know you rights

[h2pogo]

a breif history of uk rights

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/5264/Our_Constitutional_Rights_Cannot_Be_Given_Away/

how to use your rights

http://www.tpuc.org

[tracker]

a breif history of uk rights

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/5264/Our_Constitutional_Rights_Cannot_Be_Given_Away/

how to use your rights

http://www.tpuc.org


our rights ?

pmsl :D

we have the right to be arrested for talking :eek:
arested for not saying anything :eek:

thats about it !:o

[h2pogo]

if you dont know them you dont have them.

[tracker]

if you dont know them you dont have them.


try them all you like

be my guest and come back here to tell me they worked .

you ownt because you know , it wont work endstop .

we dont have rights , thats all aload of crap to make you think you do .

exorsise you right to be inosent before proven guilty
exorsise your rights to protest with out permision out side government

when enough people see and read this thread

you find
that the only person here out of me and you who is wrong
is you .

we dont have rights .

ok then
we have rights on paper , granted

come back in a wekk if you truly believe it , practice it , and tell me how it went .

a public challenge !

you will be disapointed .

and i refuse to argue about this .
wait till more find and rad this thread .

we shall see .

[h2pogo]

tried it a few times some times. it worked , once it didnt.

they (not all) know we have rights(well some of the older ones)and in this day and age respect people that are aware of them.and will therefore respect your rights.
just be respectfull and dont be rude.

have you watched the video?

btw if you got nothing to hide if they dont respect you then you have the right to be rude.

[tracker]

tried it a few times some times. it worked , once it didnt.

they (not all) know we have rights(well some of the older ones)and in this day and age respect people that are aware of them.and will therefore respect your rights.
just be respectfull and dont be rude.

have you watched the video?

btw if you got nothing to hide if they dont respect you then you have the right to be rude.


i will watch it again .

and i do think you have something there about respect though that has got me thinking wider now ..
maybe if i wasnt so rude when aplying my rights i might get treated with more respect .

thank you .:cool:

[rhydra]

We have rights, in theory, we have laws, in theory.

Who makes the laws?

That's right, and who has been uncovered for not following their own laws, rules and guidelines?

Right again.

Laws and rights are only as good as the willingness of those who are entrusted to uphold them.

[h2pogo]

well it was the ppl that gave governments laws so i suppose its the ppl who should uphold them.

[dondaz]

Laws and rights are only as good as the willingness of those who are entrusted to uphold them.

So true. Being born Human we don't actually need rights. We just are! But when dealing with a beurocratic mentality it can be very useful to be informed about rights acording to Common Law. It protects the Human Being from admirality/maritine/fleet commerce!

If you believe you have rights you do. Those who choose to deny you of those rights live in a different reality. Of course rights won't stop a bullet, but if we don't stand up for something, we will die for nothing!

'Use your rights or lose your rights!'

[boots]

We do have right's when it comes to common law.

If you do have to go to a "court". ( which is explained by Jordan Maxwell). you have to be on the ball, because you will be dealing with a Judge who interprets the law. Thats all he does.

All is commercial law, UCC Your birth certificate is a STAWMAN who operates in the world of commerce. WE are not strawmen and women. We are "man and Women" which the creator has given us right to be Free. The judges know this.

This is from Mary Croft. What a great lady she is.

This time I knew what I was doing. The District Court ‘Judge’ asked me my name. I responded, “If I
tell you my name will I have entered into a contract with you?” He became irate. I knew I was onto
something. He furiously said, “I’m going to ask you again; what is your name?” I said the same thing
again and was literally, bodily tossed from court. On my way out I told the bailiff, “I believe I hit a nerve.” I
was ecstatic.
As it turned out, I had indeed hit on the only issue which matters. CONTRACT. Contract Law is the
only law. There is no Constitutional Law, Bill of Rights, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, no codes, rules,
regulations, ordinances, statutes, by-laws, or anything else which most people think of as ‘law’ which applies
to free, sovereign people. They all apply only to corporate entities. There is only one law which applies to us:
the law which protects the life, liberty, rights, and property of all living souls. That which causes us to think
that all these ‘laws’ apply to us is the contracts/ agreements we have made, either wittingly or unwittingly. If
there is no contract there is no case. Contract is the law. Contractual Financial Liability is all that matters; and
it must be proven.




.A copy of Blacks law dictionary is a must have.





.

[bsmurph83]

try them all you like

be my guest and come back here to tell me they worked .

you ownt because you know , it wont work endstop .

we dont have rights , thats all aload of crap to make you think you do .

exorsise you right to be inosent before proven guilty
exorsise your rights to protest with out permision out side government

when enough people see and read this thread

you find
that the only person here out of me and you who is wrong
is you .

we dont have rights .

ok then
we have rights on paper , granted

come back in a wekk if you truly believe it , practice it , and tell me how it went .

a public challenge !

you will be disapointed .

and i refuse to argue about this .
wait till more find and rad this thread .

we shall see .


Hi tracker, obviously, your perspective is one of many on here and valid in its own way. The situation is complicated. We are taught to believe we have rights and then we go unwittingly 'signing them away' by contracting with companies masquerading as governments and police forces and so on. Then, having effectively rendered ourselves the property of those crooked governments without realising it, we wonder why they display such contempt towards us.

People like Robert Menard have demonstrated that putting the Common Law theory into practice can reap dividends. One cop went to try and stop him from drinking in his car in public, whereupon Menard suggested he go and look his name up in the on-board computer. The officer came back and basically said 'have a nice day' and left him alone.

As government property unknowlingly enslaved by statute law, with the legal status of a child, you are liable to be treated in all sorts of horrendous and tyrannical ways. Under Common Law, things can be quite different.

However, Menard and others have seen the other side of the coin of exercising one's rights. Pytellek, for instance, was arrested and imprisoned for 11 days, and also physiclly abused, almost having his arms broken whilst in cuffs by an officer who was obviously an ignorant bottom feeder.

How the freeman on the land is treated can depend on which Agent you deal with on a given day. Some are utterly corrupt and ethically bankrupt; some have a modicum of respect for human life and do not wish to enforce tyranny upon the people.

Menard's non-confrontational approach is the way to go, methinks. The problem is that cops (in particular) are not educated as to our rights. They are instructed on how to enforce company policy, and are sometimes just confused by someone who does not consent to their 'power' over them. They need to be educated, and it's up to us to hold them accountable and educate them. We need to watch our mouths in doing so, because they are the ones with guns, after all. :)

From a metaphysical perspective, you can argue that all of what we call 'rights' are simply arbitrary intellectual constructs with no innate 'right' or 'wrong' to them. However, I challenge any sentient human to argue the basic premises of Common Law and its supremacy over the rest of the 'law'.

[yozhik]

For me, it isn't about having rights or not having rights.
That distinction comes from an even simpler single notion.
Know who you are.

Some will identify themselves as a citizen.
Some will identify themselves as a person.
Some will identify themselves as a human being.


Maxim of Law.
If you know not the name of a thing, all knowledge of that thing perishes.
The name is the note of a thing.

From Robert Menard's "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception"
Your name is the foundation of your identity. There can be no "person" without a name, yet there can certainly be a human being without a name.

Benefits, Privileges and the Costs

"There's no such thing as a free lunch ... "

The structure of the current society and its institutional trappings and trimmings are, for a lot of people, perfectly acceptable. This is their God given choice. Who am I to tell them it is not for them to be part of?
I do not have that right.

As with anything in life, when you receive benefits, you give something up, as consideration.
Again, for most, this is perfectly acceptable and they perceive it as "a good deal".

You accept the benefits and privileges; you give up certain rights. Quid pro quo.
That's the deal. You are free and capable of accepting this and consenting to the contract. That's the system.

Personally, I do not agree to this contractual offer.
In my view, it is too one sided. My rights have unlimited value.
No benefit, no privilege, could ever be unlimited in value.
I choose to decline the offer.

My choice is to take responsibility as an adult and to act on the private side, as opposed to being enslaved in the public side of the ledger.
Sure - there are some shiny trinkets I will need to hand back and some convenient trappings I will need to do without, but when all is weighed up, I'm happy to do so.

The current government was long ago served notice that they operate without my consent.
In my heart, I do not believe they are operating as "representatives" of those who (supposedly) put them in their positions; they no longer speak or act for the average man or woman.
However, look behind the smoke and mirrors, you will see that they are acting as trustees for the beneficiaries - the wards of the state - the children ... you and me.
We are not considered as responsible adults because we do not act like responsible adults.

Only children ask for permission to do an otherwise lawful act ... a man or a woman claims the right to do it.

Just think about this simple example for one moment ... why would two, responsible adults, need to ask for permission to get married? That is simply not logical.

But that is the current system.
To get "legally" married, you must "apply" for a "marriage licence".
Huh?? How does THAT work?

The reason being, you are deemed as "wards of the state" (children) and so to get married, you must ask your parents' permission.

Now of course, there will some on here who instantly poo poo this ... as they always do.
So I come back again to the very simple question; why would two, responsible adults, need to ask for permission to get married?

Getting married is perfectly lawful. It has been around for centuries.
So why would you ask permission to do something perfectly lawful?
Only children have to do that.
"Mummy, may I have an ice cream"?
"Daddy, may I go outside and play"?

Last time I looked, eating ice cream and going outside to play were both perfectly lawful activities.
Why was permission required? The child/parent relationship and structure.

There are many other examples; have a look around and just ask yourself some basic questions.
Is this a perfectly lawful act?
Why do you require permission to do it?

You don't.

Maxim of Law
Si quis custos fraudem pupillo fecerit, a tutela removendus est.
If a guardian behave fraudently to his ward, he shall be removed from the guardianship. Jenk. Cent. 39.

You do not need permission ... IF you have stated yourself as an adult and claimed your rights.

Know who you are.

Maxims of Law
Sublata causa tollitur effectus.
Remove the cause and the effect will cease. 2 Bl. Com. 203.

Sublato principali tollitur adjunctum.
If the principal be taken away, the adjunct is also taken away. Co. Litt. 389.

[oghene]

For me, it isn't about having rights or not having rights.
That distinction comes from an even simpler single notion.
Know who you are.

Some will identify themselves as a citizen.
Some will identify themselves as a person.
Some will identify themselves as a human being.


Maxim of Law.
If you know not the name of a thing, all knowledge of that thing perishes.
The name is the note of a thing.

From Robert Menard's "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception"
Your name is the foundation of your identity. There can be no "person" without a name, yet there can certainly be a human being without a name.

Benefits, Privileges and the Costs

"There's no such thing as a free lunch ... "

The structure of the current society and its institutional trappings and trimmings are, for a lot of people, perfectly acceptable. This is their God given choice. Who am I to tell them it is not for them to be part of?
I do not have that right.

As with anything in life, when you receive benefits, you give something up, as consideration.
Again, for most, this is perfectly acceptable and they perceive it as "a good deal".

You accept the benefits and privileges; you give up certain rights. Quid pro quo.
That's the deal. You are free and capable of accepting this and consenting to the contract. That's the system.

Personally, I do not agree to this contractual offer.
In my view, it is too one sided. My rights have unlimited value.
No benefit, no privilege, could ever be unlimited in value.
I choose to decline the offer.

My choice is to take responsibility as an adult and to act on the private side, as opposed to being enslaved in the public side of the ledger.
Sure - there are some shiny trinkets I will need to hand back and some convenient trappings I will need to do without, but when all is weighed up, I'm happy to do so.

The current government was long ago served notice that they operate without my consent.
In my heart, I do not believe they are operating as "representatives" of those who (supposedly) put them in their positions; they no longer speak or act for the average man or woman.
However, look behind the smoke and mirrors, you will see that they are acting as trustees for the beneficiaries - the wards of the state - the children ... you and me.
We are not considered as responsible adults because we do not act like responsible adults.

Only children ask for permission to do an otherwise lawful act ... a man or a woman claims the right to do it.

Just think about this simple example for one moment ... why would two, responsible adults, need to ask for permission to get married? That is simply not logical.

But that is the current system.
To get "legally" married, you must "apply" for a "marriage licence".
Huh?? How does THAT work?

The reason being, you are deemed as "wards of the state" (children) and so to get married, you must ask your parents' permission.

Now of course, there will some on here who instantly poo poo this ... as they always do.
So I come back again to the very simple question; why would two, responsible adults, need to ask for permission to get married?

Getting married is perfectly lawful. It has been around for centuries.
So why would you ask permission to do something perfectly lawful?
Only children have to do that.
"Mummy, may I have an ice cream"?
"Daddy, may I go outside and play"?

Last time I looked, eating ice cream and going outside to play were both perfectly lawful activities.
Why was permission required? The child/parent relationship and structure.

There are many other examples; have a look around and just ask yourself some basic questions.
Is this a perfectly lawful act?
Why do you require permission to do it?

You don't.

Maxim of Law
Si quis custos fraudem pupillo fecerit, a tutela removendus est.
If a guardian behave fraudently to his ward, he shall be removed from the guardianship. Jenk. Cent. 39.

You do not need permission ... IF you have stated yourself as an adult and claimed your rights.

Know who you are.

Maxims of Law
Sublata causa tollitur effectus.
Remove the cause and the effect will cease. 2 Bl. Com. 203.

Sublato principali tollitur adjunctum.
If the principal be taken away, the adjunct is also taken away. Co. Litt. 389.

Yoshik,

Well said.

[hey_jude]

For me, it isn't about having rights or not having rights.
That distinction comes from an even simpler single notion.
Know who you are.

Some will identify themselves as a citizen.
Some will identify themselves as a person.
Some will identify themselves as a human being.


Maxim of Law.
If you know not the name of a thing, all knowledge of that thing perishes.
The name is the note of a thing.

From Robert Menard's "Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception"
Your name is the foundation of your identity. There can be no "person" without a name, yet there can certainly be a human being without a name.

Benefits, Privileges and the Costs

"There's no such thing as a free lunch ... "

The structure of the current society and its institutional trappings and trimmings are, for a lot of people, perfectly acceptable. This is their God given choice. Who am I to tell them it is not for them to be part of?
I do not have that right.

As with anything in life, when you receive benefits, you give something up, as consideration.
Again, for most, this is perfectly acceptable and they perceive it as "a good deal".

You accept the benefits and privileges; you give up certain rights. Quid pro quo.
That's the deal. You are free and capable of accepting this and consenting to the contract. That's the system.

Personally, I do not agree to this contractual offer.
In my view, it is too one sided. My rights have unlimited value.
No benefit, no privilege, could ever be unlimited in value.
I choose to decline the offer.

My choice is to take responsibility as an adult and to act on the private side, as opposed to being enslaved in the public side of the ledger.
Sure - there are some shiny trinkets I will need to hand back and some convenient trappings I will need to do without, but when all is weighed up, I'm happy to do so.

The current government was long ago served notice that they operate without my consent.
In my heart, I do not believe they are operating as "representatives" of those who (supposedly) put them in their positions; they no longer speak or act for the average man or woman.
However, look behind the smoke and mirrors, you will see that they are acting as trustees for the beneficiaries - the wards of the state - the children ... you and me.
We are not considered as responsible adults because we do not act like responsible adults.

Only children ask for permission to do an otherwise lawful act ... a man or a woman claims the right to do it.

Just think about this simple example for one moment ... why would two, responsible adults, need to ask for permission to get married? That is simply not logical.

But that is the current system.
To get "legally" married, you must "apply" for a "marriage licence".
Huh?? How does THAT work?

The reason being, you are deemed as "wards of the state" (children) and so to get married, you must ask your parents' permission.

Now of course, there will some on here who instantly poo poo this ... as they always do.
So I come back again to the very simple question; why would two, responsible adults, need to ask for permission to get married?

Getting married is perfectly lawful. It has been around for centuries.
So why would you ask permission to do something perfectly lawful?
Only children have to do that.
"Mummy, may I have an ice cream"?
"Daddy, may I go outside and play"?

Last time I looked, eating ice cream and going outside to play were both perfectly lawful activities.
Why was permission required? The child/parent relationship and structure.

There are many other examples; have a look around and just ask yourself some basic questions.
Is this a perfectly lawful act?
Why do you require permission to do it?

You don't.

Maxim of Law
Si quis custos fraudem pupillo fecerit, a tutela removendus est.
If a guardian behave fraudently to his ward, he shall be removed from the guardianship. Jenk. Cent. 39.

You do not need permission ... IF you have stated yourself as an adult and claimed your rights.

Know who you are.

Maxims of Law
Sublata causa tollitur effectus.
Remove the cause and the effect will cease. 2 Bl. Com. 203.

Sublato principali tollitur adjunctum.
If the principal be taken away, the adjunct is also taken away. Co. Litt. 389.

+

Excellent ...everyone should read this post! :)

[bsmurph83]

yozhik has gotten back on point here as far as the Freeman forum is concerned. The bottom line is knowing who you are in terms of the law. Do you want to act as a sovereign or a person?

All philosophical or metaphysical debate aside, knowing who you really are in terms of Common Law is the quickest way to exiting the prison without bars and regaining your capacity to act as an adult that does not need the State's permission merely to scratch oneself.

At the end of the day, as someone mentioned on the previous page (bootz?), this won't stop a bullet, nor will it stop a tyrant starting a war and having you bombed. Nor will it stop a crooked cop who wants to torture you or kill you. If someone truly vindictive or vicious wants to hurt you, knowing who you are in terms of any law (or spiritual outlook) will not stop them, but at least serving your notices and claiming your status as a freeman forces them to make the choice to act Lawlessly with full intent in a way that will be much harder to disguise and/or cover up and account for.

Common Law holds people to account for their actions (theoretically). The 'evil' ones - if they know your real standing/status - will then have to make the choice to harm you fully in the knowledge that what they are doing is wrong in every sense of the word...

Common Law = common sense. We've been brainwashed with this statute crap for so long that many have lost their capacity for common sense and they DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE. They think they ARE a person instead of HAVING a person!