Fighting back using Magna Carta [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

View Full Version : Fighting back using Magna Carta

signalnorth

20-10-2008, 11:10 AM

I came across this on the rather excellent Public Defender site and wondered what people thought of the approach?
(your address)
(your address)
(your address)
(your address)
Attn: “Councillor bendy bob”
NOTICE TO ONE IS NOTICE TO ALL 23 September 08
CEO ******** Council
************* Council
(ADDRESS)
(ADDRESS)
(ADDRESS)
(ADDRESS)
[POST CODE] post code must kept in square brackets, this denoted non domestic or private
REF: EXTORTION

NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND DISPUTE WITH INTENT
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to you regarding the matter of refuse collection and scandalous fines used by the government and local councils to facilitate extortion of monies from the general populous.
It is my understanding that the United Kingdom operates in bankruptcy and that the “fiat currency” is just a promise to pay and,
It is my understanding that the United Kingdom, Parliament, all Councils, all so called public services, courts, police services and the ministry of justice itself are all privately run for profit corporations and can be found on the Dunn and Bradstreet listings.
It is also my understanding that an ACT/STATUTE is as defined below:
“A legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed” (my emphasis)

I hereby serve you notice that I am personally outraged at the extend the government and councils of this “Bankrupt Country” are fraudulently using statute legislation to pay the debt it owes to the corrupt world banks and this oppression MUST now cease and,
I hereby give notice that as per the above legal definition of an act/statute, I unconditionally and completely withdraw my consent to any and all statute legislation that is used to levy and extort monies from myself and,

I hereby give you notice that I intend to enter into lawful rebellion by invoking my rights under Magna Carta 1215 article 61, and

I hereby give you notice that I will no longer stand under any rights the illegitimate authorities wish to bestow upon or grant to me, as it is my true belief that, as a human being, man or woman, I have unlimited rights already, and so I will NOT give up any of MY rights for the rights you offer in such limited scope for any reason and,
I hereby give notice that I withdraw my consent to stand under the stated below, but not limited to the acts and statutes:
1990 Environment Protection Act
2003 Anti Social Behaviour Act
2005 Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act
2000 Terrorism ACT

It is my intent to Issue this notice to all councils involved in my refuse collection and I will issue notice of my served notice, attaching said notice, to my bins for all to see.

Any failure to recognise my withdrawal of consent will result in a commercial administrative process being put in place against the Council or corporation and or Government, and

Furthermore it is my intent to enter into “lawful Rebellion” using my rights to do so under Magna Carta 1215 article 61, and

Furthermore it is my intent that if you dishonour my notice by attempting to issue any fines using the above statutes, I will charge a processing fee as per fee schedule below:
Receipt of fine, will result in counter claim, of fines cost plus the additional processing fee of £50.00.
Invasion of privacy, by way of going through my personal waste will result in a claim of £150.00
Neglect to empty my waste due to an alleged offence contained within any of the aforementioned statutes will result in a claim of £150.00

I hereby give you three(3) days to rebut this notice with a notice signed by your director or ceo under their full commercial liability and penalties of perjury, that all of the facts stated above are untrue, otherwise this notice becomes, in fact.

Yours sincerely

Witnesse

lottie

20-10-2008, 11:36 AM

That sounds ace mate- have you actually done it yet? I'd be interested to hear the outcome....:)

signalnorth

20-10-2008, 12:03 PM

That sounds ace mate- have you actually done it yet? I'd be interested to hear the outcome....:)

I only came across this today

boots

20-10-2008, 12:08 PM

Thats not bad mate just make sure that you get it also to every relavant authority in your country.

There would be about 17 different people you will have to send letters by registered mail too. You have to hit them with all guns blazing otherwise it falls down.

This is one relevant to Australia.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

I, addressed by the name Jane-Anne of the family commonly known as Doe, a free woman-on-the-Land standing in Yhwh - God Almighty’s Kingdom, claim the right that pursuant to any action by any government and/or any member thereof, in right of Australia, a corporation,

That I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally, and,

That I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement which are my rights pursuant to common law.

Signed:____________________
Jane-Anne of the family commonly known as Doe

Dated:_____________________

Witness 1__________________
Name:

Witness 2 __________________
Name:

boots

20-10-2008, 12:26 PM

Here is something that helps to stop the authority from entering your property for any thing.

private

property

keep

out

Trespassers

Will
Be

Prosecuted

Unless
by
prior
Arrangement
dillion vs plenty 1991

This is a legal document that when displayed at the front of your property be it rental or your own can be used in the court.

Check the Dillion Vs plenty 1991 thing with a lawer to see if it pertain to your country.

With this you can sue the ass of anyone that enters with out written agreement and of course you do not give consent because you do not enter into any contracts with anyone.

It's all about contract law

Read Mary Crofts book

HOW I CLOBBERED
EVERY BUREAUCRATIC
CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY
KNOWN TO MAN

.

tracker

20-10-2008, 12:31 PM

signalnorth

20-10-2008, 06:56 PM

bump

malvern

20-10-2008, 07:36 PM

bump .....

this site you found is it this by any chance

http://www.tpuc.org/

freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

the itinerant shrubber

20-10-2008, 09:09 PM

I tried to find the definition of statute that is quoted once but I couldnt.
Where is this definition found?

stickwhistler

20-10-2008, 10:13 PM

Here is something that helps to stop the authority from entering your property for any thing.

<snip>

This is a legal document that when displayed at the front of your property be it rental or your own can be used in the court.

Check the Dillion Vs plenty 1991 thing with a lawer to see if it pertain to your country.

http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality20.htm

This is from Australian jurisdiction.

I don't think it would carry any weight in the UK,
even though they are both common law jurisdictions.
I hope I'm wrong! So....!

If anybody has a precedent case from the UK please post it.
If anybody can disagree with the understanding of full commercial liability
please post.

zarah

20-10-2008, 10:34 PM

stickwhistler

21-10-2008, 12:51 AM

Only 3 articles of the Magna Carta are still law today: One talks about the rights of the church, one about the rights of towns and cities and one about the right of a free person not to be imprisoned or exiled without being judged by a jury of his peers.

Also, technically, by virtue of the fact a person resides in this country, he or she implies agreement to the laws of the land.

I believe that there is some dispute over this.
The 1297 version is the one on the Statute Law Database,
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Primary&PageNumber=99&NavFrom=2&parentActiveTextDocId=1517519&ActiveTextDocId=1517519&filesize=58673
and it says:

"and to all [Freemen] of this our Realm, these Liberties following, to be kept in our Kingdom of England for ever."

The last two words being the pertinent ones.

However this version is not the original which is 1215.
http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm

The original says:
"We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever,
all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever."

So it appears that even back then, the PTB did not like the fact that
there are more of 'us' than there are of 'them',
and started their jiggery pokery to suit themselves.

As 'The Law' always looks backwards for authority
(the created can never be greater than the creator,
as the created is merely a part of the creator)
then the original version (1215) should carry the greatest weight,
as it is the older version from which the 1297 version was created.
In any case, either version is beyond Parliament to alter,
as is the Bill of Rights 1689 ( from which MP's draw their authority to speak in the Commons today).
The original version says - well read it for yourselves.
It is interesting, and you will know for yourselves.
http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm

IMHO :D

As many living breathing human beings as possible need to send a declaration
of lawful rebellion to Queen Elizabeth, at Buckingham Palace, a.s.a.p.

I do not believe she will reply, or even see the Notices.
However, when the pile of Notices gets too high to ignore,
action will be taken as below:

i) The march to fascism will be halted, and reversed.

ii) The PTB will clamp down on the people - like myself - who
have sent these Notices, calling attention to the fact that
'we' have had enough of their B*llsh*t, and have realised
(at last!) that we are sovereign entities, and are answerable to
only God/Consciousness/ The Universe/etc, and no another.

iii) There will be bloody civil war in the UK (and USA, Australia, Germany
France etc, etc), and millions will die, and nobody will 'win'.
The servants of the NWO will find themselves betrayed,
and thrown to the wolves - so to speak!

The policy enforcement officers (aka Police and Army)
will do whatever their senior officer commands,
because they can no longer think for themselves,
will unwittingly bring in the NWO at the expense of their own families.

And so I ask these questions:

To those that would kill us for not obeying:

What makes you think that you have the authority of the Universe/God/Consciousness etc?

How will you justify your actions if, say, you have to stand before e.g. God, and justify
why you destroyed a creation of the Universe to satisfy/polish your ego, when you die/pass over/etc.
We may be waiting for you! :mad:

Would you kill your own child if they took a similar defiant stance?

malvern

21-10-2008, 06:19 PM

the itinerant shrubber I tried to find the definition of statute that is quoted once but I couldnt.
Where is this definition found?

the one below explains it in simple terms .....

http://www.tpuc.org/node/317

Death or Injury to others, Damage to another's property or using fraud in your contracts, ok these three very heavy crimes are all you can truly be guilty of YES its all you can truly be guilty of!!! Anything else is just STATUTE LAW and the simple to remember definition on this law is laws that only apply if you consent to them!! here look: Statute: "Legislative rule of society given the force of law by the consent of the governed". Yes look at the last four words, "CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED" that is you!! so if you don't consent then they cant do, yes I know what your thinking, but it is that simple. Ok officer walks up to you and says "can I ask you some questions" don't consent, ask him "what the nature is of the intended detention?" and record the conversation and let him see your doing this, use your mobile, 99% of the mobiles available today have recorders to go for it! If he says you cannot record this conversation, then what he is in fact saying is, yep you guessed it!! I don't consent to be recorded, so you simple say "Ok am I free to go?"

have you tried Blacks Dictionary of Law, not all the words we use everyday have the same meaning when it comes to what they mean in LAW.

freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

micklemus

21-10-2008, 06:29 PM

resistance

21-10-2008, 07:32 PM

malvern

21-10-2008, 08:47 PM

I disagree, i believe its being ignorant to ones rights that is the problem, how can a statute be the law of the land when many people havn't agreed a contract?

did he even look at my post, or he drowning in the main stream itself.

We must look at the "Bill of Rights"

I have spoken to serving law enforcement agents ...(who we did know as the police) and they agree that it is all about consent...

know your rights ...do not let someone else tell you them.

freedom is the grandchildren we all can be caretakers

jonas parker

21-10-2008, 08:50 PM

(Clauses marked (+) are still valid under the charter of 1225, but with a few minor amendments. Clauses marked (*) were omitted in all later reissues of the charter. In the charter itself the clauses are not numbered, and the text reads continuously. The translation sets out to convey the sense rather than the precise wording of the original Latin.)

The Magna Carta

JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.

KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:

+ (1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:

(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a `relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of `relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay Â£100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight l00s. at most for the entire knight's `fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of `fees'

(3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without `relief' or fine.

(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.

(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear.

(6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be' made known to the heir's next-of-kin.

(7) At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her.

( No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.

(9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.

* (10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.

* (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.

* (12) No `scutage' or `aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes ouly a reasonable `aid' may be levied. `Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

+ (13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.

* (14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an `aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a `scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.

* (15) In future we will allow no one to levy an `aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable `aid' may be levied.

(16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's `fee', or other free holding of land, than is due from it.

(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place.

(1 Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets.

(19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done.

(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.

(22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice.

(23) No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so.

(24) No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal officials are to hold lawsuits that should be held by the royal justices.

* (25) Every county, hundred, wapentake, and tithing shall remain at its ancient rent, without increase, except the royal demesne manors.

(26) If at the death of a man who holds a lay `fee' of the Crown, a sheriff or royal official produces royal letters patent of summons for a debt due to the Crown, it shall be lawful for them to seize and list movable goods found in the lay `fee' of the dead man to the value of the debt, as assessed by worthy men. Nothing shall be removed until the whole debt is paid, when the residue shall be given over to the executors to carry out the dead man s will. If no debt is due to the Crown, all the movable goods shall be regarded as the property of the dead man, except the reasonable shares of his wife and children.

* (27) If a free man dies intestate, his movable goods are to be distributed by his next-of-kin and friends, under the supervision of the Church. The rights of his debtors are to be preserved.

(2 No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this.

(29) No constable may compel a knight to pay money for castle-guard if the knight is willing to undertake the guard in person, or with reasonable excuse to supply some other fit man to do it. A knight taken or sent on military service shall be excused from castle-guard for the period of this servlce.

(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.

(31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner.

(32) We will not keep the lands of people convicted of felony in our hand for longer than a year and a day, after which they shall be returned to the lords of the `fees' concerned.

(33) All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.

(34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own lord's court.

(35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly.

(36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused.

(37) If a man holds land of the Crown by `fee-farm', `socage', or `burgage', and also holds land of someone else for knight's service, we will not have guardianship of his heir, nor of the land that belongs to the other person's `fee', by virtue of the `fee-farm', `socage', or `burgage', unless the `fee-farm' owes knight's service. We will not have the guardianship of a man's heir, or of land that he holds of someone else, by reason of any small property that he may hold of the Crown for a service of knives, arrows, or the like.

(3 In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

(41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.

* (42) In future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from a country that is at war with us, and merchants - who shall be dealt with as stated above - are excepted from this provision.

(43) If a man holds lands of any `escheat' such as the `honour' of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other `escheats' in our hand that are baronies, at his death his heir shall give us only the `relief' and service that he would have made to the baron, had the barony been in the baron's hand. We will hold the `escheat' in the same manner as the baron held it.

(44) People who live outside the forest need not in future appear before the royal justices of the forest in answer to general summonses, unless they are actually involved in proceedings or are sureties for someone who has been seized for a forest offence.

* (45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.

(46) All barons who have founded abbeys, and have charters of English kings or ancient tenure as evidence of this, may have guardianship of them when there is no abbot, as is their due.

(47) All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly.

* (4 All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first to be informed.

* (49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for peace or for loyal service.

* (50) We will remove completely from their offices the kinsmen of Gerard de AthÃ©e, and in future they shall hold no offices in England. The people in question are Engelard de CigognÃ©', Peter, Guy, and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de CigognÃ©, Geoffrey de Martigny and his brothers, Philip Marc and his brothers, with Geoffrey his nephew, and all their followers.

* (51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm, with horses and arms.

* (52) To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (Â§ 61). In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgement of his equals by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once render justice in full.

* (53) We shall have similar respite in rendering justice in connexion with forests that are to be disafforested, or to remain forests, when these were first a-orested by our father Henry or our brother Richard; with the guardianship of lands in another person's `fee', when we have hitherto had this by virtue of a `fee' held of us for knight's service by a third party; and with abbeys founded in another person's `fee', in which the lord of the `fee' claims to own a right. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice to complaints about these matters.

(54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.

* (55) All fines that have been given to us unjustiy and against the law of the land, and all fines that we have exacted unjustly, shall be entirely remitted or the matter decided by a majority judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (Â§ 61) together with Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he wishes to bring with him. If the archbishop cannot be present, proceedings shall continue without him, provided that if any of the twenty-five barons has been involved in a similar suit himself, his judgement shall be set aside, and someone else chosen and sworn in his place, as a substitute for the single occasion, by the rest of the twenty-five.

(56) If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of lands, liberties, or anything else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgement of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them. A dispute on this point shall be determined in the Marches by the judgement of equals. English law shall apply to holdings of land in England, Welsh law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. The Welsh shall treat us and ours in the same way.

* (57) In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgement of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice according to the laws of Wales and the said regions.

* (5 We will at once return the son of Llywelyn, all Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.

* (59) With regard to the return of the sisters and hostages of Alexander, king of Scotland, his liberties and his rights, we will treat him in the same way as our other barons of England, unless it appears from the charters that we hold from his father William, formerly king of Scotland, that he should be treated otherwise. This matter shall be resolved by the judgement of his equals in our court.

(60) All these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be observed in our kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with our subjects. Let all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen, observe them similarly in their relations with their own men.

* (61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:

The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.
If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chiefjustice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.

Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.

If-one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were.

In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear.

The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power.

We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.

* (62) We have remitted and pardoned fully to all men any ill-will, hurt, or grudges that have arisen between us and our subjects, whether clergy or laymen, since the beginning of the dispute. We have in addition remitted fully, and for our own part have also pardoned, to all clergy and laymen any offences committed as a result of the said dispute between Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215) and the restoration of peace.

In addition we have caused letters patent to be made for the barons, bearing witness to this security and to the concessions set out above, over the seals of Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, Henry archbishop of Dublin, the other bishops named above, and Master Pandulf.

* (63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fulness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever.

Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others.

Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).

Source and Further Information
G. R. C. Davis, Magna Carta, Revised Edition, British Library, 1989.

h2pogo

21-10-2008, 09:02 PM

stickwhistler

21-10-2008, 09:04 PM

I'm sorry to dampen a lot of the upbeat talk on this thread but with the greatest respect there is a lot of misunderstanding and a fair deal of downright rubbish associated with this freeman business.

zarah is absolutely correct about Magna Carta. Look it up for yourselves - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/aep/1297/caep_12970009_enm_1

You can also use this site to look up other UK statutes. As they actually are.

Could you explain what is the "downright rubbish associated with this freeman business" please?

The PTB don't follow their own rules i.e. statute law,
so it is fair to say that there is a lot of downright rubbish associated
with statute law.

The Magna Carta is on the Statute books but, as mentioned above,
it is the 1297 and not the original 1215 version.

The fact that the charter was altered from the original is proof
that the PTB don't follow their own rules if any were needed.

If more and more people bring the 1215 to prominence,
and refuse to consent to the demigods of 'the system',
what do you think will happen?

I read that it was the Magna Carta principle that was used
to obtain the release of the Guantanamo Bay Prisoners.
The latest 42 day detention attempt (or even the present 28 day)
flies in the face of Magna Carta, which is one of the founding documents
of our society, as is the Bill Of Rights 1689.

These laws were used to set up Parliament,
and so Parliament CANNOT alter them
(the created cannot be greater than the creator argument).

What is needed - IMHO - is a way to simply arrest the
treasonous actors in government today,
i.e. Brown, Milliband, BLiar, Hoon, Straw, Blunkett, Reed, Smith et al
for systematically destroying the rights of the UK people under Magna Carta.

The police don't stick to the law - only when it suits.
The police break the law, and then compound that crime
by trying to cover up - perverting the course of justice - and they
expect US to be good and 'do as we are told'!

The Freeman route might as well be used and followed.
The PTB don't stick to their rules, so what have we to loose?

Ooops! I know. The corporate nob polishers that inhabit
town halls, council offices, and plastic policemen for starters.

I have said before, if the rebellion isn't peaceful, the revolution will be bloody.
Not a single oppressive regime has ever survived more than a few years.
Every one of them has perished via it's own people destroying it.
EVERY SINGLE ONE!

dondaz

22-10-2008, 01:42 AM

I'm sorry to dampen a lot of the upbeat talk on this thread but with the greatest respect there is a lot of misunderstanding and a fair deal of downright rubbish associated with this freeman business.

That's like saying 911 was done by arabs with boxcutters, ordered by Bin Laden. Baron Von Lotsov is of the same opinion as yourself, but he refuses to look in to the Freeman movement. Don't be like him, use your brain mate. It's good that you doubt and question, but the evidence is out there to prove Statutes & Acts require our consent.

Think about it. Natural Law says we are all equal, this is part of our Common Law. Therefore, what gives someone the right to impose themselves on you under the guise of 'authority' when you have done no wrong! This is how the LAW works. So, if your're not doing anything wrong, they can't make any money out of you. They can not lawfully take your property from you, so the only way they can get anything from you is through commerce. Remember these are lazy people and think they are above a bit of manual labour. So they create a system to entrap you into paying them money. That's all it is mate, nothing more. They get us to go along with it all through propaganda, just like they use everwhere else in their world domination agenda.

Statutes and Acts are just another form of making money from us. It's all technicalities to get you breaking rules, so they can make money from you and if you don't break the rules then they have you as a total slave to that system.

That's all it is.

Statutes and acts are not about doing the right thing, as is our Common Law. It's just there to enslave us, all under the usual bollocks of it's for the good of society!

It's easy to see when you look into it deeper!

1694

22-10-2008, 01:54 AM

dondaz

22-10-2008, 02:09 AM

Even if technically it might be right, if the policeman, judge and jailer don't think it is your pretty well fucked.

That is soon going to be challenged, people are starting to apply this in their lives again. Also, there are freemen who have lived without these statutes and acts applying to them for decades in this country, as an up-coming seminar will soon prove. This movement is way bigger than most realise. I am in touch with quite a few now and we are planning things to gets this message out to the masses!

This is about our freedom and the frredom of our grandchildren and their grandchildren. We are the caretakers of this world. Me, I'm prepared to die for something than live for nothing.

boots

22-10-2008, 02:24 AM

zarah

22-10-2008, 08:38 AM

What makes you think that you have the authority of the Universe/God/Consciousness etc?

How will you justify your actions if, say, you have to stand before e.g. God, and justify
why you destroyed a creation of the Universe to satisfy/polish your ego, when you die/pass over/etc.
We may be waiting for you! :mad:

Would you kill your own child if they took a similar defiant stance?

Its history is less egalitarian that you think. The Magna Carta was devised because the barons who were a huge part of the 13th c feudal system thought they were being taxed far too much by King John, so threatened a rebellion unless their demands were met. Their idea was to formulate a document, the Great Charter, or Magna Carta in Latin, which illustrated what it would take for them to be appeased.

Im know there's an abstract law by which was used to depose James II which can be used today, if Im right. It's a law which means you can otherthrow the Monarchy or Government if it is acting against the best interests of the consitition.

stickwhistler

22-10-2008, 08:54 AM

Its history is less egalitarian that you think.

I'm not so naive that I did not think the Barons were really looking after their own interests. :)

Im know there's an abstract law by which was used to depose James II which can be used today, if Im right. It's a law which means you can otherthrow the Monarchy or Government if it is acting against the best interests of the consitition.

Would you like to post that law here please, so that others can see it.
There are other people working on the same thing at the moment
i.e. to arrest Queen Elizabeth.
I don't supposed the Met' Police will assist them though!
Again, it is more evidence that 'they' think that 'we' are here
to obey their dictats. The internet is full of such evidence,
and as we all know, it is all over the world, in every continent,
in every country, in every town hall.
I can't do much about the PTB in say Asia or the USA,
but I can do it in my own town, county etc.

If we all resisted the local demigods, or even persuaded them that
we are right, and they were converted and 'assisted', the system would topple.

micklemus

22-10-2008, 01:18 PM

In the words of captain Sparrow "All that matters is what a man can do and what a man can't do." Which I fear is where Freemanism falls down. Even if technically it might be right, if the policeman, judge and jailer don't think it is your pretty well fucked.

Compound that with the fact that the self proclaimed freemen and women have yet to produce any real evidence of their status, or their bonds and dividends and I am highly warey of the whole thing. (Much as I would like it to be true.)

Quite

I've no axe to grind, in fact I WANT to be proved wrong. However I haven't seen a shred of evidence to suggest any of this is correct. If someone could point me to a book/website/reliable information source which clearly explains how this works then I will gladly look at it.

I have a feeling that much of this is bound up in a fundamental misunderstanding over what constitutes consent though. But I say again - I want to be proved wrong.

I feel it still all comes back to the same point - you can't use/manipulate the system to beat the system, at least not to any meaningful extent. The anecdotes I have read have far have more to do with good fortune and a lack of desire on the opponent's side to make a stand (because it isn't commercially viable to). I did see one about water bills as well - something to the effect of beating the system because the court didn't order that the water supply should be cut off when a debt wasn't paid. But that has nothing to do with freemanism - the court is applying a law which basically says water companies cannot (yet) cut off residential supplies in cases of non-payment.

I'm not being argumentative guys, I'm just imploring you to do your research very carefully. All that glitters is not gold.

Mo0n5tar

22-10-2008, 01:32 PM

Here ya go Mick have a listen to this guys radio shows:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/loooooong

Have a go through his archives there are some presentations where he speaks about about being in court that day and defeating the Judges.

Here are some more of his shows on the common law:
http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=26965&cmd=tc

I'm not being argumentative guys, I'm just imploring you to do your research very carefully. All that glitters is not gold.
Yeah thts what we're doing, but honestly, do you feel some guy in a wig should be the authority for truth in your life>?

you can't use/manipulate the system to beat the system, at least not to any meaningful extent.

Thats the very thing the elite are doing!:
"If there is a God, then he gives us not only life but also consciousness and awareness. If I live my life according to my God-given insights, then I cannot go wrong, and even if I do, I know I have acted in good faith." "I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of a natural law framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence."
[ Hitler, in a 1944 speech ].

See how Hitler justifies his mass murder by use of the common law, he was acting in line with his "God Given insights", you would not find a court in the land willing to go on record and state they have greater authority than your creator, and this is what it is about, getting things back into order.
1.God/Creative force
2.Spiritual Man
3.Government
4.Corporations

micklemus

22-10-2008, 01:33 PM

Thanks for that. I'll have a look and listen.

Much appreciated.

Mo0n5tar

22-10-2008, 02:11 PM

The Oath of a Privy Counsellor

You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen’s Majesty as one of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty’s Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty
SO HELP YOU GOD

micklemus

22-10-2008, 04:25 PM

?

Couple more questions-

1. What's the relevance of a Privy Counsellor's oath?
2. You amended your previous post after I responded to it. But regarding the guy in the wig comment, what's the issue with judges and lawyers? They apply the law, they don't create it - common law excepted, although common law is not particularly significant to this issue; it's prime areas of application being general principles of contract, tort etc. And common law is subordinate to statute anyway.

I'm truly trying to get my head around this and will look at that material. However, my impression has been that these freeman concepts are largely a reaction to the steady creep of state control (which in the legal field is reflected in legislation, not common law). Bashing judges does not change the law in that sense, as the statutes don't disappear and the lawyers and judges are still bound to apply them. I would agree that creating some sort of immunity (if I can can it that) from state control would change the relationship between the State and the individual, but I do not see how a court, any court, can affect that. Conceptionally this is an question of an individual's social 'contract' with the State. I don't agree that it's simply a case of declaring that one's consent is withdrawn as consent is evidenced in so many different factors.

I say again though, I hope I'm wrong and I will read with interest. Maybe I have completely misunderstood what this is intended to achieve. I'm not trying to score points, I'm trying to drill down the detail and follow the logic.

1694

22-10-2008, 04:39 PM

I appreciate your balanced and informed analysis.

One thing that has struck me in my research is "Lawfull Excuse" it exists under UK law and if you can convince a jury that it was justified you may break the law. IE Harmsomeone in self defence or in defence of those who can't defend themselfs.

There is a case where peace protestors damaged warplanes (I think-might have been helecopters) which were en route to a rouge government to be used in ethnic cleansing and claimed lawfull excuse from criminal damage as they were protecting others lives.

Can you claim lawfull excuse against paying income tax as it pays loans you did not agree to take out and instead offer/or make attempts to pay for public sector spending directly?

micklemus

22-10-2008, 06:14 PM

Good question.

And not to my knowledge, no. I'm sure there are tax lawyers who could comment in detail but my recollection (and I'm going back to economics of school and university days long ago) is that this is one of the reasons why we don't have tax hypothecation in the UK. Hypothecated taxes give taxpayers an opportunity to opt out (as well as tying the State's hands in terms of its spending). We have general taxation instead.

As to lawful excuse, this brings us back to what I was saying about statute law. There are of course many defences still available to offences under statute. Now I don't want to say too much here as people who want advice on criminal law should speak to criminal experts or lawyers (I am neither) but I seem to recall for example that certain assault charges can be defeated on grounds of provocation, therefore provocation would in certain situations be a lawful excuse (as defined in the appropriate statute). The statute (laid out by Parliament, not the judges or the lawyers) prescribes what is appropriate.

However, we do not have a general principle of lawful excuse or, to paraphrase, "I object to X law on Y grounds, therefore it doesn't apply to me" (I know that's a simplification of the point you're making but forgive me). Members of a State are bound by its rules; they consent to be so bound.

As I said, I think these arguments all come back to the core issue of consent, which is very knotty indeed. If someone has found a way to crack or bypass the system with a great point about consent then I'm all ears. And eyes - hence reading up on this info.

Interesting stuff

danster82

22-10-2008, 06:28 PM

The only problem that people will discover about the common law approach which is totaly within the Law is that you will be ignored and they will fine you anyway and they will not give you due process of law even when you demand due process of the law and the reason is that the country is already too far gone and we are already a dictatorship but after saying that I will still support and try myself as this information or movement helps to remind people of their sovereignty which they have but which they have been tricked into forgetting.

The first line of the Magna Carter has me baffled

"FIRST, We have granted to God"

Granted to God.. excuse me?

Who is the "We" it is not clear, the declaration of independence is clear it is "We the People" and "inalienable God given rights"

I do not serve the Queen (crown) in any way shape or form, I do not recognize the queens "divine right" And if this country is based on rights granted to us by the crown then I am at odds to this country as I truly Am a freeman and do not need to know anyone else's law, I do not have to educate myself on the Law in order to be free as that also is not freedom...

john white

22-10-2008, 10:44 PM

the one below explains it in simple terms .....

http://www.tpuc.org/node/317

have you tried Blacks Dictionary of Law, not all the words we use everyday have the same meaning when it comes to what they mean in LAW.

freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

Damn straight Malvern!

john white

22-10-2008, 10:45 PM

There's a couple of people buying historical spin on this thread

NEVER forget: Words have Power

Law is the application of words AS Power

oppono astos

23-10-2008, 12:18 AM

Magna Carta?

No wonder King John "rolled around on the floor, knawing sticks and stones" when he had to sign the damn thing!

h2pogo

23-10-2008, 01:06 AM

The feeling i get these days is nearly every one is pissed of with this government.
including policemen and Judges.
I think due process of law may be given and someone using our laws positively may even be treated with respect by some.

micklemus

23-10-2008, 10:39 AM

There's a couple of people buying historical spin on this thread

NEVER forget: Words have Power

Law is the application of words AS Power

I agree with that, to an extent. But surely everyone is buying into the historical spin on this by their conduct - otherwise there would be no freeman movement in the first place, nor others investigating it.

It's an interesting concept to research and debate in any event. Not that it matters, my personal perspective is that the key to all these difficulties (including the 'banking crisis', Big Brother state etc) is to move beyond it; to focus on your personal development and start afresh. Bla di bla

However, none of us have all the answers (or possibly even some of them come to that) and most people here are more grounded and think the esoteric is either difficult to grasp, irrelevant or downright bollocks. So looking at these issues from a more everyday perspective and seeing where it takes you can be extremely helpful all round.

If freemanism is a runner then that's no bad thing, I'm certainly not going to knock it. But if you're looking for meaningful answers you need to understand what you're dealing with in the first place. That's where my note of caution came in.

I'm enjoying the analysis myself.

malvern

23-10-2008, 05:27 PM

to focus on your personal development

My understanding of the " Freeman Philosophy " is personal developement. Also allowing you to find an equal and fair understanding with your fellow humans.

If freemanism is a runner

IT IS ................. and it's getting faster everyday.

freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

lesactive

04-12-2008, 02:08 AM

pleasuredome

04-12-2008, 11:26 AM

(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.

Source and Further Information
G. R. C. Davis, Magna Carta, Revised Edition, British Library, 1989.

here is a quote from the magna carta 1215....

30. No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or other person, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport duty, against the will of the said freeman.

http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm

is your quote a typo or is one version of the magna carta differing from the other?

godspeed

04-12-2008, 11:12 PM

here's a question thats baffling me...can a lawyer send a man to trial on someone else's witness list...say at the start of a trial you meet said lawyer outside court and your with the accused person and you say to him is it possible to have someone on the witness list to drop off so we can have someone in court with accused and he says no so i say well im declaring myself to step forward from the list as you have put everyone we know as a witness and we need someone in court from the start observing the trial too....and he turns round and says well its your witness list ?!! you can have such and such a person...and then proceeds to hand the trial over to his assistant and walks away!!! does anyone else see what im saying here cos this could be important for an appeal i think...the reason it was my list is because we spent 8months before the trial with a shit lawyer doing fuck all and im close to the accused as in share same house and id made a list of people who were around at times of said crimes took place and they accidently got into his hands lol....true....so its left me wondering as they lost the case but have appeal to deal with next year and im just fishing around you know...peace

dondaz

06-12-2008, 03:39 AM

pleasuredome

06-12-2008, 01:10 PM

Some of you may want to look into the treaty of 1213 which King John signed with the Pope two years prior to the Magna Charta giving England and Ireland over to the Church. The Magna Charta presumes to break that contract when the barons weren't consignors to the earlier treaty. It was an unlawful act. The Pope, as Vicar of Christ, still rules the land to this day.

Just something to consider...

imo, this would depend on the oath sworn by king john on his coronation. if it was an oath to the people to uphold the laws and customs of england, then the treaty of 1213 would be unlawful because it surrenders sovereignty to the pope. this was actually done under duress as john had been excommuncated and according to wikipedia "threatened stronger measures unless John submitted"

i'm going to see if i can find out what oath john swore. interestingly enough, wikipedia only contains the current oath as sworn by elizabeth. and it also does not examine the treaty of 1213. hmmm i wonder why. :cool:

update...

7th -10th century oath
Ðis ge-writ is ge-writen stæf be stæfe be þam ge-write, þe Dunstan arceb. sealde urum hlaforde æt Cingestune, þa on dæg þa hine man halgode to cinge, 7 for-bead him ælc wedd to syllane, butan þysan wedde, þe he up on Cristes weofod léde, swa se b. him dihte: On þære halgan þrinnesse naman, Ic þreo þing be-háte cristenum folce, 7 me under-ðeoddem; {This writing is written letter by letter after the writing which Dunstan the archbishop delivered to our lord at Kingston on the day on which they consecrated him king, and he forbad him to give any pledge {promise/covenant}except this pledge {promise/covenant}which he laid on Christ’s altar, as the bishop {directed him}. ‘In the name of the holy Trinity, I promise three things to Christian people, and bind myself to them;’}13 án ærest, Þ Godes cyrice 7 eall cristen folc minra ge-wealda soðe sibbe healde; oðer is Þ reaf-lac 7 ealle unrihte þing eallum hádum for-beode; þridde, Þ ic be-háte 7 be-beode on eallum dómum riht 7 mild-heortnisse, þæt us eallum arfæst 7 mild-heort God þurh Þ his ecean miltse for-gife, so lifað 7 rixað. 14
I promise these three things to the Christian people subject to me: First, that the Church of God and all the Christian people preserve true peace at all times. that I will forbid rapine and all injustice [unrihte þing, unjust/unright things] to people of all conditions [all manner of persons irrespective of rank]; the third, that I vow and promise in all [my] judgments justice [riht, right, equity, aequitem] and mild-heartedness [mild-heartedness/compassion/mercy], that the gracious God through his everlasting mercy may forgive us all, who shall live and reign15 [Old English version said to be for Edgar [959-975]; Latin version said to be c. 8th century and certainly extant in the 9th.]

The source of the law is, as Hale recognized, the people; the law itself is manifested through their ancient prerogative to endorse their monarch and articulated in the oath of governance which binds the monarch to the people, while both conferring and circumscribing power. It is from this oath that all the law depends; it is this oath that gave birth more than a millennium ago to the common law, and continues to nourish it. It has been the lodestone for the development of justice and right for over 1,200 years. The role played by Anglo-Saxon law, and those kings in changing, codifying and insisting on judgments being made in accordance with the law and what was right and just224 formed the basis on which later kings and people built. The common law changed and evolved as did the people evolve and change, but always within the parameters set down generation after generation in the oath of governance.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1147423

In 1209 Innocent excommunicated John. When this failed of the desired effect he declared John deposed in 1212 and invited the French king to invade the country. Thereupon John submitted and made this declaration to the papal legate Pandulf, at Dover, 15 May 1213; the act of surrender was renewed at London before Nicholas, Bishop of Tusculum, where the homage was performed. It is unknown whether the surrender was suggested from Rome, or offered by John.John, by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, earl of Anjou....

http://www.8wiki.com/Papacy_--King_Versus_Pope--John_Of_England_Submits_1213

so, how does the pope come into all this? he doesnt. unless, of course you consent to it. the office of pope was and still is acting under admiralty law. so the pope can go fuck himself imo

pleasuredome

06-12-2008, 03:10 PM

micklemus

08-12-2008, 12:42 PM

Agreed. The true meaning of consent goes to the crux of all this and I must admit I still haven’t seen anything to change my mind. Sorry to pour cold water on this as I would love it to be truly beneficial.

As I understand it the freeman movement is about somehow freeing oneself from the legal constraints of your chosen country. Is there someone who has actually done it? And how?

There might be examples of small legal victories along by certain individuals but that is not the same thing. Nor is proverbially sticking one’s fingers up at authority. You’re either truly a freeman or you’re not.

My intention is not to ruffle feathers with this post and I come from a point of view where this is another example of “combing the mirror” anyway; to me change comes from within. However, it seems to me that there would be thousands or millions of people not paying taxes, not abiding by legislation etc and enjoying total immunity for it if it was simply a case of declaring oneself a freeman and citing the Magna Carta. I suspect virtually every lawyer would have done it long ago too.

Honestly, I’m not trying to be argumentative. I truly am looking for solid explanations and examples of this in action. Here’s still hoping….

pleasuredome

08-12-2008, 03:59 PM

However, it seems to me that there would be thousands or millions of people not paying taxes, not abiding by legislation etc and enjoying total immunity for it if it was simply a case of declaring oneself a freeman and citing the Magna Carta.

its not that simple, and nobody is suggesting it is. :)

micklemus

08-12-2008, 04:57 PM

OK, but looking at all these threads my impression is that it is regarded as that simple, which is why I keep asking for guidance, examples etc. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't looked into this in the same depth as others, but I do have a fair bit of relevant knowledge and that's why I can see some major glitches. Of course, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as they say, so maybe I am showing my ignorance for not understanding a relevant point.

On a positive note, I've found some more references from another thread so I'll check those out too. Whatever your viewpoint though, this is interesting stuff.

And I still agree that the key point is consent.....

pleasuredome

08-12-2008, 05:29 PM

OK, but looking at all these threads my impression is that it is regarded as that simple, which is why I keep asking for guidance, examples etc.

im in the same boat.

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't looked into this in the same depth as others, but I do have some knowledge of the law generally

you're one up on me then, cos this is all new to me.

have a read of this, Common Law Constitutionalism - A Different View (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1147423). you will have to register to read it.

thebarfly1

08-12-2008, 05:34 PM

Just came across this, for all my fellow paddies reading, its Magna Charta Hiberniae, 1216, The Great Charter of Ireland, http://ua_tuathal.tripod.com/magna.html still has force of law in Ireland, evidenced here (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1220707538&view=ag-view&docrank=3&numhitsfound=127&query=malicious&query_rule=(($query1)%3C%3DYEAR%3C%3D($query2))%20 AND%20(($query3))%3ATITLE%20AND%20(($query4))%3Anu mber%20AND%20(($query5))%3Asectionno%20AND%20(($qu ery))&query1=1960&query2=2002&docid=71250&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&dbname=SIs&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1)

griswald

08-12-2008, 11:17 PM

Just came across this too, seems the pots been brewing for a while.;)

Magna Carta seems to grow more important with each passing year. Up to the time of our Civil War, the U.S. Supreme Court found fewer than a dozen cases requiring analysis of Magna Carta. Between 1870 and 1900, over thirty cases, mostly interpretations of the newly extended rights under the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, involved discussions of Magna Carta But since 1940, over sixty cases have produced comments and commentary on Magna Carta's role in American law.

http://www.magnacharta.com/articles/article04.htm

griswald

rob menard

09-12-2008, 05:07 AM

Hmmmmmm.
I smell toast.

That always happens when I get a brilliant idea.

Magna Carta II, anyone?

hee hee hee hee

Rob

lizzy

09-12-2008, 05:28 AM

hi rob.....:)

I have followed some of your work / seen your vids. Your are an inspiration.

ThankYou....BTW, I am a Brit who lives in WA. state.......who has dual nationality , I need to get out of both, LOL....:eek:

griswald

10-12-2008, 10:38 PM

Does anyone know the outcome of this case, I cant seem to find any updates for it, it would be interesting and useful for us paddies

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1548536/Irish-angler-uses-Magna-Carta-on-landowner.html

griswald

cacadores

11-12-2008, 12:55 AM

I hereby give you notice that I intend to enter into lawful rebellion by invoking my rights under Magna Carta 1215 article 61,

Nice mate. But competely ga ga.

I hereby give notice that as per the above legal definition of an act/statute, I unconditionally and completely withdraw my consent to any and all statute legislation that is used to levy and extort monies from myself and,
What grounds do you have for believing you have any right to opt out of Statute Law, which in Britain, takes precidence over Common Law and the Magna Carta? And which takes precidence over you?

If you're British, you may be called a 'citizen', but in reality you are a 'subject' to any law enacted, including the Local Govenment Act and any subsiduary legislation which officers appointed by the Crown or it's ministers may enact. You have no defined relationship with the state: only certain rights to prevent abuse. The powers of the UK are devolved through the Crown. You have the right to vote for representatives, and their primary right to go against the Crown is to levy taxes.......on you. You have redress against Statute Law only if you can show it was incorrectly applied on it's own terms, if it was applied to the wrong person, or it fails a test of fairness. Common Law is subsiduary to Statute. Courts may be 'corporations', but if they operate under a Crown perrogative, they have the right to try you. UK assets do not belong to you, but to the Crown or Parliament. Britain has a bi-cameral legislature: you have to look at which bit of it you're in dispute with, and you've got the wrong bit.

Your laws developed under feudalism. Laws technically flow from the Crown except for tax laws which Parliament decrees. You are a subject - make no bones about it.

In order to invoke Artical 61 of the Magna Carta, the right to lawful rebellion, you first have to petition the Crown itself in the person of the sovereign and if that does no good, you can lay your claim for judgement with the council of 'Barons', which we suppose is the House of Lords, ie the UK supreme court. And they can allow you to rebel, if they agree. You have no unilateral right to 'rebel'. Even the subject of your rebellion is the right to take redress by seizing Crown property, not your council's. And your petition has to lie with the Queen for 40 days, not 3. Doh!

Under British law, your only redress against the council is 1) Go to court or 2) have them take you to court. But the laws used will be statute laws, and the principal behind the judgement will be equity, or fairness. I'll let you into a little secret: the constitution of the UK, is the law itself: not a Declaration of Independance, not any rights (except for the vague EU rights of man), just the law and common usage.

You're barking up the wrong tree, and your only hope is
1) that they'll leave you alone because they don't want a fuss, or
2) they're too busy to consult a lawer or
3) they don't don't understand what you're talking about!

And to be honest, I wonder at the ethics of trying to gain special treatment from a democratically elected body and the consequent undermining of the will of the PEOPLE.

I mean, nice try. But why are you making all this stuff up?

1694

11-12-2008, 01:04 AM

Magna Carter is a statute. Just saying.

pleasuredome

11-12-2008, 01:19 AM

cacadores. statutes take precedent over common law?? you having a laugh?

1694. magna carta whether a statute or not, affirms common law.

cacadores

11-12-2008, 02:21 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Medieval_parliament_edward.Jpg/300px-Medieval_parliament_edward.Jpg
cacadores. statutes take precedent over common law?? you having a laugh?

1694. magna carta whether a statute or not, affirms common law.
And? The Magna Carta is a contract.......a contract between the Barons (the House of Lords) and the Sovereign (the King or Queen). The 'people' weren't involved.

The 'people' had already been enslaved by the fuedal laws William asserted by right of conquest. Slaves have no rights. And the Barons and the King agreed to abide by the Common Law they had at that time. But like any contracted parties, they had the right to ammend their own contract any time they so chose. Which they do......every time they pass a Statute.

It's why Statute has presidence. Statute is the Queen and the Barons (and Parliament in respect of taxes) ammending their contract.

The people of Britain are nothing but a few paragraphs in a contract. With the right (since the Act of Settlement) to tax........ (wait for it) ourselves.

stickwhistler

11-12-2008, 09:51 AM

Nice mate. But competely ga ga.

What grounds do you have for believing you have any right to opt out of Statute Law, which in Britain, takes precidence over Common Law and the Magna Carta? And which takes precidence over you?

If you're British, you may be called a 'citizen', but in reality you are a 'subject' to any law enacted, including the Local Govenment Act and any subsiduary legislation which officers appointed by the Crown or it's ministers may enact. You have no defined relationship with the state: only certain rights to prevent abuse. The powers of the UK are devolved through the Crown. You have the right to vote for representatives, and their primary right to go against the Crown is to levy taxes.......on you. You have redress against Statute Law only if you can show it was incorrectly applied on it's own terms, if it was applied to the wrong person, or it fails a test of fairness. Common Law is subsiduary to Statute. Courts may be 'corporations', but if they operate under a Crown perrogative, they have the right to try you. UK assets do not belong to you, but to the Crown or Parliament. Britain has a bi-cameral legislature: you have to look at which bit of it you're in dispute with, and you've got the wrong bit.

Your laws developed under feudalism. Laws technically flow from the Crown except for tax laws which Parliament decrees. You are a subject - make no bones about it.

In order to invoke Artical 61 of the Magna Carta, the right to lawful rebellion, you first have to petition the Crown itself in the person of the sovereign and if that does no good, you can lay your claim for judgement with the council of 'Barons', which we suppose is the House of Lords, ie the UK supreme court. And they can allow you to rebel, if they agree. You have no unilateral right to 'rebel'. Even the subject of your rebellion is the right to take redress by seizing Crown property, not your council's. And your petition has to lie with the Queen for 40 days, not 3. Doh!

Under British law, your only redress against the council is 1) Go to court or 2) have them take you to court. But the laws used will be statute laws, and the principal behind the judgement will be equity, or fairness. I'll let you into a little secret: the constitution of the UK, is the law itself: not a Declaration of Independance, not any rights (except for the vague EU rights of man), just the law and common usage.

You're barking up the wrong tree, and your only hope is
1) that they'll leave you alone because they don't want a fuss, or
2) they're too busy to consult a lawer or
3) they don't don't understand what you're talking about!

If that is true, it really is time to stop talking, and let the revolution begin.

And to be honest, I wonder at the ethics of trying to gain special treatment from a democratically elected body and the consequent undermining of the will of the PEOPLE.
Democratically elected? LOL.
Will of the people? LOL
When a minority group (tail) gets to rule the greater majority (wag the dog)
How is that 'the will of the people'?
When the majority of 'the people' do not want war,
but murdering despotic corporate nob-polishing treasonous assholes
like Bliar and Blunket, (Buff)Hoon, Straw, and "I've seen the evidence" Hain do it anyway,
how is that 'the will of the people'?

I mean, nice try. But why are you making all this stuff up?

It is a differing point of view because they believe in what they are doing,
and are totally fed up with the way a minority run things for the benefit of the few,
to the detriment of the many.
I am a spiritual being, answerable to God/Universe/Creation/Consciousness alone,
and not to any one else. Certainly not YOU (or the above mentioned).
If the rebellion isn't peaceful, the revolution will be bloody.

Peace. :D

wellsyboy

11-12-2008, 10:22 AM

I have spoken to serving law enforcement agents ...(who we did know as the police) and they agree that it is all about consent...

know your rights ...do not let someone else tell you them.

Malvern, It is interesting that you say this. I was looking in Waterstones at books on law (probably not the best place!) and there was the Law for Dummies book, which was about 384 pages long and there was also a book called "Police Law" which could be used as a wheel stop on a jumbo jet (1248 pages).

Need I say more!

1694

11-12-2008, 11:43 AM

cacadores. statutes take precedent over common law?? you having a laugh?

1694. magna carta whether a statute or not, affirms common law.

Oxymoron. Best you look up what "common law" is.

pleasuredome

11-12-2008, 11:57 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Medieval_parliament_edward.Jpg/300px-Medieval_parliament_edward.Jpg

And? The Magna Carta is a contract.......a contract between the Barons (the House of Lords) and the Sovereign (the King or Queen). The 'people' weren't involved.

The 'people' had already been enslaved by the fuedal laws William asserted by right of conquest. Slaves have no rights. And the Barons and the King agreed to abide by the Common Law they had at that time. But like any contracted parties, they had the right to ammend their own contract any time they so chose. Which they do......every time they pass a Statute.

It's why Statute has presidence. Statute is the Queen and the Barons (and Parliament in respect of taxes) ammending their contract.

The people of Britain are nothing but a few paragraphs in a contract. With the right (since the Act of Settlement) to tax........ (wait for it) ourselves.

ok, you have an opinion. what interests me about your opinion is that you claim that statute take precident over common law. what i'm going to do is ask you to back it up with evidence. i'm all for establishing whether the 'freeman' movement is on a sound footing or not, so please provide links and citations. its one of the reasons why i asked this question link (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44814)

tomorrow i will be seeing a solicitor and ask for his legal opinion on the matter. :)

pleasuredome

11-12-2008, 12:04 PM

Oxymoron. Best you look up what "common law" is.

best to tell me why its an oxymoron first.

1694

11-12-2008, 12:30 PM

best to tell me why its an oxymoron first.

Contradiction in terms.

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

pleasuredome

11-12-2008, 12:35 PM

Contradiction in terms.

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

im not asking you what an oxymoron is, i'm asking you why its a contradiction.

pleasuredome

11-12-2008, 01:03 PM

I mean, nice try. But why are you making all this stuff up?

btw, he isnt. he posted what someone had put on another forum and wanted to know what people thought of it. :)

1694

11-12-2008, 01:13 PM

Common law is a fluid thing, it is the result of the decision, not the cause of it. Statutes are a exaclty the opposite, they are intended to be a written set of rules that state the law before the event ruling the decision.

There are no specific rights in common law, your rights are what you "get away with", and just because you get away with it doesn't mean the next guy will. Even if a ruling goes highly against all commonly held beliefs of what is "just" under a common law jurisdiction that it the outcome.

Statutes on the other hand give specific rights, IE the right of other road users to be protected from dangerious driving = speed limit statutes.

The Magna Carter is a specific statute to protect you from common law injustice, same as the US constitution etc. Before it's existence the king would take the piss out of the people and that was the way it was, that was "common law" in action.

pleasuredome

11-12-2008, 01:35 PM

Common law is a fluid thing, it is the result of the decision, not the cause of it.

righteeo. hence why case law is retrospective [sarcastic]. a decision made that sets precedent is based on common law

Statutes are a exaclty the opposite, they are intended to be a written set of rules that state the law before the event ruling the decision.

statutes are rules that reaffirm the law or amend the law in accord with its principle. the judge can look at the statute and if he believes its against the common law principle he will rule against it and the statute is repealed

The Magna Carter is a specific statute to protect you from common law injustice, same as the US constitution etc. Before it's existence the king would take the piss out of the people and that was the way it was, that was "common law" in action.

can you provide links and citations that this is the case? it seems total rubbish to me.

malvern

11-12-2008, 01:57 PM

Malvern, It is interesting that you say this. I was looking in Waterstones at books on law (probably not the best place!) and there was the Law for Dummies book, which was about 384 pages long and there was also a book called "Police Law" which could be used as a wheel stop on a jumbo jet (1248 pages).

i too like my books , but so many .... i've been reading criminal law and some contract ( need to study more in this area ), Also i find A.P.Herbert books good for the usage and miss use of comman law.. go to your charity shops and second hand bookshops and have a look at whats there ...some great finds ... as dondaz's bit at the bottom says .... if you do not know your rights , you have no rights .

freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

1694

11-12-2008, 02:06 PM

righteeo. hence why case law is retrospective [sarcastic]. a decision made that sets precedent is based on common law

Yes it sets a precident, but what is that? It is not necessarily the ruling that you get for your case, it is just an argument used to convince the judge/jury that that is how your case should be treated. Each new ruling is exactly that, a new ruling, it may go with or against past precedents on similar cases.

statutes are rules that reaffirm the law or amend the law in accord with its principle. the judge can look at the statute and if he believes its against the common law principle he will rule against it and the statute is repealed.
Almost right. Statutes can be overtruned and re written it is done all the time. A judge can look at a statute and look at your case and decide that you are not liable for the statute, you get a common law ruling in your favour. This is not the same as you having "common law rights." or "common law principals" it is just up to the judge based on the arguments of both sides to decide what is "just." That decision in istelf will not repeal a statute.

can you provide links and citations that this is the case? it seems total rubbish to me.

Look at the Magna Carter, what is it? A written piece of legeslature = a statute. What does it contain? laws that protect the common man from a tyranical king. You don't need links or citations, it is what it is.

pleasuredome

11-12-2008, 02:50 PM

Yes it sets a precident, but what is that? It is not necessarily the ruling that you get for your case, it is just an argument used to convince the judge/jury that that is how your case should be treated. Each new ruling is exactly that, a new ruling, it may go with or against past precedents on similar cases.

is the law retrospective or isnt it?

Almost right. Statutes can be overtruned and re written it is done all the time. A judge can look at a statute and look at your case and decide that you are not liable for the statute, you get a common law ruling in your favour. This is not the same as you having "common law rights." or "common law principals" it is just up to the judge based on the arguments of both sides to decide what is "just." That decision in istelf will not repeal a statute.

it does in the USA. perhaps repeal isnt the right word, override would be better. nevertheless it has a detrimental affect on the statute.

Look at the Magna Carter, what is it? A written piece of legeslature = a statute. What does it contain? laws that protect the common man from a tyranical king. You don't need links or citations, it is what it is.

let me be more specific. show me evidence that the monarchs action was "common law"

i see you did a nice little edit on your previous post. how about stop beating about the bush and tell me the contradiction you claim i made.

1694

11-12-2008, 03:05 PM

is the law retrospective or isnt it?

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isnt.

it does in the USA. perhaps repeal isnt the right word, override would be better. nevertheless it has a detrimental affect on the statute.

let me be more specific. show me evidence that the monarchs action was "common law"

The evidence is in the history, did they do the acts of tyrany. Yes. Were they imprisoned? No. Ipso facto those were the laws of the land, it was common law.

i see you did a nice little edit on your previous post. how about stop beating about the bush and tell me the contradiction you claim i made.

Any edits I did were for clarity of point, probably gramatical, a mod can revert them if you like.

Stating that a statute affirms common law, when one is specifically unwritten and ever changing, and the other is specifically meant to be an unchanging universally applied rule, is an oxymoron. Ask anyone to define the term "common law statute." They will give the same answer.

This is especially true when the statute was desgined to change the common law practices that previously existed.

pleasuredome

11-12-2008, 05:44 PM

Any edits I did were for clarity of point, probably gramatical, a mod can revert them if you like.

Stating that a statute affirms common law, when one is specifically unwritten and ever changing, and the other is specifically meant to be an unchanging universally applied rule, is an oxymoron. Ask anyone to define the term "common law statute." They will give the same answer.

This is especially true when the statute was desgined to change the common law practices that previously existed.

a statute is designed to amend or reaffirm the law. the principle of it remains the same.

the monarchs only have legislative power. you're saying by the moanarchs actions, those actions became common law? what a load crap.

lets just see how crap your opinion is:

1694; curtain twitcher, but essentially a nobody

versus

Thomas McIntyre Cooley, Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M._Cooley);

Thoma Cooley's opinion given in:
Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations which Rest Upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union. Fifth edition.

about the book: This classic legal commentary on the Constitution examines the construction of state constitutions and the enactment of laws and "ranks with Story among the foremost commentators on the Constitution." Walker, Oxford Companion to Law 288. "The most influential work ever published on American Constitutional law." Corwin, Constitutional Revolution 87. Dictionary of American Biography describes this book as " ...still an indispensable companion for everyone interested in constitutional problems... The volume is characterized by clarity of style and perfection of organization; though based on precedent and authority, it is by no means lacking in philosophic grasp or wanting in the presentation of fundamental principles of jurisprudence and of social order. His presentation of constitutional provisions designed to protect individual liberty was especially strong and influential."

read this Page 31 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SsfVDTkdPY4C&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=do+statutes+reaffirm+common+law&source=web&ots=G87gz2_e3f&sig=MAFUhnYDVWa9viZulFhtWQIVP8w&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA31,M1)

i'm finished with this particular issue. i'll bid you good day 1694

micklemus

11-12-2008, 05:52 PM

With you 1694.

If it needs to be put in layman's terms - common law is court-made law, statutes are one type of various forms of legislation.

I should also add that no law (at least none that I can think of) is retrospective. Not in the UK anyway.

As I sit and observe these various threads and related links I still feel (with regret) that this freeman movement is barking up the wrong tree, but I hope to find otherwise in the end. I totally applaud the energy and creativity that is going into this but, extending the metaphor, some are not even in the right forest.

Can I also add that cacadores assessment of the Magna Carta is basically right too. It was simply a Royal charter pulling together the various Saxon feudal laws. It most certainly does not stand as the constitution of the UK (the UK does not have a constitution as such; only some loose 'constitutional' rules, although the European constitution is another matter!). However that it not to say that the Magna Carta is completely irrelevant either. Limited parts remain as law and it's historical significance is that it was an early step towards the systems that we have today.

Consent is a major factor here. The people have over history and to this day consented to the Monarchy and the Parliamentary system that we have in the UK. Someone is bound to say "well I didn't" in response. Well nor did I, in the sense of signing a form or something, that's not the point. It's more deep rooted than that. Sticking a notice on your front door is unlikely to help legally (particularly when many of the paragraphs used in these declarations are fundamentally wrong). However if it helps people feel that they are taking their power back then that is great. Thought is power.

Change will come from within. Truly revolutionise your thought processes and it will be reflected in your behaviour and wordly experience. If everyone does it the collective reality/daily life (call it what you will) changes too. Then these various pyramids collapse and a new reality begins.

As DI would say, do what you know to be right as you are infinite. We have all the answers, we've just forgotten. Trying to find a legal lacuna in the search for a panacea to the way this country is run might not do it. If you know something doesn't resonate with you, just let it go.

Apologies for the ramble; I'm trying to find the words to express something which is very difficult to articulate and rather than just say "such and such is wrong" I am trying to signpost a route which might lead in a slightly more fruitful direction. But it's not for me to force anyone in a particular direction; I am only offering an observation based on experience.

One other thing though - for those who regard freemanism as the achievement of some moral or legal victories against people and institutions that's great, do what you need to do. I'm only saying that there isn't a single legal switch that changes the whole thing and I wouldn't want some to burn themselves out looking for it. But everyone is free to do what they want of course!

O blimey I am rambling. Time for me to stop......

micklemus

11-12-2008, 05:55 PM

a statute is designed to amend or reaffirm the law. the principle of it remains the same.

the monarchs only have legislative power. you're saying by the moanarchs actions, those actions became common law? what a load crap.

lets just see how crap your opinion is:

1694; curtain twitcher, but essentially a nobody

versus

Thomas McIntyre Cooley, Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M._Cooley);

Thoma Cooley's opinion given in:
Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations which Rest Upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union. Fifth edition.

about the book: This classic legal commentary on the Constitution examines the construction of state constitutions and the enactment of laws and "ranks with Story among the foremost commentators on the Constitution." Walker, Oxford Companion to Law 288. "The most influential work ever published on American Constitutional law." Corwin, Constitutional Revolution 87. Dictionary of American Biography describes this book as " ...still an indispensable companion for everyone interested in constitutional problems... The volume is characterized by clarity of style and perfection of organization; though based on precedent and authority, it is by no means lacking in philosophic grasp or wanting in the presentation of fundamental principles of jurisprudence and of social order. His presentation of constitutional provisions designed to protect individual liberty was especially strong and influential."

read this Page 31 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SsfVDTkdPY4C&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=do+statutes+reaffirm+common+law&source=web&ots=G87gz2_e3f&sig=MAFUhnYDVWa9viZulFhtWQIVP8w&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA31,M1)

i'm finished with this particular issue. i'll bid you good day 1694

Actually 1694 is right. Can't speak for the US, it's a different system but in the UK the Monarch exercises her power through Parliament. That's why the State Opening of Parliament is not just an occasion of extraodinary pageantry. It has historical and political significance.

micklemus

11-12-2008, 06:00 PM

PS - Should have added to that last post that statutes and common law are NOT (repeat NOT) one and the same, therefore the Monarch's actions through the legislature cannot and do not create common law. The two don't sit together. 1694 mentioned an oxymoron earlier and I agree.

I probably made the above clear 2 posts ago anyway.

yozhik

11-12-2008, 06:33 PM

micklemus

11-12-2008, 06:42 PM

That's a shame. The likes of 1694 and myself are actually trying to help. The fact that the information is different to the prevailing mindset here does not alter its worth. You are free to do with it what you will.

I can only speak for myself but I can assure you that what I have said is based on fact. If you choose to believe it is disinformation then that is your reality; I have no wish to persuade you of anything.

1694

11-12-2008, 06:46 PM

Excellent work.

So now another post on Freeman becomes muddy and cloudy and impossible, for someone wanting to know the basics of it, to comprehend.

Good work 1694 et al ... you have rendered another thread worthless.
Your undying efforts of disinformation are apparently working thus far.
:mad:

Mate I am trying to help. I am (trying to ) giving actual information, something which freeman threads often seem to lack. Everyone is getting to caught up in what they want to be true that no one is checking whether it is.

I was interested in Miclemus's input. I believe he has formal knowledge on the subject of law.

I often think Tsung Tsu might be a good start for these freeman threads. I'm pretty sure "Know your enemy" is one of the early rules. So we should be looking into what we are actually dealing with, not inventing our own versions of the enemy.

pleasuredome

11-12-2008, 06:59 PM

Mate I am trying to help. I am (trying to ) giving actual information, something which freeman threads often seem to lack.

classic 'baron von lotsov' reasoning. if you were trying to help you would post real information instead of posting your opinion which you put across as being factual, but then fail to back it up. motives of such people doing this are very questionable imo.

micklemus

11-12-2008, 07:04 PM

A stone is a stone is a stone. To you it might be a weapon. To me it might be a building material. To another it might be the flint for a fire. But it's still a stone.

The information is there and it is fact. Your view on the information is your choice and you are welcome to your truth.

yozhik

11-12-2008, 07:06 PM

Mate I am trying to help. I am (trying to ) giving actual information, something which freeman threads often seem to lack. Everyone is getting to caught up in what they want to be true that no one is checking whether it is.

I was interested in Miclemus's input. I believe he has formal knowledge on the subject of law.

I often think Tsung Tsu might be a good start for these freeman threads. I'm pretty sure "Know your enemy" is one of the early rules. So we should be looking into what we are actually dealing with, not inventing our own versions of the enemy.

1694 ... lets assume your motives are genuine - my point is this;

There are a LOT of people just starting their exploration into the whole Freeman concept. Some of the points being raised here are a little advanced and extremely specific/pedantic.

For a "Freeman newbie" it can scare the crap out of them and turn them away before they have even had a chance to put their foot in the door.

Every thread, even if titled "Freeman basics" gets turned into an argument of semantics, opinions, arguments and hypotheses. I have never seen a "basic" thread remain a basic thread, with the starting points for a Freeman newbie.

IMHO we need to have a basic info thread for those interested which isn't diluted ... and then "advanced" areas for those who have basic understanding to then further their education by encountering the semantics and differing opinions.

We're making it too difficult for someone to start out.

griswald

11-12-2008, 09:11 PM

1694 ...

IMHO we need to have a basic info thread for those interested which isn't diluted ... and then "advanced" areas for those who have basic understanding to then further their education by encountering the semantics and differing opinions.

We're making it too difficult for someone to start out.

There is one , its called

Free Man On The Land In Lay Mans Terms

I cant understand how every freeman thread descends into a bitching war between posters.I dont need a freeman policing each bloody thread to see what is suitable for me to read , before attempting to disrupt it.

Newbies are intelligent adults, they are seeing through the veil of lies already, thats why they are on this site, for further enlightenment. Please dont treat us as idiots. We will see through it here, as well.

griswald

cacadores

12-12-2008, 01:30 AM

ok, you have an opinion. what interests me about your opinion is that you claim that statute take precident over common law. what i'm going to do is ask you to back it up with evidence. i'm all for establishing whether the 'freeman' movement is on a sound footing or not, so please provide links and citations
I'll try to enable understanding.

The English Constitution: a run through from the perspective of Power verses Rights.

1) William conquers Britain and it becomes his 'estate' ie crown estate.
His got his rights by the sword and they were confimed by de facto acceptance. He owns.....everything: the birds in the trees, the crops in the fields, the people, the air. Thus, only he and his heirs have immutable 'rights'.
He allowed his Barons to run parts of Britain, and they in turn allowed certain rights to:
The people: sub-tenants with no ultimate rights. William can take it all away from them, any time he wants. He is the Law, he can change the Law by decree.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Rolandfealty.jpg/250px-Rolandfealty.jpg

2) The Barons rebel and by right of might, force King John to sign the Magna Carta, a private contract.
Now there are two parties with immutable rights.
The king still owns everything, but now his rule cannot be oppressive. The Barons have rights too.
They allow the people to use the common law to solve disputes. But the Crown and the Barons can take all these rights away any time they chose. They are the Law, they can change the Law by statute, simply by ammending their contract.
The people: sub-tenants with no ultimate rights.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cb/House_of_Commons_logo.PNG/120px-House_of_Commons_logo.PNG

3) English Civil War. The House of Commons stages a millitary coup, beheads the King and dissolves the House of Lords. Briefly, the House of Commons is the Law by right of might. It can change the Law by statute, by decree.
The people: sub-tenants with no ultimate rights....but they have their foot in the door: they can, by aquiring property, enter the Commons and vote.

4) Restoration, William and Mary. Now there are three contracted parties with immutable rights: the Commons the Lords and the Sovereign. The Crown owns the kingdom..
1688, new contract between the Sovereign and the House of Commons gives
the House of Commons the right to tax and places everyone under the law.
All Statutes/Acts of Parliament must only be for the 'strengthening and preserving of the Common Law' in general. Meaning individual statutes can overturn individual Common Laws. The three contracted parties can take it all away from the people, any time it wants. The crown owns the kingdom. The 3 are the Law, they can change the Law by ammending their contracts.
The people: sub-tenants with no ultimate rights, only provisions in contracts which can be altered any time.

5) If a human in law is the 'Person', then the Queen in law is the 'Crown'.
The 'Crown' is the legal authority for the existence of government. The 'Crown' is above the law except for tort and contract claims. The Crown runs the 'Crown Prosecution Service', 'Crown Prosecutors', the secret services are 'Crown Servants'. The Crown is the source of all justice.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Her_Majesty%27s_Government_Coat_of_Arms.svg/175px-Her_Majesty%27s_Government_Coat_of_Arms.svg.png
Hidden in plain view.

The Crown, a position occupied by the Queen, retains its feudal rights as ultimate owner of all property in the UK and Commonwealth. It, or she owns.....everything: the birds in the trees, the crops in the fields, the people, the air: unclaimed property returns to it. The people are ruled by an entity above the law.

The 'Crown' is a corporation.

pleasuredome

12-12-2008, 02:32 PM

I'll try to enable understanding.

The English Constitution: a run through from the perspective of Power verses Rights.

1) William conquers Britain and it becomes his 'estate' ie crown estate.
His got his rights by the sword and they were confimed by de facto acceptance. He owns.....everything: the birds in the trees, the crops in the fields, the people, the air. Thus, only he and his heirs have immutable 'rights'.
He allowed his Barons to run parts of Britain, and they in turn allowed certain rights to:
The people: sub-tenants with no ultimate rights. William can take it all away from them, any time he wants. He is the Law, he can change the Law by decree.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Rolandfealty.jpg/250px-Rolandfealty.jpg

2) The Barons rebel and by right of might, force King John to sign the Magna Carta, a private contract.
Now there are two parties with immutable rights.
The king still owns everything, but now his rule cannot be oppressive. The Barons have rights too.
They allow the people to use the common law to solve disputes. But the Crown and the Barons can take all these rights away any time they chose. They are the Law, they can change the Law by statute, simply by ammending their contract.
The people: sub-tenants with no ultimate rights.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cb/House_of_Commons_logo.PNG/120px-House_of_Commons_logo.PNG

3) English Civil War. The House of Commons stages a millitary coup, beheads the King and dissolves the House of Lords. Briefly, the House of Commons is the Law by right of might. It can change the Law by statute, by decree.
The people: sub-tenants with no ultimate rights....but they have their foot in the door: they can, by aquiring property, enter the Commons and vote.

4) Restoration, William and Mary. Now there are three contracted parties with immutable rights: the Commons the Lords and the Sovereign. The Crown owns the kingdom..
1688, new contract between the Sovereign and the House of Commons gives
the House of Commons the right to tax and places everyone under the law.
All Statutes/Acts of Parliament must only be for the 'strengthening and preserving of the Common Law' in general. Meaning individual statutes can overturn individual Common Laws. The three contracted parties can take it all away from the people, any time it wants. The crown owns the kingdom. The 3 are the Law, they can change the Law by ammending their contracts.
The people: sub-tenants with no ultimate rights, only provisions in contracts which can be altered any time.

5) If a human in law is the 'Person', then the Queen in law is the 'Crown'.
The 'Crown' is the legal authority for the existence of government. The 'Crown' is above the law except for tort and contract claims. The Crown runs the 'Crown Prosecution Service', 'Crown Prosecutors', the secret services are 'Crown Servants'. The Crown is the source of all justice.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Her_Majesty%27s_Government_Coat_of_Arms.svg/175px-Her_Majesty%27s_Government_Coat_of_Arms.svg.png
Hidden in plain view.

The Crown, a position occupied by the Queen, retains its feudal rights as ultimate owner of all property in the UK and Commonwealth. It, or she owns.....everything: the birds in the trees, the crops in the fields, the people, the air: unclaimed property returns to it. The people are ruled by an entity above the law.

The 'Crown' is a corporation.

thanks for your reply. What i will do is to print this off and take it with me to the Lawfull Rebellion Conference on the 24th of january to get opinions on this, and then post them for you.

i asked my solicitor today and his understanding is he agrees with you about statute taking precedent over common law.

if i come across any further information i will post it for you.

:cool:

lesactive

12-12-2008, 07:16 PM

Thanks posting that, Cacadores, nicely condensed vision of the old guard of the past thousand years. Fortunately, I don't use any of their words to describe who I am or what I do as my acceptance of them would only give their words validity. The power of the words used in those treaties and contracts are backed by violence and coercion and nowhere within them will you find evidence of my knowing consent. Do you equate violence and coercion with fairness and good faith? It's one or the other.

By your own words you admit that the people are considered chattel property. People who are property are slaves no matter how well they hide the fact through the mirror of benefits. The only way someone becomes a slave is by force or consent and we've all consented without realizing we had a choice. If you believe their words, are comfortable with the status quo or if you simply think you have no choice well then there you are; faithful that those to whom you've given power of attorney over you through political representation are acting in your best interest. How's that going for you so far?

ag3nt5mith

13-12-2008, 08:00 PM

Quick question.

From whom does the crown draw it's authority...?

The crown is not the source of all law, look higher...

As Rob has stated before, the easiest way to become free is to claim you are a child of GOD...

"Whereas it is my understanding that equality before the law is paramount and mandatory"

If we are all equal how can Lizzy claim anything over us?

I would also say that many monarchs have hung from common ropes. ;)

Can she in fact prove that she is not your equal?

1694

13-12-2008, 09:00 PM

Quick question.

From whom does the crown draw it's authority...?
Itself

The crown is not the source of all law, look higher...
Look higher, look lower, look to the left, look to the right? Why not actualy face upto the problem.

As Rob has stated before, the easiest way to become free is to claim you are a child of GOD...
God won't interfere in mortal matters.

"Whereas it is my understanding that equality before the law is paramount and mandatory"

If we are all equal how can Lizzy claim anything over us?
We aren't all equal, that should be painfully apparent.

I would also say that many monarchs have hung from common ropes. ;)
The truth indeed

Can she in fact prove that she is not your equal?
Only one way to find out, if you can best her I guess she was not your equal but bellow it, if she bests you you are not her equal but below her. So far she is winning.

Suddahm Hussein refused to recognise the authority of the court that hung him. He was a free man in a long established soverign country.

cacadores

13-12-2008, 11:44 PM

i asked my solicitor today and his understanding is he agrees with you about statute taking precedent over common law.
if i come across any further information i will post it for you.
:cool:
Thanks.

The one thing I'm not certain about is if the Magna Carta was actually a contract (as I wrote) or a statement. If it was a statement, then presumably could be withdrawn by the Crown. There is a common law concept whereby something becomes fact if no one objects to it after a while: like de facto occupation can be turned into ownership. The Crown used this in Canada in certain Indian areas, for example, by tricking the Indians into writing a contract for some logging rights. The land then became subject of contract and existed in Crown territory, but because the Indians never filed an ownership claim, the land 'reverted' to the crown. So I doubt this is much help: as long as the Crown is above the law, then such concepts don't apply to it. Indeed, any unclaimed property reverts to the Crown because it ultimately owns everthing. It's even above the tax laws. The fact that the Magna Carta is so old is obviously no defence against the Crown altering it: it already has altered it many times.

In any case, the point is that the 'Freeman' idea cannot ultimately win, because we have no ultimate rights. What we do have, is some rights in the existing and temporary law. We can use the Freeman concept to play the system at its own game. People can only hope to win for a while, while the officials they deal with are too slow-witted to know what's going on. I think it's important to know it's a game, because then if we chose to play, we at least can celebrate small victories while they last.

America is different. There, they got rid of the Crown and wrote a constitution beginning, 'We, the people'. The 'people' then became contract holders: this is why you read about Americans trying to turn their Birth Cert. into a contract and trying to apply contract law to win a case. In the UK, the Birth Cert just confirms you as a subject. Without it, you're a subject anyway, since the law applies to everyone within the territory, whether thay have a birth cert or not.

In the UK, the people never had a contract with the ultimate ruler, so they have no ultimate rights - only temporary rights within the system given by the laws themsleves, if they want to play the game.

You could claim yourself 'sovereign', but in the UK and Commenwealth, you'd have to have a revolution to enforce it because the power of the Crown came through conquest. Any rights we have, are indulgences, which can be taken away by the next statute. That is, except for the EU Human rights document: because the Queen herself signed it.

By your own words you admit that the people are considered chattel property. People who are property are slaves no matter how well they hide the fact through the mirror of benefits. The only way someone becomes a slave is by force or consent and we've all consented without realizing we had a choice....... How's that going for you so far?Fine, but the Freeman concept is about using the law. Yes, technically we are property whom the Crown has granted various indulgences.

From whom does the crown draw it's authority...? It doesn''t need a 'from whom'. It's there now, it has the power now. It 'is'.
The crown is not the source of all law, look higher...
As Rob has stated before, the easiest way to become free is to claim you are a child of GOD...
I'm afraid that's not going to work. According to the first contracts, God rules through the Queen: she is head of the church, out there by God: she rules over the lords spiritual and temporal.

"Whereas it is my understanding that equality before the law is paramount and mandatory"But to get the Queen (or the crown) into a law court, you'd have to get Parliament to impeach her. This is the process that President Clinton and Charles I underwent.

If we are all equal how can Lizzy claim anything over us?
Because in law, she's the 'crown'. And she hasn't been impeached. In fact, the Crown Holdings pays no tax - only a 'voluntary' contribution for political reasons: she can not pay if she choses.

I would also say that many monarchs have hung from common ropes. ;)
Can she in fact prove that she is not your equal?She doesn't have to. It's about power: if you want to use the law, then the law supports her right to be above it.

boots

14-12-2008, 12:52 AM

Thanks.

Fine, but the Freeman concept is about using the law. Yes, technically we are property whom the Crown has granted various indulgences.

It's about using the law to get away from statues/ corporations.

It doesn''t need a 'from whom'. It's there now, it has the power now. It 'is'.

The "from who" is from the creator/god and the establishment hounor the KJB the God.

I'm afraid that's not going to work. According to the first contracts, God rules through the Queen: she is head of the church, out there by God: she rules over the lords spiritual and temporal.

You got that ballsed up. When has it ever been said that the queen is mightier than god?

But to get the Queen (or the crown) into a law court, you'd have to get Parliament to impeach her. This is the process that President Clinton and Charles I underwent.

Ridiculous. The Queen is a figurehead. It's the parliament that makes the statutes

Because in law, she's the 'crown'. .

The Queen is not god.

.

1694

14-12-2008, 12:57 AM

Boots, we all know it isn't fair, that doesn't make it not true.

boots

14-12-2008, 12:58 AM

i asked my solicitor today and his understanding is he agrees with you about statute taking precedent over common law.

:cool:

Of course he would. It's all about commerce to them. They have to keep their jobs and not buck the system.

.

1694

14-12-2008, 01:04 AM

Of course he would. It's all about commerce to them. They have to keep their jobs and not buck the system.

.

It is all about commerce, who pays their wages....clients, not the law society, infact they have to pay a fee to the law socitey. If a soliciter found a way to get his clients the results they wanted when all other solicitors fail, aswell as not having to pay their fees to the law society they would be all over it like flies on dog shit.

boots

14-12-2008, 01:05 AM

Boots, we all know it isn't fair, that doesn't make it not true.

Maxims of law.

Equality. All are equal before the law.

Don't be a defeatist. You have power use it.

.

1694

14-12-2008, 01:08 AM

Maxims of law.

Equality. All are equal before the law.

Don't be a defeatist. You have power use it.

.

That's their propoganda and emprical evidence to the contrary is all around you. Just because it looks like commercial redemption isn't an answer doesn't mean I am giving up on the long term struggle.

boots

14-12-2008, 01:08 AM

It is all about commerce, who pays their wages....clients, not the law society, infact they have to pay a fee to the law socitey. If a soliciter found a way to get his clients the results they wanted when all other solicitors fail, aswell as not having to pay their fees to the law society they would be all over it like flies on dog shit.

Nope. They would quickly be dis barred from practicing law. For not following the system.

.

1694

14-12-2008, 01:11 AM

Nope. They would quickly be dis barred from practicing law. For not following the system.

.

YES. That is exactly what I said, they would no longer be paying fees to be a member of the law society, they would just be cleaning up using freeman practice. Look at what Rob does for people, THAT.

boots

14-12-2008, 01:15 AM

YES. That is exactly what I said, they would no longer be paying fees to be a member of the law society, they would just be cleaning up using freeman practice. Look at what Rob does for people, THAT.

It's more lucrative to be in the law society than out of it.

I wouldn't call Rob a rich man monetary wise.

.

1694

14-12-2008, 01:17 AM

It's more lucrative to be in the law society than out of it.
I wouldn't call Rob a rich man monetary wise.

.

Well that tell us something.

If freemanism worked it would be more lucrative to be out of the law society and "greedy solicitors" would do it.

boots

14-12-2008, 01:20 AM

Well that tell us something.

If freemanism worked it would be more lucrative to be out of the law society and "greedy solicitors" would do it.

Hey:confused:.

Freeman is not about money.

.

1694

14-12-2008, 01:25 AM

Hey:confused:.

Freeman is not about money.

.

A) Yes it is. Most of the ideas I see on here are to get out of paying taxes, licence fees and fines, overdue mortgages and debts etc.

and

B)Look at everything in the world, if there is something others do instead of you, be it they have skills or knowledge you don't or you just don't want to do it, then then someone will charge you for it.

It is a simple information arbatrage.

If you need something translated to a language you don't speak you pay a translator to do it (or use a free service that carries ads to make revenue). Languages aren't about money are they.....

So if you want to be a freeman and someone else figures out how to do it they will surely offer a service to you that will make you a freeman for a small charge. Lawyers and solicitors (or former lawyers and solicitors) would be the first to do this because it has a massive money making oppertunity of them using their existing law knowledge that most people don't have to get the results.

keystone

14-12-2008, 01:42 AM

A) Yes it is. Most of the ideas I see on here are to get out of paying taxes, licence fees and fines, overdue mortgages and debts etc.I find myself wondering how then, if you declare yourself outside the system for these purposes, you would expect to be able to still partake of the services provided by the education system, the NHS, and the benefits system when times get tough.

boots

14-12-2008, 01:45 AM

A) Yes it is. Most of the ideas I see on here are to get out of paying taxes and fines, overdue mortgages and debts etc.

Nope it's getting the bonds set up by a bankrupt government to pay for those things. It6's dealing with the corporate world

and

B)Look at everything in the world, if there is something others do instead of you, be it they have skills or knowledge you don't or you just don't want to do it, then then someone will charge you for it.

Yep no problem there we all have to work and help others out with skills that other's do not have. You can either use money or barter.

When cost of living goe's down and the trades man for instance doe's not have to pay taxes etc, then he will charge less because he has more money in his pocket.

So if you want to be a freeman and someone else figures out how to do it they will surely offer a service to you that will make you a freeman for a small charge. Lawyers and solicitors (or former lawyers and solicitors) would be the first to do this because it has a massive money making oppertunity of them using their existing law knowledge that most people don't have to get the results.

These lawyers and solicitors work on economics of scale they have large salary's and large house and expensive cars and those that don't, want to get there.

So it is fear that stops them, fear of losing there status from the law society and losing there houses etc.

Can you imagine what would happen to the first lawyer who made the MSM doing this for the people.

He'd have a tonne of bricks thrown at him from the establishment.

.

boots

14-12-2008, 01:54 AM

I find myself wondering how then, if you declare yourself outside the system for these purposes, you would expect to be able to still partake of the services provided by the education system, the NHS, and the benefits system when times get tough.

You first set that up in your Notice of understanding and intent saying that you still have a right to these services and that your bond account will pay for those things, if you want to. But the fact is that you can't operate as a bankrupt, which is what the governments are doing and therefore no money should be exchanging hands.

.

keystone

14-12-2008, 02:06 AM

You first set that up in your Notice of understanding and intent saying that you still have a right to these services and that your bond account will pay for those things, if you want to. But the fact is that you can't operate as a bankrupt, which is what the governments are doing and therefore no money should be exchanging hands.

.

OK. More work by me is indicated then.

1694

14-12-2008, 02:18 AM

These lawyers and solicitors work on economics of scale they have large salary's and large house and expensive cars and those that don't, want to get there.

So it is fear that stops them, fear of losing there status from the law society and losing there houses etc.

Can you imagine what would happen to the first lawyer who made the MSM doing this for the people.

He'd have a tonne of bricks thrown at him from the establishment.

.

Lawyers love controversy and publicity. "Pro Bono" lawyers work for free on a case for the prestige.

Lawyers don't work on economies of scale AT ALL. They have low fixed costs and high marginal costs and huge margins the exact opposite of economies of scale. If they tried to take on loads of shit cases for shit money they would be the public defenders you get when you can't afford a lawyer. Good lawyers limit themselfs to the jobs that provide the best returns, they don't try and do as many cases as possible where they get a little payout and hope add all the little payouts together to make enough money.

The first lawyer who took this mainstream would just cream a previously un tapped market segment, they would build a huge practice and become a legend with more money than they could ever imagine IF it worked.

Can you imagine the demand from loaded celebs for a service that made them tax exempt and outside statute law. This would be the greatest profit maker ever.

friendsinthesky

14-12-2008, 02:44 AM

A) Yes it is. Most of the ideas I see on here are to get out of paying taxes, licence fees and fines, overdue mortgages and debts etc.

and

B)Look at everything in the world, if there is something others do instead of you, be it they have skills or knowledge you don't or you just don't want to do it, then then someone will charge you for it.

Freeman is about keeping what belongs to you. If the world were to become freeman, then bartering will replace paper money and gold. Your time energy and skills replace the money economy. The simplier things in life are often the hardest, thanks to controlling power hungry "world leaders".

boots

14-12-2008, 02:47 AM

Lawyers love controversy and publicity. "Pro Bono" lawyers work for free on a case for the prestige.

Lawyers don't work on economies of scale AT ALL. They have low fixed costs and high marginal costs and huge margins the exact opposite of economies of scale. If they tried to take on loads of shit cases for shit money they would be the public defenders you get when you can't afford a lawyer. Good lawyers limit themselfs to the jobs that provide the best returns, they don't try and do as many cases as possible where they get a little payout and hope add all the little payouts together to make enough money.

The first lawyer who took this mainstream would just cream a previously un tapped market segment, they would build a huge practice and become a legend with more money than they could ever imagine IF it worked.

Can you imagine the demand from loaded celebs for a service that made them tax exempt and outside statute law. This would be the greatest profit maker ever.

These lawyers and solicitors work on economics of scale they have large salary's and large house and expensive cars and those that don't, want to get there.

The average worker has what he wants in a house, car etc. aliged to the income he or she earns.

You get what I mean don't you?

So the first lawyer that makes a name for himself in the MSM would not last long. The PTB would crush him.

.

cacadores

14-12-2008, 12:49 PM

It's about using the law to get away from statues/ corporations.
You can't: the law is devolved from the Crown, so the Crown is above the Law. And the Crown is a corporation. There's no escape.
Except go to another country.
(Where the laws are probably worse!)

The "from who" is from the creator/god and the establishment hounor the KJB the God.
You got that ballsed up. When has it ever been said that the queen is mightier than god?. Never. What's your point?

Ridiculous. The Queen is a figurehead. It's the parliament that makes the statutes With her consent only. All statutes require her signature. She can even dissolve parliament if she wants - as her representative did with Gough Witlem in Oz.

The Queen is not god.Again - what's your point? The law presumes God operates through her and the question is how to use the law.

yozhik

14-12-2008, 01:41 PM

The law presumes God operates through her (The Queen) and the question is how to use the law.

Can you please show me where this comes from. It's quite an interesting/important point you make.

Where, in the law, does it tell us that God operates THROUGH Lizzy?
This doesn't seem to be reflected in her oath.

Archbishop of Canterbury: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen: I will.

Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen: All this I promise to do.

1694

14-12-2008, 02:29 PM

The average worker has what he wants in a house, car etc. aliged to the income he or she earns.

You get what I mean don't you?

So the first lawyer that makes a name for himself in the MSM would not last long. The PTB would crush him.

.

So if TPTB will crush a well informed, well backed, highly publicised and respected (former) lawyer, what will they do to you, the bug around their feet?

I fail to see how they would loose anything in this deal, they wouild surely be the masters and no one could touch them they are Freemen remember, what can the corporations do to them?

1694

14-12-2008, 02:31 PM

Freeman is about keeping what belongs to you. If the world were to become freeman, then bartering will replace paper money and gold. Your time energy and skills replace the money economy. The simplier things in life are often the hardest, thanks to controlling power hungry "world leaders".

Gold = barter

Gold takes "Your time energy and skills" to produce.

boots

15-12-2008, 12:40 AM

So if TPTB will crush a well informed, well backed, highly publicised and respected (former) lawyer, what will they do to you, the bug around their feet?

I fail to see how they would loose anything in this deal, they wouild surely be the masters and no one could touch them they are Freemen remember, what can the corporations do to them?

Some people like to feel secure in their prison and the money and prestige it offers them. Thats lawyers and SOME people who post on this thread.

If you are in commerce then you are subjected to the treatment you deserve as a slave.

When you are a freeman you are not in commerce and follow common law and civil/private law AND the court recognizes this.

You are thinking along the lines of anarchy and Martial law but do not realize that there is still a system of law that all must up hold and that is basic human right's that are given by our right to exist as human beings-spiritual men and women.

.

cacadores

15-12-2008, 02:47 AM

Can you please show me where this comes from. It's quite an interesting/important point you make.
Where, in the law, does it tell us that God operates THROUGH Lizzy?
This doesn't seem to be reflected in her oath.

Well, everywhere is the assumption that:

God rules through the Crown

The Church of England and its beliefs are established in law by the 1689 Act. So the ceremony of Coronation, detailing the beliefs of that church are at the heart of Parliament's aquiescience as to the origen of the Sovereign's legitimacy. But first:

1 The Sovereign administers God's property:

About the year 600, Ethelbert, king of the Kentishmen had written the laws where property, which he owned, was defined as 'God's fee'.

2 The Sovereign was placed there by God

Magna Carta 1215 begins: ''John, by the grace of God, king of England.....''

3 The Sovereign was placed by God to administer the Law:

The Declaration of Rights 1688/9
''His Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did....cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants (etc)....for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster...in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted..............''

4 The Sovereign's job is to maintain the Laws of God:

1689 Act detemines the coronation oath which includes the promise that the Sovereign would ''maintaine the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospell''

The Laws of God are paramount: here, the Coronation Ceremony, attended by the entire establishment, by the Lords, the Commons and the bishops can be seen as a MYSTERY ceremony, whose purpose is to legitmise not only the Sovereign rule, but also her power of justice

http://www.royalexhibitions.com/BCJ%20photo%20staff.jpg
St. Edward's Staff
The original staff was said to have contained a fragment of the True Cross. The emblems are intended to guide the King's footsteps.

The Coronation ceremony has this prayer:

Our gracious Queen:
to keep your Majesty ever mindful of the law and the Gospel of God
as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes,
we present you with this Book [the bible],
the most valuable thing that this world affords.
Here is Wisdom;
This is the royal Law

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38688000/jpg/_38688627_coronation_238.jpg

5 The people should submit to the Law because God backs it:

This is the plea to the people (8000 were in the cathredral) at the coronation:

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God........

6 The Sovereign rules with the spirit of God:

http://www.royalexhibitions.com/BCJ%20photo%20orb%20web.jpg
Sovereign's orb, symbol of the domination of Christian Law over the world.

Here is the payer:

O Lord and heavenly Father,
the exalter of the humble and the strength of thy chosen,
who by anointing with Oil didst of old
make and consecrate kings, priests, and prophets,
to teach and govern thy people Israel:
Bless and sanctify thy chosen servant ELIZABETH,
who by our office and ministry
is now to be anointed with this Oil,
Here the Archbishop is to lay his hand upon the Ampulla.
and consecrated Queen:
Strengthen her, O Lord, with the Holy Ghost the Comforter;
Confirm and stablish her with thy free and princely Spirit,
the Spirit of wisdom and government,
the Spirit of counsel and ghostly strength,
the Spirit of knowledge and true godliness

7 The Sovereign wealds the Sword of Justice:

Then shall the Archbishop take the Sword from off the Altar, and ....shall deliver it into the Queen's hands; and, the Queen holding it, the Archbishop shall say:

Receive this kingly Sword,
brought now from the Altar of God,
and delivered to you by the hands of us
the Bishops and servants of God, though unworthy.
With this sword do justice

http://www.royalexhibitions.com/three%20swors%20of%20justice%20web.jpg
The Sovereign's swords of justice.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/images/hmcs_logo.gif

8 The Sovereign rules with God:

The Coronation ceremony includes an anointing which replicates Samual's anointing of King David of Israel

http://www.royalexhibitions.com/The%20Br1.jpg
The oil vessel and spoon for annionting the sovereign with holy oil.

Queen's Ring, wherein is set a sapphire and upon it a ruby cross: the Archbishop shall put it on the fourth finger of her Majesty's right hand, and say:

Receive the Ring of kingly dignity,
and the seal of Catholic Faith:
and as you are this day
consecrated to be our Head and Prince,
....you may reign with him who is the King of Kings,

9 The Sovereign is the Law:

Crown prosecutions are, technically, administered by her, as in 'Regina v Smith'. If you think a court acted wrongly, you have to take the Queen to task, as in 'Smith v Regina'

http://www.royalexhibitions.com/BCJ%20photo%20Sceptre%20with%20cross%20web.jpg
The Sceptre With The Cross sybolises the Sovereign's power to rule from God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38423000/jpg/_38423419_ryal.jpg

The Queen is given the Rod with the Dove into her left hand, and the Archbishop says:

Receive the Rod of equity and mercy.
Be so merciful
that you be not too remiss,
so execute justice

10 Justice flows from the Sovereign:

The Queen is immune from prosecution: Parliament would have to physically capture her and perhaps circumvent the army to impeach her.

We beseech thee [God] also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes and Governors; and specially thy servant ELIZABETH our Queen; that under her we may be godly and quietly governed; and grant unto her whole Council, and to all that are put in authority under her, that they may truly and indifferently minister justice

When Plato conceived his ideal republic, he deliberately gave it a fictional foundation myth, whereby the children of the country would be taught their state was devised by the Gods. To have such a mystery at the top of the constitutional tree, is, deliberately, a very powerful thing. In it's own terms, the Sovereign's rule cannot be challenged: her position as our ruler, above the law, is part of the law itself.

boots

15-12-2008, 09:18 AM

1694

15-12-2008, 04:17 PM

Some people like to feel secure in their prison and the money and prestige it offers them. Thats lawyers and SOME people who post on this thread.

If you are in commerce then you are subjected to the treatment you deserve as a slave.

When you are a freeman you are not in commerce and follow common law and civil/private law AND the court recognizes this.

You are thinking along the lines of anarchy and Martial law but do not realize that there is still a system of law that all must up hold and that is basic human right's that are given by our right to exist as human beings-spiritual men and women.

.

What are you talking about, is a freeman not allowed to "trade" or engage in commerce?

Lawyers aren't even in commerce by the definition of "buying AND selling"

You could make even more money as a freeman exempt from statutes and taxes, why would anyone not want to do it? If you have nothing to loose and everything to gain we would all do it.....the only risk would be if Commercial Redemption didn't work, then there would be a risk and you could lose, but you seeem to think its full proof and the courts HAVE to accpet it? If the don't have to accept it or in reality they fail to do so, then what is the point, you have achieved nothing in real terms.

Basic human rights, given to us by humans, and so can be taken away by humans.

The only rights we have above animals are those given by laws, for example the offences against a person act states I cant set up a gun with a trip wire to shoot you and then claim that the gun did the shooting and I am not guilty of a crime. Its not a common law crime, because I the human being didnt shoot you, infact you walked through the wire, you shot yourself.

What even makes you think that you have a right to exist? Your existence is certainly using resources that you are depriving someone else in the world of having, why are you taking away their right to exist to serve your own? Does your right to exist superseed theirs?

Not only are your legal arguments flawed, but your philisophy is too.

Martial Law and Anarchy can't co exist, another oxymoron.

Although your use of the term Martial Law raises another point, I would like to see the freeman defence used in court martial, if martial law ever does happen....how will your defence stand up then? Human rights are suspended, you answer to the gun and the bayonett.

rob menard

15-12-2008, 05:33 PM

What even makes you think that you have a right to exist?

The fact that I do exist.

Your premise is certainly flawed and your thinking pattern is revealing itself. A human being does not give another rights, only privileges. Rights are claimed and established by action on the part of the one who wants the rights. They are taken, not gifted. It is by so doing and holding them that one has a right.

Your words clearly identify (no offense is intended here) an infantalized mind, where things like rights are a result of some higher power granting or giving.

That is simply not the case.

Peace.

Rob

lightworks

15-12-2008, 07:07 PM

I think we can all defeat the illuminati..by just politely truning at heel and refusing to comply....collective coimpliance would seem to be what gives them power

1694

15-12-2008, 07:27 PM

The fact that I do exist.

Your premise is certainly flawed and your thinking pattern is revealing itself. A human being does not give another rights, only privileges. Rights are claimed and established by action on the part of the one who wants the rights. They are taken, not gifted. It is by so doing and holding them that one has a right.

Your words clearly identify (no offense is intended here) an infantalized mind, where things like rights are a result of some higher power granting or giving.

That is simply not the case.

Peace.

Rob

Did you see the question mark? I was questioning Boots's permise, I am half in agreement with you.

So by your own reasoning if I was to kill you that would be my right and the extinction of your right.

Infact my ability to extinguish your former right makes me a higher power, I am giving myself rights and taking yours, it is natural law, the only LAW, everyhing else, including freeman "common law" carries the force of law.

With even less offence, maybe you should lay off the wacky backy if you want to complete a though process to conclusion.

cacadores

15-12-2008, 08:06 PM

I get it your a Monarchist.
The queen is not a god or if they say god, rules through her. If thats the case, then he/she rules through me and everyone.
She is just a women. She does not have authority over me and I do not have authority over her. I respect the position but that is it.
You don't have a choice: if you break the law, you become subject to it. How do you mean ''She does not have authority over me''? She, or the 'Crown' has the whole paraphenalia of the law to assert their authority over you.

And my point is, that the Freeman games to sidle away from this authority are bound to fail eventually, because, at a fundamental level, justice in the UK flows from an entity (the Crown) that is self-justifying (justified by God): this is why only the Crown can remove the authority of the Crown over you.

William the Conquorer took ownership over everyone and everything. And since then, his heirs have temporarily released some authority into the hands of the Lords and (in respect of taxes) to the Commons.

But none to the 'people'.

fnulnu

15-12-2008, 08:15 PM

And my point is, that the Freeman games to sidle away from this authority are bound to fail eventually, because, at a fundamental level, justice in the UK flows from an entity (the Crown) that is self-justifying (justified by God): this is why only the Crown can remove the authority of the Crown over you.

William the Conquorer took ownership over everyone and everything. And since then, his heirs have temporarily released some authority into the hands of the Lords and (in respect of taxes) to the Commons.

But none to the 'people'.

Oh,Bolsheviks :(

lesactive

15-12-2008, 09:25 PM

William the Conquorer took ownership over everyone and everything.
But none to the 'people'.

I'm sorry, I didn't get that memo. Doot dee doo.....

I accept the Bill(iam) for value and return it for lawful discharge. I do not consent. Adjust the accounting accordingly and reset to "0".

If the crown's actions are with the imprimatur of (G)od, why then don't they:

- uncover the keys of knowledge?
- turn the other cheek?
- love their neighbour?
- stop making graven images?
- remove the authority of man over man?
- forgive us our debts?
- stop using new leather to fix old wineskins?

Why should you obey an entity that can't even come close to living up to its own authority?

oh, right..... the gun in the room

cacadores

15-12-2008, 09:52 PM

If the crown's actions are with the imprimatur of (G)od, why then don't they:

- uncover the keys of knowledge?
- turn the other cheek?
- love their neighbour?
- stop making graven images?
- remove the authority of man over man?
- forgive us our debts?
- stop using new leather to fix old wineskins?

Why should you obey an entity that can't even come close to living up to its own authority?

oh, right..... the gun in the room
With the glass of whiskey.

Because the law is concieved of as being chronilogical, not heirachical.
God (1) put in place the Sovereign (2), who delegated the ministers (3) who made the laws (4)........
(4) trumps (1) on a daily basis. Any appeals against unjust laws have to be made to the Sovereign (or her deligated officers). This relationship is inherant in the way the Bill of Rights was written.

lesactive

16-12-2008, 12:32 AM

William the Conquorer took ownership over everyone...

God (1) put in place the Sovereign

Waffle much?

boots

16-12-2008, 12:45 AM

What are you talking about, is a freeman not allowed to "trade" or engage in commerce?

Yes a freeman can trade from the private as well as the public.

Lawyers aren't even in commerce by the definition of "buying AND selling"
:rolleyes:

You could make even more money as a freeman exempt from statutes and taxes, why would anyone not want to do it? If you have nothing to loose and everything to gain we would all do it.....the only risk would be if Commercial Redemption didn't work, then there would be a risk and you could lose, but you seeem to think its full proof and the courts HAVE to accpet it? If the don't have to accept it or in reality they fail to do so, then what is the point, you have achieved nothing in real terms.

It's not about making money as you seem to think but of course not having to pay illegal taxes and fines means more money stay's in your pocket and is distributed around your local economy's.

It might be that you are just dumb or it's the fact you have not read any NoU&I They accept these documents by not responding to them which is dishonour and acceptance of your claim of right.

Basic human rights, given to us by humans, and so can be taken away by humans.

You haven't got any concept of law have you.:rolleyes:

The only rights we have above animals are those given by laws, for example the offences against a person act states I cant set up a gun with a trip wire to shoot you and then claim that the gun did the shooting and I am not guilty of a crime. Its not a common law crime, because I the human being didnt shoot you, infact you walked through the wire, you shot yourself.

God, you talk shit.

What even makes you think that you have a right to exist? Your existence is certainly using resources that you are depriving someone else in the world of having, why are you taking away their right to exist to serve your own? Does your right to exist superseed theirs?

What!! so what are you trying to say??

Not only are your legal arguments flawed, but your philisophy is too.

You haven't got a clue what you are talking about You want to be a slave and will stay that way because it it comfortable

Martial Law and Anarchy can't co exist, another oxymoron.

They go hand in hand of course.

Although your use of the term Martial Law raises another point, I would like to see the freeman defence used in court martial, if martial law ever does happen....how will your defence stand up then? Human rights are suspended, you answer to the gun and the bayonett.

A freeman is a sovereign so they would stand a better chance in the court system than a slave.

.

boots

16-12-2008, 12:50 AM

You don't have a choice: if you break the law, you become subject to it. How do you mean ''She does not have authority over me''? She, or the 'Crown' has the whole paraphenalia of the law to assert their authority over you.

And my point is, that the Freeman games to sidle away from this authority are bound to fail eventually, because, at a fundamental level, justice in the UK flows from an entity (the Crown) that is self-justifying (justified by God): this is why only the Crown can remove the authority of the Crown over you.

William the Conquorer took ownership over everyone and everything. And since then, his heirs have temporarily released some authority into the hands of the Lords and (in respect of taxes) to the Commons.

But none to the 'people'.

ROFLMAO.

Bend down you subject.

Freeman are only concerned about authority that comes from the creator.

Read 1 Samuel 8 then get back to me.

You might gain some knowledge, but I doubt it.

.

1694

16-12-2008, 01:14 AM

It's not about making money as you seem to think but of course not having to pay illegal taxes and fines means more money stay's in your pocket and is distributed around your local economy's.

It might be that you are just dumb or it's the fact you have not read any NoU&I They accept these documents by not responding to them which is dishonour and acceptance of your claim of right.

Ill pick up on this point to highlight the hypocracy. you have stated that the only reason lawyers don't do it is for fear of losing their houses, cars and money. If commercial redemption works, how could anyone take those things form them as a soverign freeman. You have said that they would not loose their house or money or car and would have more money. Now you are saying Its not about money?

They go hand in hand of course.
You very much need to learn the true philosphy of anarchism, it is exactlythe opposite to marshal law. Anarchism is increadibly close to freemanims, it is about self determination and voluntary co operation. Martial Law is the most oppresive legal system there is....it will probaly be what we face soon enough. Unless you can strap that claim of right to your chest to stop a rifle round it won't be worth the pen ink.

.

1694

16-12-2008, 01:15 AM

ROFLMAO.

Bend down you subject.

Freeman are only concerned about authority that comes from the creator.

Read 1 Samuel 8 then get back to me.

You might gain some knowledge, but I doubt it.

.

You answere to one book but not another, each book claims supremicy over you, are you not a slave to whoever wrote the book you "chose" to follow. Perhapse you should decide for youself in life.

boots

16-12-2008, 01:32 AM

You answere to one book but not another, each book claims supremicy over you, are you not a slave to whoever wrote the book you "chose" to follow. Perhapse you should decide for youself in life.

I'll put you on the right track so you don't forget it.

I am NOT a Christian nor do I read the Bible. I answer to my own conscious and moral code and I give thanks to a creator and consider myself a co creator of my own destiny.

The KJB is the one that law bases it's code on, so I use that against them. Sucker.

.

cacadores

16-12-2008, 07:11 PM

ROFLMAO.
Bend down you subject.
Freeman are only concerned about authority that comes from the creator.
Read 1 Samuel 8 then get back to me.
You might gain some knowledge, but I doubt it.
.
From you? LOL
You're missing the point: the Freeman concept is not about revolution or about conscientious objection but about using anomolies, protections or exceptions within the law itself.

It's not about reading Samual Ch.1. You can do that in prison!

dondaz

17-12-2008, 01:16 AM

So by your own reasoning if I was to kill you that would be my right and the extinction of your right.

Infact my ability to extinguish your former right makes me a higher power, I am giving myself rights and taking yours, it is natural law, the only LAW, everyhing else, including freeman "common law" carries the force of law.

With even less offence, maybe you should lay off the wacky backy if you want to complete a though process to conclusion.

You really stretch your imagination when it comes to analogies. You are alway using the law of the jungle within natural law to bring into the conversation of the 'natural law' or common law, that is based on the pricipals of right and wrong. You can not mix and match these, they are completely different.

All anyone has to do is know we are all equal and all authority over you goes out the window.

It doesn't matter what the magna charta, the bill of right or the us constitution or any statute or act says. It doesn't matter. They are only bits of paper with words on them.

The only bit of paper of any use to us is one that says we don't need a piece of paper to know we are all equal. We don't even need that.

If anyone can't grasp the fact we are all equal, stop taking the blue slave pills and wake up to the real world.

The fact that the uk government uses violence to support their statutes and act scam shows all to clearly their way is a fraud and wrong.

boots

17-12-2008, 01:26 AM

From you? LOL
You're missing the point: the Freeman concept is not about revolution or about conscientious objection but about using anomolies, protections or exceptions within the law itself.

It's not about reading Samual Ch.1. You can do that in prison!

The freeman philosophy is NOT about revolution BUT it certainly is about conscientious objection to being a slave.

It's not about reading Samual Ch.1. You can do that in prison!

Idiot:rolleyes: if you had related it, in it's context to the point that was made. Then you might have some idea on what you were talking about.

.

cacadores

17-12-2008, 01:48 AM

If anyone can't grasp the fact we are all equal, stop taking the blue slave pills and wake up to the real world..
You suppose I type while asleep? And......
The fact that the uk government uses violence to support their statutes and act scam shows all to clearly their way is a fraud and wrong.The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights are a scam?

Difficult to see how such an awry interpretation of facts could possibly help us.

cacadores

17-12-2008, 01:53 AM

The freeman philosophy is NOT about revolution BUT it certainly is about conscientious objection to being a slave
I've never heard that 'Freemen' usually use conscientious objection as a legal tool. Perhaps you made that up?

Idiot:rolleyes: if you had related it, in it's context to the point that was made. Then you might have some idea on what you were talking about.I sense your point just died when the personal epithet became a rejoinder of first resort. ;)

1694

17-12-2008, 02:03 AM

You really stretch your imagination when it comes to analogies. You are alway using the law of the jungle within natural law to bring into the conversation of the 'natural law' or common law, that is based on the pricipals of right and wrong. You can not mix and match these, they are completely different.
Bursting bubbles 45 mins in, natural law, highest form of law from Rob himself.

All anyone has to do is know we are all equal and all authority over you goes out the window.
We aren't all equal. That idea is given by common and statute force of law, it is not true in natrual law/

It doesn't matter what the magna charta, the bill of right or the us constitution or any statute or act says. It doesn't matter. They are only bits of paper with words on them.
Quite True

The only bit of paper of any use to us is one that says we don't need a piece of paper to know we are all equal. We don't even need that.
That first piece of paper is still a piece of paper, that claim is but a claim.

If anyone can't grasp the fact we are all equal, stop taking the blue slave pills and wake up to the real world.
If we are all equal how come we are all enslaved? Because we have been outsmarted. Unless we can out do our masters we are the evidence suggests we are inferior. If we can best our masters then we are better, if we can achieve equality we are equal. I/we will be be free when we are free, not when we claim to be free but are in jail.

The fact that the uk government uses violence to support their statutes and act scam shows all to clearly their way is a fraud and wrong.
In many cases I would agree, that video of demonstraters in liverpool (?) getting nicked and having their documents impounded. Wrong morally, and (probably) legally, but it happened. The people protested their clear legal claims with no success. I doubt that esoteric and often innacrate attempts to claim things that are illegal aren't illegal will have more success than those protestors who claimed that things that were legal which were legal, had.

For the flip of my sig, just because I'm not on your side doesn't mean I'm against you.

yozhik

17-12-2008, 02:29 AM

If anyone can't grasp the fact we are all equal, stop taking the blue slave pills and wake up to the real world.
If we are all equal how come we are all enslaved? Because we have been outsmarted.

1694 ... I hope you're sitting down; we may have a "first".

Ready?

I agree with you. :eek:

dondaz

17-12-2008, 03:17 AM

You suppose I type while asleep? And......

The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights are a scam?

Difficult to see how such an awry interpretation of facts could possibly help us.

Not so difficult when you open your mind.

Bursting bubbles 45 mins in, natural law, highest form of law from Rob himself.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about the 'highest' form of law. I'm talking about this:

"You are alway using the law of the jungle within natural law to bring into the conversation of the 'natural law' or common law, that is based on the pricipals of right and wrong. You can not mix and match these, they are completely different."

If we are all equal how come we are all enslaved? Because we have been outsmarted. Unless we can out do our masters we are the evidence suggests we are inferior. If we can best our masters then we are better, if we can achieve equality we are equal. I/we will be be free when we are free, not when we claim to be free but are in jail.

What evidence suggests we are inferior? As a human being how are you inferior to the queen? So she has more money and material wealth and a totally different education. Perhaps an inferior knowledge than she has in some areas but that is all.

It's all in our heads mate. Programming.

I know I am not free. I know I am not a total slave either. I have been used by their system in the past, yes, but now I have pulled the proverbial plug out the back of my head, I've become a loose spanner in their works. The only way they can control me is by the use of violence against me or my family. Anyone can make you do something at the barrel of a gun. Then they have lost. Their words alone cannot control me.

Is the queen free to do as she pleases? Not on your life. She obeys the system of 'the order'.

I don't think many of the elite are free to do what they want when they want. Their system of controling each other doesn't allow for freedom as I know it to be.

Being free and being equal can be interpreted quite differently.

It is not up to others past or present to decide they have the right to govern me. It is up to me to decide if I wish to be governed by others and I do not consent to be governed by anyone other than myself. This is what I know in my soul. This is my reality and I'm sticking to it.

dondaz

17-12-2008, 03:31 AM

Back to the Magna Charta, 1215. I think this document is a symbol of freedom and is a great reference as to the importance of standing ones ground in the face of tyranny. It is a good tool for guidance and should be quoted as a reference, not a statute, act or law.

In other words, don't invoke Lawful Rebellion because a statute or act says you can. Invoke Lawful Rebllion because your heart tells you to!

boots

17-12-2008, 03:39 AM

Not so difficult when you open your mind.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about the 'highest' form of law. I'm talking about this:

"You are alway using the law of the jungle within natural law to bring into the conversation of the 'natural law' or common law, that is based on the pricipals of right and wrong. You can not mix and match these, they are completely different."

What evidence suggests we are inferior? As a human being how are you inferior to the queen? So she has more money and material wealth and a totally different education. Perhaps an inferior knowledge than she has in some areas but that is all.

It's all in our heads mate. Programming.

I know I am not free. I know I am not a total slave either. I have been used by their system in the past, yes, but now I have pulled the proverbial plug out the back of my head, I've become a loose spanner in their works. The only way they can control me is by the use of violence against me or my family. Anyone can make you do something at the barrel of a gun. Then they have lost. Their words alone cannot control me.

Is the queen free to do as she pleases? Not on your life. She obeys the system of 'the order'.

I don't think many of the elite are free to do what they want when they want. Their system of controling each other doesn't allow for freedom as I know it to be.

Being free and being equal can be interpreted quite differently.

It is not up to others past or present to decide they have the right to govern me. It is up to me to decide if I wish to be governed by others and I do not consent to be governed by anyone other than myself. This is what I know in my soul. This is my reality and I'm sticking to it.

Good post dondaz.

It's all about breaking the programming that has been going on for thousands of years and the time is right. other's like Rob Menard, John Harris, Mary Croft, Mark Pytellek and many more have laid the ground work and done the miles. It's now time for us to get into it and create a consciousness for the rest of the world to make it more equitable for our children.

.