batons and size 10 boots, but most importantly
an egotistic belief that they are further up the rungs of the ladder
to the Great Architect of the Universe!

[signalnorth]

The words of the society of Admiralty jurisdiction and the bankers have been twisted, so that words in every day use do not have the meaning you or I believe them to have.
The cancer has been creeping for centuries; the plot has been cynical and evil in intent. It is entrapment of the highest order.

Who would have guessed that "driver" and "passenger" were words that would ensnare us into a world of commerce and adjoin us to a fictitious entity, for the sole purpose of removing our human, God given rights?

This is the evil and dangerous game we play in. As most of the information has warned; you must know who you are before attempting to play them at their game. Know who you are and what the words mean in their language. They will test you, try to trap you, lull you into a false sense of security; waiting for one unintentional slip that will catapult you into their world.

Simple questions like; "do you understand", take on a completely different meaning. The question actually means; "do you stand under". Do you comply? Do you surrender to the admiralty jurisdiction?
.

The crux of it all thinks I

[sean]

Hi everyone,

I've tided up this thread and split it into two.

Please stay on topic, and keep this thread strictly to the original posters subject matter of becoming a Freeman on the Land.

The other version of this thread is here: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43771

(Please go there if you wish to debate the merits of the Freeman movement or disagree with it.)

This thread is for people to share ideas and information.

Thank you.

[boots]

I did post this before but here it is again.

Sorry if you have already read it.


When or if you do find yourself in court it is easy to stand your ground and keep, to the fact that YOU are a private person.

Do not use words such as Person, citizen or even people.

Stick to the fact that you are a man or women, and if the judge try's to trap you. Say, and this is very important. That you do not COMPREHEND. Do not use the word UNDERSTAND because that is a trap to make you stand under there Authority. Stand your ground and be firm in the fact that you are a Man/women given life by the CREATOR.


This is the most basic fact when it comes to being a freeman.



If you dont have this Mind set that you are the creditor NOT the debtor. Then you can easily fall down.

[boots]

Never use the word person in any context,


It is a trap.


.

[boots]

We are talking about going to court as adults never get into an arguement with a judge. This is dishonour and is frowned upon in court.
__________________

[boots]

Never make a claim when going to court because you are putting a stake into the ground which you must defend. Haha let THEM make a claim which they have to defend.

Be a Freeman as you have all ready done by sending to the relevant authorities. Affidavits of service, Affidavit of understanding and intent, Affidavit of constructive Notice of Child of God status and Affidavit of claim of right.

All these documents and wording in these documents is what THEY comprehend The will not answer to them because they cannot and would perjure themselves. Ha Ha Ha. by there silence they have given consent.



.

[boots]

I am NOT a Christian but I honour those that are.

It is a BASIC fact that the court system uses the King James Bible as a reference to it's laws and there is some intelligent things in the Bible.

All Judges have sworn an Oath to the Queen, and at her coronation she said

" The KJB is the greatest book the world affords"

This something else that I have learnt is very important to the Authorities.

In the public ALL take an oath- to the queen and Bible. Who do WE serve the authorities or the CREATOR. You cannot serve 2 masters.



We stand as Freeman and abide by common morals. Not to injure or take liberty of anyone.


.

[boots]

Another point which strikes a cord with me is.


Get them to prove that you are NOT the freeman called (insert name here).


HAHA They cant. Stick to your guns, so to speak THEY will try every trick in the book to bring you back over to the PUBLIC side.


When you were born what did your parents first say. "It's a boy/girl".

I doubt they would have said, Oh it's John Andrew Doe and he is a boy Phiff, not likely.


.

[yozhik]

Re: going to court

I remember seeing on one of the videos ... I cannot remember which one ... but there was some interesting advice.

When asked to swear on the Bible (take your oath), don't give it back; keep it.
If they then refer to a Law, ask them to show you the Law and gesture to the Bible you are holding; the "rule book" on which the oath was taken.

It sounds perfectly logical.

[boots]

Re: going to court

I remember seeing on one of the videos ... I cannot remember which one ... but there was some interesting advice.

When asked to swear on the Bible (take your oath), don't give it back; keep it.
If they then refer to a Law, ask them to show you the Law and gesture to the Bible you are holding; the "rule book" on which the oath was taken.

It sounds perfectly logical.

Oh I wouldn't do that. It actually wouldn't be necessary as you should have your own *sigh* KJB.

That would actually piss the judge off and then he would TEST you. Not a good option.

There is some good advise that can be used from the KJB... 1 Samual 8 "If you dont chose the creator then you chose the alternative, a foreign king", and something in 1 samuals 8 refers to this???


So my comprehension of this is that being Freeman we only "serve" the creator not bloody authorities statute or other men.


.

[yozhik]

Just a quick note that, from my own research journey thus far, this seems to be an argument with the battle between Natural Law and Legal Positivism, at its core.

Understanding these two branches of law, and the ongoing struggle through time, is at the heart of the Freeman movement and its success/failure.

Natural Law
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.

Legal Positivism
The legal philosopher John Austin, attempting to put the system in a nutshell, held that the distinguishing feature of a legal system is the existence of a sovereign whose authority is recognized by most members of a society, but who is not bound by any human superior. The criterion for validity of a legal rule in such a society is that it bears the warrant of the sovereign and will be enforced by the sovereign power and its agents. Of course, in the Republic of the United States, the citizens have granted through the Constitution authority and power to the government to determine and enforce the laws. Austin would agree that there is nothing in legal positivism that forbids a hierarchy of laws from existing, or that the power be vested always in a single person or group.

In another sense, according to the distinguished American judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, legal positivism is in a sense the science of those who observe and give counsel as to what governments might do. According to Holmes, law is not so much a body of rules and procedures as it is a body of knowledge that predicts what courts are likely to do. Holmes' is a more lawyerly sort of legal realism; it acknowledges that the rules printed in statute books and precedents can be swayed by effectively marshalled cases and legal argument. A prediction of how the judge will act, though, can at best be stated in terms of probability.

I don't want to sink this thread into a legal definition thread ... I'm sharing my journey :)

In my mind this also explains the struggles, weaknesses, frustrations and obstacles; it is the time proven struggle between moral law and the will of those who usurp their authority to make rules without morals.
It is as much of a philosophical movement as it is a legal one, if not more.

As explained here;
Whereas legal positivism would say that a law can be unjust without it being any less a law, a natural law jurisprudence would say that there is something legally deficient about an unjust law.

... and the underlying struggle is explained here;
The concept of natural law was very important in the development of the English common law. In the struggles between Parliament and the monarch, Parliament often made reference to the Fundamental Laws of England which were at times said to embody natural law principles since time immemorial and set limits on the power of the monarchy. According to William Blackstone, however, natural law might be useful in determining the content of the common law and in deciding cases of equity, but was not itself identical with the laws of England. Nonetheless, the implication of natural law in the common law tradition has meant that the great opponents of natural law and advocates of legal positivism ... have also been staunch critics of the common law.

So this struggle is not new.
To have Natural Law as the foundation of English Common Law is the biggest threat to tptb.
Naturally, the immoral powers that be - those that believe in a legal system that requires no morality in the laws (legal positivism) - will do all they can to protect their own interests!!

Again, just sharing my journey ... for me to grasp a concept, I'm one of those people who needs to go back to the source - the seed - of the disharmony. This helps me understand the reason for the dispute.

The journey now continues ...

[1694]

It is as much of a philisophical movement as it is a legal one, if not more.

As explained here;

Quote:
Whereas legal positivism would say that a law can be unjust without it being any less a law, a natural law jurisprudence would say that there is something legally deficient about an unjust law.


This adds an additional dimension of confusion as what is generally accepted as "just" will vary over time.

Laws attempt to provide a concrete frame work to something which is a very liquid concept. Laws are updated and repealed over time, to try and keep up with the changes, if you can win a court case for something that your oppenets claims was illegal you write the new laws making the deed now legal for the future, and infact making it never illegal in the first place. I beleive you can infact win a court case and on something explicitly illegal and make it legal for the future and make the illegal act you have already done legal. You can't however retrospectivly legislate that something previously legal now that it is illegal, makes anyone who did it whist it was legal liable.

In a similar vein you guys might be interested in "Lawful Excuse" which isn't a common law right, but can be used to excuse you from performing an illegal act if you can convince a jury of 12 that it was the "right" thing to do morrally.

[yozhik]

In a similar vein you guys might be interested in "Lawful Excuse" which isn't a common law right, but can be used to excuse you from performing an illegal act if you can convince a jury of 12 that it was the "right" thing to do morrally.

Thank you for the reminder of this Freeman video ... With Lawful Excuse
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6487575410193274157



I don't want to sink this thread into a legal definition thread ... I'm sharing my journey :)

[yozhik]

Laws attempt to provide a concrete frame work to something which is a very liquid concept. Laws are updated and repealed over time, to try and keep up with the changes, if you can win a court case for something that your oppenets claims was illegal you write the new laws making the deed now legal for the future, and infact making it never illegal in the first place. I beleive you can infact win a court case and on something explicitly illegal and make it legal for the future and make the illegal act you have already done legal. You can't however retrospectivly legislate that something previously legal now that it is illegal, makes anyone who did it whist it was legal liable.

Which laws?
Whose laws?
Whose framework?
Which court?
Operating under which jurisdiction, pertaining to which laws, answerable to which creator/Creator?

Statutes and Acts are not Laws; they are given the colour of law.

[1694]

Which laws?
Whose laws?
Whose framework?
Which court?
Operating under which jurisdiction, pertaining to which laws, answerable to which creator/Creator?

Statutes and Acts are not Laws; they are given the colour of law.

In a way you prove the point, the whole thing is an abstract. Ultimatly we only really answer to the Laws of phsyics.

Common Law is no more tangeable than a statue.

Even the laws of nature, are dependant on the laws of phsyics, you have to actually do something for it to be, a belief won't change physical events.

You may be a person with a legal personality and all the rights that come with it, but your rights can be violated, the fact that their is a concept of or belief in those rights cannot in itself stop a pysical action.

Natural law is a little more tagable, your actions dictated by your rights rather than the attempts to use conceptual "rights " to dictate actions. Look at the animal world as an example of natural laws, there is no "concept" to animals of what they can or can't do, it is a simple case of if they achieved it they can do it, if they couldn't achieve it they can't do it.

As you say it becomes a philosphical issue. Common law was meant to protect the weak or the slaves from natural law where whatever you could get away with was fair game, but in doing so it lowered the masters to the same role of slaves, rather than elevating the slaves to the same posion as their masters. Why so, because if natural law persisted, the biggest, smartest, most manipulative or whatever trate you could apply would be the master. With the advent of common law, the best were equal to the "worst" BUT the law couldn't change the facts of inequality, only seek to restrain the use of the those with advantage in using that advantage.

If you run a race with a partner the laws of physics, or nature dicate the winner. If you wish to be equal, you can't introduce a rule that makes you faster, but you can introduce a rule that states the faster guy must wear a weight vest that slows him to the same speed as you. Now if the rule is applied you both appear to be equal, but you aren't really, if the other buy takes of the vest, ignoring the rule, he will continue to beat you.

Laws are the weight vests that attempt to peg us all equally, you might claim they are all injust as we aren't all equal, we are after all individuals, we are not the same. Whilst we might not all have equal "worth" we all have "equal rights" in the eyes of the law (if we have a person).

[yozhik]

Whilst we might not all have equal "worth" we all have "equal rights" in the eyes of the law (if we have a person).

I believe this brings us back to the very core of this debate and to the Freeman movement.

As I read and debate this issue more, my understanding and interpretation is that it is not about foregoing your "person", it is more about specifically defining the person as a natural person, answerable to Common Law, as opposed to their artificial person governed by Admiralty/Maritime Law.

This is a major distinction. Defining, not foregoing.

from Merriam-Webster online dictionary ...


Main Entry:
per·son
Pronunciation:
\ˈpər-sən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosōpa, plural of prosōpon face, mask — more at prosopopoeia
Date:
13th century

1: human , individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson><spokesperson>
2: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3 a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians
b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance
b: the body of a human being ; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5: the personality of a human being : self
6: one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
— per·son·hood Listen to the pronunciation of personhood \-ˌhu̇d\ noun
— in person
: in one's bodily presence <the movie star appeared in person>


Being a Freeman does not disavow all knowledge of a "person" when the word "person" refers to a human being, hence the repeated reference to a natural person; it denies all connections to an artificial person/corporation, adjoined to the natural person purely to shift the jurisdiction into their world of commerce.

The issue in this current environment is, with the current dominance of the Admiralty/Maritime jurisdiction in place, as ensured by the current ptb, any reference to "person" automatically assumes the definition pertaining to commerce.

Not using the word "person" is not denying the word's existence, it is avoiding the trap that has been laid in this very dangerous word game, designed by the secret society of law.

Referring to a post on another thread;

But, the more important question is;

How does claiming to be a Freeman automatically exclude the right to also claim Common Law for guidance and remedy?

Becoming of Freeman status does not extinguish all Laws and Rights; it simply starts with the premise that as a man and not a chattel, a Freeman is answerable to the Creator and His Laws, not the rules, statutes and acts of a sovereign or government without morals in its codified legal system; as can clearly be written and stated in the Notice of Understanding.

Being a Freeman does not necessitate the exclusion of a legal personality; it merely reserves the right to place this legal personality into the correct legal environment - that being the law of the land, not the law of the sea, with the Creator as its author, not the sovereign.

[sean]

Just a friendly reminder, that if you want to turn this into a debate as to the merits of being a "freeman" there is another thread for that.

Thanks.

[1694]

Just a friendly reminder, that if you want to turn this into a debate as to the merits of being a "freeman" there is another thread for that.

Thanks.

Can we change the other one to "challenging Commercial Redemption" rather than Freeman, the concept of a freeman is not what I am wrangling with so much as the successfull use of the legal system to stake and maintain that position.

[boots]

Legal Positivism
Quote:
The legal philosopher John Austin, attempting to put the system in a nutshell, held that the distinguishing feature of a legal system is the existence of a sovereign whose authority is recognized by most members of a society, but who is not bound by any human superior. The criterion for validity of a legal rule in such a society is that it bears the warrant of the sovereign and will be enforced by the sovereign power and its agents. Of course, in the Republic of the United States, the citizens have granted through the Constitution authority and power to the government to determine and enforce the laws. Austin would agree that there is nothing in legal positivism that forbids a hierarchy of laws from existing, or that the power be vested always in a single person or group.

In another sense, according to the distinguished American judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, legal positivism is in a sense the science of those who observe and give counsel as to what governments might do. According to Holmes, law is not so much a body of rules and procedures as it is a body of knowledge that predicts what courts are likely to do. Holmes' is a more lawyerly sort of legal realism; it acknowledges that the rules printed in statute books and precedents can be swayed by effectively marshalled cases and legal argument. A prediction of how the judge will act, though, can at best be stated in terms of probability.

That is a more correct definition what you have highlighted in bold.

Being a Freeman is about sovereignty. So you dont want to get caught up in legal definition of the court. YOU HAVE TO BREAK PRESUMPTIONS.

Break the first presumption.... Knowing who one is.

Jugdey wudgey Will ask you are you the defendant??

Answer.

NO I am not the defendant, I am here by special appearance under limited jurisdiction, with a real interest in the matter.

Break the presumption of being a defendant, Chattel


You are not a natural person you are a man/woman a sovereign.


It's no wonder people fall down when you cant break the presumptions and then start arguing and cause Dishonour.


.

[boots]

Another tactic is to ask Judgey Wudgey is..... Your honour do we have a contract??? This is placing him on the spot because he knows that all is commercial law and he cant answer no, or if he answers yes, he has given the game away.


Back the guy into a corner.


If your lucky he will tell you to get out.


.

[boots]

He wont Be able to Answer, the contract question and will start rambling about do you understand the charges:rolleyes:

If he is silent the he has given consent.

You say:

I take it we dont and for the records, let it be shown that we dont have a contract.:cool: (You now have made it legal in their eye's.) Then you can say I am the injured party here. What is my REMEDY.



.

[yozhik]

Another tactic is to ask Judgey Wudgey is..... Your honour do we have a contract??? This is placing him on the spot because he knows that all is commercial law and he cant answer no, or if he answers yes, he has given the game away.


Back the guy into a corner.


If your lucky he will tell you to get out.


.

Boots ... this interests me; can you please explain further?

I have some "dumb" questions;

1. what contract would you be referring to when asking the judge "do we have a contract"? Do you mean between you and the judge? If so; based on what?

2. WHAT IF his answer is yes? What are the implications? He may have given the "game away", but where does this now leave you? Or, if he says "yes" to there being a contract (supposedly between you and him?), are you then entitled to ask to see a copy of it? ... and when he cannot produce one, with your signature/permission/knowledge ... is he then guilty of false testimony?

I'm only guessing ... is this the direction this question to Judgey Wudgey :D takes us?

[boots]

Boots ... this interests me; can you please explain further?

I have some "dumb" questions;

1. what contract would you be referring to when asking the judge "do we have a contract"? Do you mean between you and the judge? If so; based on what?

2. WHAT IF his answer is yes? What are the implications? He may have given the "game away", but where does this now leave you? Or, if he says "yes" to there being a contract (supposedly between you and him?), are you then entitled to ask to see a copy of it? ... and when he cannot produce one, with your signature/permission/knowledge ... is he then guilty of false testimony?

I'm only guessing ... is this the direction this question to Judgey Wudgey :D takes us?

Hey mate, there never is any "dumb" Q. I've asked quite a few in my learning.


1: Everything is contract law. It's that simple. b) Between us and the state.
c)Though WE have not entered into a contract, because for contract law to operate you have to have a signature from both party's.

2. Your copy of the "contract" is your birth certificate between the strawman and the state.

Judgey wudgey will waffle on and might deny it. Ask him is this your legal opinion or his personal opinion? if he say's both then ask him to sign an Affidavit with his full commercial liability. In other words you are suing him for lying. I bet he wont.



.

[lesactive]

1: Everything is contract law It's that simple. b) Between us and the state.
c)Though WE have not entered into a contract, because for contract law to operate you have to have a signature from both party's.
If only it were that simple in their eyes. I'm not picking on you, just being nit-picky, I do get where you're coming from.

They act administratively under the presumption of adhesion despite any two party contract. Public 'contracts' are like that. Have you paid their taxes? Gotcha! If you've set up the pattern of paying then the initial application for a tax # is near irrelevant. Signed a rental agreement with a clause (read the fine print!) tying you into housing statutes? Gotcha! You'll be seen as a resident (thing identified) subject to...blah blah. Drivers license, health card, etc. all adhere you to the state and are a type of contract that only requires one autograph to be enforceable. Your will made it happen.


2. Your copy of the "contract" is your birth certificate between the strawman and the state.
I believe it's more in the nature of a trust. An "account(ing)", the fact of a birth, evidencing its registration by a certificate with a name derived from a private document: Statement of Live Birth or Notice of Birth. Whatever document your parents filled out at the hospital. Here in Canada, we're given the option of either a BC, a certified copy of the SoLB or both. It's the USE of the BC that makes you liable in this case, not the document itself or what it represents.

Interesting things have been known to happen when the BC and SoLB are presented to the court as proof toward the nature of the name.

[boots]

If only it were that simple in their eyes. I'm not picking on you, just being nit-picky, I do get where you're coming from.

They act administratively under the presumption of adhesion despite any two party contract. Public 'contracts' are like that. Have you paid their taxes? Gotcha! If you've set up the pattern of paying then the initial application for a tax # is near irrelevant. Signed a rental agreement with a clause (read the fine print!) tying you into housing statutes? Gotcha! You'll be seen as a resident (thing identified) subject to...blah blah. Drivers license, health card, etc. all adhere you to the state and are a type of contract that only requires one autograph to be enforceable. Your will made it happen.


Yes they have "gotcha", IF you stay in the public side and think only of your self as operating, and being bound by the "strawman". We have to break the presumption that we are ONLY a public entity. The Public side is dead because it represents a corporation and corporations are not alive. WE are.
Try and think of it this way. You know of the movie... Alice in wonderland...Well it's like that she goes down the rabbit hole into a world of fiction (the public side) Now she is a girl/woman and what does she find down there, but fictitious characters, who argue. When she asks for proof of their "claims" they disappear. The fiction is broken. She has broken the presumption. You can operate on both sides. But don't let judges fool you into omitting to a public "you".

Use the "strawman" as a tool a whipping boy. There is a guy in NZ who when he goes to court he takes along a dog leash and say's to the judge you can speak to him he's the strawman you call me.


I believe it's more in the nature of a trust. An "account(ing)", the fact of a birth, evidencing its registration by a certificate with a name derived from a private document: Statement of Live Birth or Notice of Birth. Whatever document your parents filled out at the hospital. Here in Canada, we're given the option of either a BC, a certified copy of the SoLB or both. It's the USE of the BC that makes you liable in this case, not the document itself or what it represents.

Not if you are a freeman and have sent in Affidavits to the relevant authorities to break the presumptions.

BTW, it is not a private document. It's a public one, they are all public documents that your parents have signed.

Interesting things have been known to happen when the BC and SoLB are presented to the court as proof toward the nature of the name.

I'm interested can you tell me more.

.

[lesactive]

Not if you are a freeman and have sent in Affidavits to the relevant authorities to break the presumptions.
Of course.

BTW, it is not a private document. It's a public one, they are all public documents that your parents have signed.
The BC is public, the SoLB is private. Your parents created the name on the SoLB, the gov't created the name on the BC.

-an Ontario NAME was ordered to court over a landlord/tenant issue
-alleged surety for NAME had no paperwork in place to break the presumptions
-alleged surety for NAME accepted the summons after altering it to read "alleged defendant" and "alleged tenant".
-alleged surety demanded an evidentiary hearing to submit his affidavit and supporting documents (BC and SoLB)
-when trial was called, the judge, after reviewing the evidence, asked the crown how he wished to proceed
-crown said that the name on the charges is a derivative of the BC which is a derivative of the SoLB which, as a private document, was protected under the Guardian Act and therefore couldn't proceed against this man.
-the charges were to be covered by the Crown Consolidated Fund

They will make the distinction but it has to be in evidence.

A woman in our group had a $21 000 debt disappear when she sent in the collection agencies statement with her SoLB and a brief note to the court.