Free Man On The Land In Lay Mans Terms

[alternative_answer]

This might be stating the obvious, so I apologise in advance! It would be useful if some intelligent person could interpret the Free man on the land and put it into simple lay mans terms, this help speed up the process for anyone wanting to be a Free man on the land. I have started reading a lot of info on the subject and get more and more confused by all the terminology etc. I get the basic premise about common and statute law, how can this be put into practical day to day action when dealing with every day life?

[griswald]

I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense.

I can see why some people would like to get a quick overview of the issue, before enveloping themselves in masses of posts to educate themselves.

Personally the concept of living in harmony with the land, and each other is beautiful

griswald

[alternative_answer]

It is a truly wonderful concept to behold and makes complete sense, I would like to understand the process one needs to travel to acheive Freeman status.

[yozhik]

The reason the threads are long and there is no summary of the process, is simply because the process is not simple!

As the other Freeman threads on here will point out, the easiest way to "come up to speed" is to watch some of the videos that are available online.

Such as those listed on this link;
Freeman Videos (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=627089&postcount=72)

[dondaz]

There really is no easy way to learn this info because the subject itself is so massive and we have to grasp a whole new language, legalese!

There are basically three ways to becaome a freeman on the land. The first and most easy way is to put in a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right to various govenment departments, stating your understanding, this applies to all Realms of the Commonwealth:


Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right

Whereas it is my understanding Australia/US/England/Canada is a common law jurisdiction, and,

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

Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law, and,

Whereas it is my understanding a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and,

Whereas it is my understanding the only form of government recognized as lawful in Australia/US/England/Canada is a representative one, and,
Whereas it is my understanding representation requires mutual consent, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that in the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor governance can exist, and,

Whereas it is my understanding those who have a Tax File Number are in fact employees of the federal government and thus are bound by the statutes created by the federal government, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that it is lawful to abandon one’s TFN, and,
Whereas it is my understanding people in Australia have a right to revoke or deny consent to be represented and thus governed, and,

Whereas it is my understanding if anyone does revoke or deny consent they exist free of government control and statutory restraints, and,

Whereas a Freeman-on-the-Land has lawfully revoked consent and does exist free of statutory restrictions, obligations, and limitations, and,

Whereas I, _________________________________________ am a Freeman-on-the-Land, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that acting peacefully within community standards does not breach the peace, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that any action for which one can apply for and receive a license must itself be a fundamentally lawful action, and,

Whereas as I am a Freeman-on-the-Land who operates with full responsibility and not a child, I do not see the need to ask permission to engage in lawful and peaceful activities, especially from those who claim limited liability, and,

Whereas it is my understanding a by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation, and,

Whereas it is my understanding corporations are legal fictions and require contracts in order to claim authority or control over other parties, and,

Whereas it is my understanding legal fictions lack a soul and cannot exert any control over those who are thus blessed and operate with respect to that knowledge as only a fool would allow soulless fictions to dictate ones actions, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that I have a right to use my property without having to pay for the use or enjoyment of it, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that City Rail is in fact and actuality public property to which I have the right of use and access, and,

Whereas I claim the right to collect a pension if I have paid into it and claim that said right is not affected if I abandon my Tax File Number, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that a summons is merely an invitation to attend and the ones issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission create no obligation or dishonor if ignored, and,

Whereas it is my understanding peace officers have a duty to distinguish between statutes and law and those who attempt to enforce statutes against a Freeman-on-the-Land are in fact breaking the law, and,

Whereas I have the power to refuse intercourse or interaction with peace officers who have not observed me breach the peace, and,

Whereas permanent estoppal by acquiescence barring any peace officer or prosecutor from bringing charges against a Freeman-on-the-Land under any Act is created if this claim is not responded to in the stated fashion and time,

Therefore be it now known to any and all concerned and affected parties, that I, ___________________ a Freeman-on-the-Land do hereby state clearly specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations restrictions and maintain all rights at law to trade, exchange or barter.

Furthermore, I claim that these actions are not outside my communities’ standards and will in fact support said community in our desire for truth and maximum freedom.

Furthermore, I claim the right to engage in these actions and further claim that all property held by me is held under a claim of right as mentioned in the CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 22.

Furthermore, I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this claim and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or color of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure.

Furthermore, I claim that the courts in New South Wales Australia are de-facto and bound by the Law and Equity Act and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I further claim they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.

Furthermore, I claim all transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties and I do hereby deny consent to any transaction of a security interest issuing under any Act for as herein stated as a Freeman-on-the-Land I am not subject to any Act.

Furthermore, I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and Notarised consent.

Furthermore, I claim the right to use a Notary Public to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way.

Furthermore, I claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants who having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.

Furthermore, I claim the law of agent and principal applies and that service upon one is service upon both.

Furthermore, I claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on video tape said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.

Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) days of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the Notary Office herein provided no later than ten days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service.

Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment and permanent and irrevocable estoppal by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act against My Self Freeman-on-the-Land ______________________________

Place of claim of right: New South Wales, Australia
Dated: __________________________________
Claimant: ________________________________
Notary Public: ____________________________

Use of a Notary is for attestation and verification purposes only and does not constitute a change in status or entrance or acceptance of foreign jurisdiction.

There are many different ways to create your own NOUI & COR, you can put in whatever you want. I suggest you get hold of a few for comparason and to get the feel of it. You give them 30 days to publically refute your notice and after said period, you claim your rights as intended.

Chance are you will not get a reply back from these departments, but they will definately have your NOUI & COR logged. You do not get a certificate stating you are now free. Hardly!

The second way to became Soveriegn is by claiming control of your 'person/strawman' and claiming the bond held in trust on your behalf. Now, this is not the same as 'Commercial Redemption, which is several steps further than this one. When you claim control of your Bond, what it does is stop the governments ability to make money from your 'person/strawman' via your bond. This process requires a bit learning but is not too complex.

If they can't make money from you why bother to come after you?

The third way is all explainded on this website: http://www.loveforlife.com.au (http://www.loveforlife.com.au/)

Remember, they will always try to get you to contract, so learn the right words to use. Hope this helps!

[griswald]

Thanks for the links yozhik, will have a look.

I think it might make the general understanding a bit easier for folks, rather than the intense discussions that seem to be taking place at the mo.

Its hard enough to get your head around it , without trying to sift through the alternate views on the threads. I think the understanding of the general concept first, and then get to grips with the long threads after.

thanks

griswald

[griswald]

Thanks Dondaz,

Will look forward to the learning opportunity, hope we have the stamina.;)

griswald

[alternative_answer]

Thanks guys for the information, keep it coming and anyone researching this please add your knowledge for all to read and acheive this FREEDOM

[helpus]

I hope someone comes up with a step by step how to on this...

i'm in the uk - and have been ready for this for years, unfortunately i don't think i have the savvy to implement it on my own.

it can't be long until someone comes up with an a to z, i reckon the zeitgiest movement might be about to crack the code... there is a survival guide yet to be published, hopefully this will tell all.

[alternative_answer]

Helpus It would be nice to have a DIY guide but does it not excite you to go through the research process yourself? I do find it a tad difficult to get my head around but I'm sure there is loads of info out there to help us grasp the concept and process.

[helpus]

Helpus It would be nice to have a DIY guide but does it not excite you to go through the research process yourself? I do find it a tad difficult to get my head around but I'm sure there is loads of info out there to help us grasp the concept and process.

oh mate i only just researched this over the last two days... yeah sure i am going to find out as much as i can.... although i have a nagging doubt my abiliities are not reliable enough to sort it out, after all we are talking about the whole fabric of society here...

still yeah i will try, and i will spread the word :)

[Ian2day]

We have the right to domicile on Urban common land. So we can graze our livestock if we wish as well as inhabit an area we like. We have to display some benefit to the community by being there. So we give palm readings or horoscopes etc. We truly are free we have just forgotten it. Or moe to the point had it hidden via slight of hand by tptb.

[alternative_answer]

I am definately gonna get my head around this and try and acheive free man status. I will keep thee posted.

[tien an]

oh mate i only just researched this over the last two days... yeah sure i am going to find out as much as i can.... although i have a nagging doubt my abiliities are not reliable enough to sort it out, after all we are talking about the whole fabric of society here...

still yeah i will try, and i will spread the word :)

Perhaps this is the very reason to do it helpus...

Try and see the bigger picture

[griswald]

Its an awful pity we cant reinstate Brehon Laws in Ireland, on the face of it , it looks like what we are looking for, although I,ve only just come across it, so more reading for me,;)

[The beginning of the 17th Century saw English law and rule prevail in Ireland and the Irish laws outlawed and declared barbarous. These "barbarous" laws had been what had kept the English from implanting its feudal system in Ireland and from completing its conquest of Ireland for four centuries. These ancient "barbarous" laws of Ireland have since been recognized as the most advanced system of jurisprudence in the ancient world, a system under which the doctrine of the equality of man was understood and under which a deeply humane and cultured society flourished.

http://www.irish-society.org/Hedgemaster%20Archives/brehon_laws.htm

griswald

[yozhik]

I don't know if this is going to be helpful or not, but I have started a public chat room specifically for Freeman discussion on Skype

Skype Freeman Chat Room (http://www.skype.com/go/joinpublicchat?skypename=matt.the.expat&topic=Freeman-on-the-land%20Discussion&blob=7zq7q5dzcKuOuXKscdnrGfqBBvoLdVNLrz0PLGMEO4evV 4S4ZqcwN_QEeCdJnpoZGMC00JxsMrAa)

If anyone wants to sit and discuss issues in "realtime", its open 24/7. :)

[gu3rr1lla]

Can freeman on the land only apply to commonwealth countries? what about someone who is living in the republic of ireland?

[Ian2day]

Can freeman on the land only apply to commonwealth countries? what about someone who is living in the republic of ireland?


You would have to take it up with the Pope I expect.

[yozhik]

Can freeman on the land only apply to commonwealth countries? what about someone who is living in the republic of ireland?

seems to be a strong movement in the united states of America, so I don't see why it doesn't exist in Ireland.

[lhaull]

http://www.tpuc.org/commercialredemption/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=35

Just missed this conf.

Not sure if they can help.

http://www.thetruthwillout.com/common_law.html

oh here, http://www.tpuc.org/commercialredemption/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7

scroll down and there are pdf docs to download if you register.

Hope it helps, maybe sticky this for others?

[yozhik]

If you haven't already seen this video, this is the hamster wheel the Freeman is attempting to climb off ...

Zeitgeist: Addendum (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912)

[griswald]

Can freeman on the land only apply to commonwealth countries? what about someone who is living in the republic of ireland?

Well apparently irelands laws are also based on english common law, as far as I understand form some of the info I,ve come across .

Law of the Republic of Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Common_law_legal_systems_in_the_present _day


But I am open to correction from some of the more learned colleagues here.

griswald

[nirvana]

Is there any where I can buy dvds about free-man stuff. My pc is playing up and I can't watch anything on line.

Peace:)

[cacadores]

''Whereas it is my understanding legal fictions lack a soul and cannot exert any control over those who are thus blessed and operate with respect to that knowledge as only a fool would allow soulless fictions to dictate ones actions, and,''

Sounds a bit silly. What's that in there for? Also it doesn't make sense: 'thus' is a pronoun that seems to imply you have no soul either......nor is 'soul' defined, so why's it in there?

[rob menard]

Is there any where I can buy dvds about free-man stuff. My pc is playing up and I can't watch anything on line.

Peace:)

www.thinkfree.ca

[rob menard]

''Whereas it is my understanding legal fictions lack a soul and cannot exert any control over those who are thus blessed and operate with respect to that knowledge as only a fool would allow soulless fictions to dictate ones actions, and,''

Sounds a bit silly. What's that in there for? Also it doesn't make sense: 'thus' is a pronoun that seems to imply you have no soul either......nor is 'soul' defined, so why's it in there?

Thus
adverb
poetic/literary or formal
1 as a result or consequence of this; therefore : Burke knocked out Byrne, thus becoming champion.

It is in there to establish what is called 'compelled by Faith'.

Rob

[thebarfly1]

Well apparently irelands laws are also based on english common law, as far as I understand form some of the info I,ve come across .

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Common_law_legal_systems_in_the_present _day


But I am open to correction from some of the more learned colleagues here.

griswald

Don't have the information to hand right now, but you can find references to old UK laws on www.attorneygeneral.ie which state that they still have force of law in Ireland, Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights being among these.

So... I THINK that that qualifies people to the same Rights and responsibilities as other former colonies of the British empire, which, in theory would allow us the same option of claiming Freeman-on-the-land status.

I may be wrong, so if anybody knows better, please correct me, i'm just new to this and also havn't been able to do any digging for the past week because i've been doing sound for a school play (finally doing something i enjoy for a living :D )

EDIT:: here is the link to the old UK statutes/acts/laws still in force in Ireland http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/slru/English.doc

[thebarfly1]

The Irish Version of Magna Carta-
Magna Carta Hiberniae, 1216, The Great Charter of Ireland, still given power of law today - (the fourth item listed 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) )

Note the part that says No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled, or in any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him nor send upon him but by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will deny to no man, or delay, right or justice.

Think thats enough to confirm that you can be a freeman-on-the-land in Ireland living peacefully while adhering to the law of the land (common law)...

If you're reading Rob-Arthur, am I correct?


EDIT - I didn't know what Disseised meant.... Disseised = Dispossessed

[cacadores]

Thus
adverb
poetic/literary or formal
1 as a result or consequence of this; therefore : Burke knocked out Byrne, thus becoming champion. It is in there to establish what is called 'compelled by Faith'. Rob

''as a result or consequence of this'' - you've defined 'thus' using a pronoun 'this'. It's why I tried to point out that 'thus' is being used to imply a causal agent 'this', but it's ambiguous what it's identifying (what the cause is, or subject is).

Still - 'compelled by faith'. That's interesting.

The language: I can see the need to use legal nouns and special legal terms for specific legal vocabulary defined elsewhere. But is it necessary to use 'legalistic' verbage in the very construction of the sentence? Like when we see the word 'Whereof' etc.

In general, using plain English in sentence construction, is going to make things easier for person using it, isn't it? And if someone's going to take this further, in arguing with the authorities, wouldn't plain English make it harder to hide legalistic farce? Or is obstufication intended?

[pduffy4]

Whereas it is my understanding Australia/US/England/Canada is a common law jurisdiction

Does this apply to Scotland?

Also doesn't the fact that Courts, Police, MPs, and Councls are private mean simply that they are illegal? As they claim to be public services which is a lie.

Thanks

Peter

[tien an]

Does this apply to Scotland?

Also doesn't the fact that Courts, Police, MPs, and Councls are private mean simply that they are illegal? As they claim to be public services which is a lie.

Thanks

Peter

From a tcheuchter to a wegian...

I think it's "legal" enough: They are companies, and as such enter into contract with the populace...they couldn't do that if they were 'only' human beings. (Unless they were able to take full responsibility for their actions...).

[pduffy4]

From a tcheuchter to a wegian...

I think it's "legal" enough: They are companies, and as such enter into contract with the populace...they couldn't do that if they were 'only' human beings. (Unless they were able to take full responsibility for their actions...).

Private Police, Courts, and Councils are not legal because they claim to work for the public and they take a tax to fund themselves. They are private companies and have no legal right to make people pay a tax, only a legal publicly accountable government can levy a tax and it should be only to benefit the public not a private company.

I was asking Dondaz if Freeman of the Land status applied to Scotland as it is not mentioned in thelist of countries.

[cacadores]

Private Police, Courts, and Councils are not legal because they claim to work for the public and they take a tax to fund themselves. They are private companies and have no legal right to make people pay a tax, only a legal publicly accountable government can levy a tax and it should be only to benefit the public not a private company

Blimy you lot are making this so complicated.

Course they can levy a tax. And who can judge what 'benifits the public'? Lower speeding fines for example? That's going to be a tough one.

But if you don't want to pay it, you tell them and they have to take you to court. And if there's a statute to support them, then you'll have to pay.

As for companies, what do you think the courts are? What do you think the 'Crown' is? And Parliament is only accountable in so far as you can vote the old lot out every few years. You're a subject. Get used to it.

[rob menard]

You're a subject. Get used to it.

No, you are a subject and have gotten used to it and in order to justify your position you want all others to accept the status of subject as well. As for their ability to levy taxes or take you to court, they need your consent, which they have secured from you by virtue of you accepting the role of subject.

Peace eh?
Rob

[cacadores]

No, you are a subject and have gotten used to it and in order to justify your position you want all others to accept the status of subject as well. As for their ability to levy taxes or take you to court, they need your consent, which they have secured from you by virtue of you accepting the role of subject. Peace eh?
Rob
No - all Britons are subjects as the laws specifically apply to all ordinary people. What's more, the statutes apply whether you say you're a subject or not. Statutes don't need your consent: it's enough you broke the law.

What do you think happens to a foreigner who breaks a statute? If they can catch him, he gets put in prison just the same.

[yozhik]

Blimy you lot are making this so complicated.

Course they can levy a tax. And who can judge what 'benifits the public'? Lower speeding fines for example? That's going to be a tough one.

But if you don't want to pay it, you tell them and they have to take you to court. And if there's a statute to support them, then you'll have to pay.

As for companies, what do you think the courts are? What do you think the 'Crown' is? And Parliament is only accountable in so far as you can vote the old lot out every few years. You're a subject. Get used to it.

Sounds nice and comfortable - but oh so very wrong in so many ways :D
But hey - if thinking that helps you sleep at night ... who am I to burst your bubble?
Enjoy!

[yozhik]

No - all Britons are subjects as the laws specifically apply to all ordinary people. What's more, the statutes apply whether you say you're a subject or not. Statutes don't need your consent: it's enough you broke the law.

What do you think happens to a foreigner who breaks a statute? If they can catch him, he gets put in prison just the same.

Oh I get it ... you're one of those silly lawyer people, shaking in your boots that your status quo, fictional, Alice in Wonderland world is about to be turned upside down, right?

No?

Ouch ... you mean, you believe the propaganda? :(

[Ian2day]

I've been doing some pondering over the Freeman things myself and have yet to really make my own mind up on this one. A question I have is, is it satanism. As I have seen a copy of the magna carter and it has a seal of I think King John sat in a hands akimbo position making a five pointed star shape.

[cacadores]

Sounds nice and comfortable - but oh so very wrong in so many ways :D But hey - if thinking that helps you sleep at night ... who am I to burst your bubble? Enjoy!

Evidence?

[cacadores]

Oh I get it ... you're one of those silly lawyer people, shaking in your boots that your status quo, fictional, Alice in Wonderland world is about to be turned upside down, right? No?
Ouch ... you mean, you believe the propaganda? :(
Ouch ... you mean you can't distinguish your chance interpretation from what you know? That's going to help you in a law court, not.





Self-knowledge is where you want to start, matey :)

[travels]

Hi guys sorry to not get sidetracked but I've only just stumbled on the freeman thing and would love to hear more from those who've practiced it...basically I'd love a pros and cons list to keep it simple...and as I'm only 30 I've hopefully got a fair few years to live with my actions, so I just want to get my head round it, is all: The things I'd worry about most would be whether foreign travel (even Scotland?) is possible (can't find any mention of this as of yet), and also if I had kids, would it detrimentally affect them in any way if they didn't see the world as I do? ie if I didn't sign their birth certificate and their dream job absolutely required it etc. Silly example aye, but you get my drift..!

Sorry if I sound naive about the whole thing but I am, basically. For now ;)

Cheers in advance, I love the idea for me personally...defo worth looking into..!

Have some smilies

:mad::p;):D:o:):(:confused::rolleyes:

mint

[scotfree]

I have tried to make my new site simple
I am but a simple soul and may have made many errors.
Feel free to correct me.

http://www.spanglefish.com/freemanscotland/

[tien an]

I have tried to make my new site simple
I am but a simple soul and may have made many errors.
Feel free to correct me.

http://www.spanglefish.com/freemanscotland/

Wow.

You certainly got up early that morning.
I think it's original, combining the NoU and the CoR like that.
It makes for heavy reading, if you know what I mean.
It's good though; I've already 'borrowed' bits of it that I didn't think of.

You've repeated yourself in several places and there are some (minor) spelling mistakes.
I'll get back to you by email in the near future on that though.

A' the best.

[cafetimes1991]

Its an awful pity we cant reinstate Brehon Laws in Ireland, on the face of it , it looks like what we are looking for, although I,ve only just come across it, so more reading for me,;)

[The beginning of the 17th Century saw English law and rule prevail in Ireland and the Irish laws outlawed and declared barbarous. These "barbarous" laws had been what had kept the English from implanting its feudal system in Ireland and from completing its conquest of Ireland for four centuries. These ancient "barbarous" laws of Ireland have since been recognized as the most advanced system of jurisprudence in the ancient world, a system under which the doctrine of the equality of man was understood and under which a deeply humane and cultured society flourished.

http://www.irish-society.org/Hedgemaster%20Archives/brehon_laws.htm

griswald

Cool post.

[mattkirkwood]

hey ppl,
last week i went to a notary in adelaide a mr. Andrew H. Charlton with a notice of my denial of consent and he refused to witness it.
can somebody who has had a notary witness a NOUIandCOR and served it and had a default judgement passed please tell me which notary they went to.
i live in s.a. but dont care if i have to travel to another state to see a notary that will do it for me.
thanks matt

[yozhik]

What was his reason for refusal?

[rumpole]

What was his reason for refusal?

Quite a lot of Notaries refuse to notarise FMOTL docs on the basis they are vexacious & have no standing in law. The fee schedules are especially 'risky' as they can be regarded as an attempt to defraud. This would make the Notary a party to this attempt which is problematic with respect to their duty to the Court & their relationship with their professional body.

Personally, if I were a Notary (which needless to say I'm not!!) I wouldn't notarise FMOTL documents simply for the reason that I think it's unethical to take money off someone to notarise a document that doesn't achieve what it set out too.

[yozhik]

Wasn't he simply being asked to witness a signature?
Where in that notarial duty is there included a validation of the document?

Valid to whom?
For what purpose?

[rumpole]

Wasn't he simply being asked to witness a signature?

Where in that notarial duty is there included a validation of the document?

There are Notaries & Notaries. Here in England & Wales you have to be a Solicitor first prior to becoming a Notary (it's kind of a bolt on qualification). The exception are Scriveners but they are something of an oddity & don't concern us here.

Bottom line is a Solicitors primary duty is to the Court & understandably some are going to be uneasy about putting their name to a document that may make them a party to an attempted fraud.

In the US it's different. Their Notaries are more like the European variety - ie document stampers.

[lizardlover]

Wasn't he simply being asked to witness a signature?
Where in that notarial duty is there included a validation of the document?

Valid to whom?
For what purpose?


What defines a notaries "powers"? In Canada, its defined by the Notary ACT, but according to freeman ACT'S don't have any power, therefore notaries don't have any power, ergo, any freeman documents in Canada notarized by a notary mean nothing because the government assigns there power within an ACT.

[yozhik]

Bottom line is a Solicitors [Notary's] primary duty is to the Court

Thank you for confirming that rumpole.
I wanted the info to come from you, rather than me.

:)

[yozhik]

What defines a notaries "powers"? In Canada, its defined by the Notary ACT, but according to freeman ACT'S don't have any power, therefore notaries don't have any power, ergo, any freeman documents in Canada notarized by a notary mean nothing because the government assigns there power within an ACT.

Wow.

Congratulations.
An entire post without answering a single question from the post you quoted.

:rolleyes:


However, running with your strawman argument for a moment; are you suggesting that a Notary's 'powers' wholly come from statute?

Are you suggesting that a Notary is an office created, defined and governed by statute?

Would this make a Notary an office of statute?
Who oversees Notaries? i.e. who is the Master?

Is the Master also an office of statute?

What came first; the office and function of Notary or the Notary Act?

[rumpole]

Wow.

Congratulations.
An entire post without answering a single question from the post you quoted.

:rolleyes:


However, running with your strawman argument for a moment; are you suggesting that a Notary's 'powers' wholly come from statute?

Are you suggesting that a Notary is an office created, defined and governed by statute?

Would this make a Notary an office of statute?
Who oversees Notaries? i.e. who is the Master?

Is the Master also an office of statute?

What came first; the office and function of Notary or the Notary Act?


Nowadays yes but the origins of the role are probably classical.

[wolfhead]

hey ppl,
last week i went to a notary in adelaide a mr. Andrew H. Charlton with a notice of my denial of consent and he refused to witness it.
can somebody who has had a notary witness a NOUIandCOR and served it and had a default judgement passed please tell me which notary they went to.
i live in s.a. but dont care if i have to travel to another state to see a notary that will do it for me.
thanks matt

Its my understanding that Notaries are not permitted to read and filter documents - their job is to notarise!

[wolfhead]

Wow.

Congratulations.
An entire post without answering a single question from the post you quoted.

:rolleyes:


However, running with your strawman argument for a moment; are you suggesting that a Notary's 'powers' wholly come from statute?

Are you suggesting that a Notary is an office created, defined and governed by statute?

Would this make a Notary an office of statute?
Who oversees Notaries? i.e. who is the Master?

Is the Master also an office of statute?

What came first; the office and function of Notary or the Notary Act?

Nice!

And I thought Freemen where all about common law rather than statutes so isnt there at best a conflict here - and at worst a degree of irony?

[rumpole]

Its my understanding that Notaries are not permitted to read and filter documents - their job is to notarise!


& it's my understanding a Notary can pick & choose who he accepts as a client.

[yozhik]

Might want to check out the Ecclesiastical Licences Act 1533 ... just for the hell of it.

It will show the origins of the Notary, its Ecclesiastical nature, why the Archbishop is the Master and its link to Rome, the Holy See and how your children and their estates are conveyed by the marriage licence.

Great little read ... nice, light, family oriented bedtime reading.

[wolfhead]

& it's my understanding a Notary can pick & choose who he accepts as a client.

True, but he wouldnt have an opinion unless he exceeded his brief in the 1st place?

[freedavep]

This might be stating the obvious, so I apologise in advance! It would be useful if some intelligent person could interpret the Free man on the land and put it into simple lay mans terms, this help speed up the process for anyone wanting to be a Free man on the land. I have started reading a lot of info on the subject and get more and more confused by all the terminology etc. I get the basic premise about common and statute law, how can this be put into practical day to day action when dealing with every day life?

Two main things come to mind-

Claim of Right and Estoppel by Acquiescence.

Also keep in mind that a "Right" is a "property".

[mattkirkwood]

& it's my understanding a Notary can pick & choose who he accepts as a client.

yeah thats the way i saw it, what i want to know is does anybody know a notary in australia that would/does accept NOUI&COR documents.

[freedavep]

& it's my understanding a Notary can pick & choose who he accepts as a client.

That's called Discrimination is it not. Maybe they should be sued ?

[rumpole]

That's called Discrimination is it not. Maybe they should be sued ?

It's unlikely to be a form of discrimination that would give rise to a claim.

[mfrey0118]

Thanks guys for the information, keep it coming and anyone researching this please add your knowledge for all to read and acheive this FREEDOM

Have you seen Rob's Google video, The Magnificent Deception? I think it's a great starting point. It's about 2 hours long.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6729904244308031068#

[yozhik]

It's unlikely to be a form of discrimination that would give rise to a claim.

:D :D :D

So it is discrimination, but it's a form of discrimination the legal system would not recognise as being discrimination, despite those outside identifying it as such and holding it to be discrimination, that external recognition becomes irrelevant, as the judgement of all 'claims' falls under the control of the legal system, and it is a claim that won't be recognised ... legally ... despite being discrimination ... so, it isn't ... according to the legal definition ... and legal precedent ... even if it is in non-legal land ... according to common sense ... which has no legal standing ... so it isn't.

:D :D :D

[rumpole]

:D :D :D

So it is discrimination, but it's a form of discrimination the legal system would not recognise as being discrimination, despite those outside identifying it as such and holding it to be discrimination, that external recognition becomes irrelevant, as the judgement of all 'claims' falls under the control of the legal system, and it is a claim that won't be recognised ... legally ... despite being discrimination ... so, it isn't ... according to the legal definition ... and legal precedent ... even if it is in non-legal land ... according to common sense ... which has no legal standing ... so it isn't.

:D :D :D

But we 'discriminate' on a daily basis don't we? For example I 'discriminated' against my local Bus Company by opting to take the train to work & I 'discriminated' against the Newsagent on my local parade because I picked up my newspaper from a shop near my work (I happen to get on very well with they guy who runs it - he asked me to witness his lease :D).

The point is the law says certain types of discrimination are unlawful - ie on the basis of age, sex, race, religion, disability etc. To open up the classes of discriminatory behaviour would invite a veritable deluge of claims. As a matter of public policy it makes sense to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Otherwise the courts would be 'chocablock' with all sorts of of weird cases.

[yozhik]

But we 'discriminate' on a daily basis don't we? For example I 'discriminated' against my local Bus Company by opting to take the train to work & I 'discriminated' against the Newsagent on my local parade because I picked up my newspaper from a shop near my work (I happen to get on very well with they guy who runs it - he asked me to witness his lease :D).

The point is the law says certain types of discrimination are unlawful - ie on the basis of age, sex, race, religion, disability etc. To open up the classes of discriminatory behaviour would invite a veritable deluge of claims. As a matter of public policy it makes sense to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Otherwise the courts would be 'chocablock' with all sorts of of weird cases.

There's that one dimensional reasoning again ...

[rumpole]

There's that one dimensional reasoning again ...

Why so?

[rob menard]

There was a Notary here sanctioned for failure to provide their services. The offices are passed out via the government for that particular society. (The Society of Notary Publics of British Columbia) Now bear in mind providing notarial services is not something either they or the government claim a monopoly over. Just about anyone with the knowledge and wherewithal can hang a shingle and open a notary practice and if they do they can pick and choose who they wish to witness for. However, for a Notary in say northern BC, the only one for 800Km, to refuse to do their duty to Notarize documents can cost them their commission if they are a member of the Notary Society. Nor can they restrict their services based upon not liking the Affiants religion, political views, economic status, gender, associations or affiliations.

There power is a result of them being perfect impartial witnesses to process. The moment they start eroding that, their power is gone.

[rumpole]

There was a Notary here sanctioned for failure to provide their services. The offices are passed out via the government for that particular society. (The Society of Notary Publics of British Columbia) Now bear in mind providing notarial services is not something either they or the government claim a monopoly over. Just about anyone with the knowledge and wherewithal can hang a shingle and open a notary practice and if they do they can pick and choose who they wish to witness for. However, for a Notary in say northern BC, the only one for 800Km, to refuse to do their duty to Notarize documents can cost them their commission if they are a member of the Notary Society. Nor can they restrict their services based upon not liking the Affiants religion, political views, economic status, gender, associations or affiliations.

There power is a result of them being perfect impartial witnesses to process. The moment they start eroding that, their power is gone.


Have you got a link to disciplinary finding to hand?

[rob menard]

Have you got a link to disciplinary finding to hand?

Sorry, no. It was a while ago. I would check their website though, they may have a listing. Would be in the section about Sanctions and professional standards if it is there. Also they have a code of conduct you can check which clearly establishes the need for impartiality.

[rumpole]

There was a Notary here sanctioned for failure to provide their services. The offices are passed out via the government for that particular society. (The Society of Notary Publics of British Columbia) Now bear in mind providing notarial services is not something either they or the government claim a monopoly over. Just about anyone with the knowledge and wherewithal can hang a shingle and open a notary practice and if they do they can pick and choose who they wish to witness for. However, for a Notary in say northern BC, the only one for 800Km, to refuse to do their duty to Notarize documents can cost them their commission if they are a member of the Notary Society. Nor can they restrict their services based upon not liking the Affiants religion, political views, economic status, gender, associations or affiliations.

There power is a result of them being perfect impartial witnesses to process. The moment they start eroding that, their power is gone.

I can't find anything to suggest British Columbia Notaries can't restrict their services either here:-

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96334_01#section9

or here:-

http://www.notaries.bc.ca/resources/Upload/26-05-2010-10-18-13_Society%20Rules_RevApril2010.pdf

but then again I'm by no means qualified to comment on canadian law so have may have missed something :D

[yozhik]

Well there in lies the crux of the matter.
Notaries in the UK are not impartial.

They are an agent of the Courts.

So by definition, the people are denied access to an impartial witness.

[rumpole]

Well there in lies the crux of the matter.
Notaries in the UK are not impartial.

They are an agent of the Courts.

So by definition, the people are denied access to an impartial witness.


With respect you seem to be misunderstanding the whole concept of a lawyers primary duty to the Court. 999 times out of 1000 there is no conflict between the duty to the Court & the duty to the Client. However there are occasions when there is a conflict. Let's consider a couple of hypothetical examples:-

1) You're a solicitor & you been asked to go to a police station. When you get there you learn you're required to represent some one accused of murder. You go into to the cells to have a chat & the first thing the client says is 'I killed him but I'm planning to run an alibi defence. I've got friends who will back me up / give evidence in court etc'. What do you do?

2) You're representing someone involved in a case about disputed property. All the evidence points towards it belonging to the opponent but you client produces a document that backs up his version of events. He candidly it 's a forgery the he knocked up using photoshop & a decent printer. He still wants you to admit it as evidence. What do you do?

In both scenarios you cease to represent the clients immediately. They're attempting to pervert the course of justice & purjure themselves & it's contrary to your duty to the Court to be a party to that kind of thing. That's what the duty to the Court is all about (& nothing more :D)

[girlgye]

As a solicitor a notary is an agent of the court. As a Notary he must make the private and the public merge. Whither he calls himself a notary public or not.

[girlgye]

There really is no easy way to learn this info because the subject itself is so massive and we have to grasp a whole new language, legalese!

There are basically three ways to becaome a freeman on the land. The first and most easy way is to put in a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right to various govenment departments, stating your understanding, this applies to all Realms of the Commonwealth:



There are many different ways to create your own NOUI & COR, you can put in whatever you want. I suggest you get hold of a few for comparason and to get the feel of it. You give them 30 days to publically refute your notice and after said period, you claim your rights as intended.

Chance are you will not get a reply back from these departments, but they will definately have your NOUI & COR logged. You do not get a certificate stating you are now free. Hardly!

The second way to became Soveriegn is by claiming control of your 'person/strawman' and claiming the bond held in trust on your behalf. Now, this is not the same as 'Commercial Redemption, which is several steps further than this one. When you claim control of your Bond, what it does is stop the governments ability to make money from your 'person/strawman' via your bond. This process requires a bit learning but is not too complex.

If they can't make money from you why bother to come after you?

The third way is all explainded on this website: http://www.loveforlife.com.au (http://www.loveforlife.com.au/)

Remember, they will always try to get you to contract, so learn the right words to use. Hope this helps!

All the stuff is there on the Freeman on the land Success Stories. How much more simple can it be.
Oh yes. Do it for me.

[girlgye]

With respect you seem to be misunderstanding the whole concept of a lawyers primary duty to the Court. 999 times out of 1000 there is no conflict between the duty to the Court & the duty to the Client. However there are occasions when there is a conflict. Let's consider a couple of hypothetical examples:-

1) You're a solicitor & you been asked to go to a police station. When you get there you learn you're required to represent some one accused of murder. You go into to the cells to have a chat & the first thing the client says is 'I killed him but I'm planning to run an alibi defence. I've got friends who will back me up / give evidence in court etc'. What do you do?

2) You're representing someone involved in a case about disputed property. All the evidence points towards it belonging to the opponent but you client produces a document that backs up his version of events. He candidly it 's a forgery the he knocked up using photoshop & a decent printer. He still wants you to admit it as evidence. What do you do?

In both scenarios you cease to represent the clients immediately. They're attempting to pervert the course of justice & purjure themselves & it's contrary to your duty to the Court to be a party to that kind of thing. That's what the duty to the Court is all about (& nothing more :D)

Humm.
Why should he 're- present' me?

Why does he not ACT on my instructions. I know the law you don't. Now let us explore the angle of the Common Law.
No Statute Trumps Common Law. Closes his eyes and covers his ears with h is hands and makes ner ner ner ner sounds. Refusing to even countenance what I'm saying.

So he is a know all and a charlatan. Now not all are like this. Some DO go and look it up. And come back and say.
Now look here. You've got it all wrong.
I say I am instructing you to go in and.
Why should I sit there like an imbecile and instruct an imbecile to act for me?

For as soon as I do that Statute law DOES TRUMP THE LAW OF THE LAND that's why. :rolleyes:

[micklemus]

Humm.
Why should he 're- present' me?

Why does he not ACT on my instructions. I know the law you don't. Now let us explore the angle of the Common Law.
No Statute Trumps Common Law. Closes his eyes and covers his ears with h is hands and makes ner ner ner ner sounds. Refusing to even countenance what I'm saying.

So he is a know all and a charlatan. Now not all are like this. Some DO go and look it up. And come back and say.
Now look here. You've got it all wrong.
I say I am instructing you to go in and.
Why should I sit there like an imbecile and instruct an imbecile to act for me?

For as soon as I do that Statute law DOES TRUMP THE LAW OF THE LAND that's why. :rolleyes:

The answer to that is simple - if you're asking an advocate to do something which professionally embarasses him/her, like making submissions on points of law which don't actually reflect what the law says, the advocate would be entitled to decline those instructions and refuse to represent you.

[micklemus]

With respect you seem to be misunderstanding the whole concept of a lawyers primary duty to the Court. 999 times out of 1000 there is no conflict between the duty to the Court & the duty to the Client. However there are occasions when there is a conflict. Let's consider a couple of hypothetical examples:-

1) You're a solicitor & you been asked to go to a police station. When you get there you learn you're required to represent some one accused of murder. You go into to the cells to have a chat & the first thing the client says is 'I killed him but I'm planning to run an alibi defence. I've got friends who will back me up / give evidence in court etc'. What do you do?

2) You're representing someone involved in a case about disputed property. All the evidence points towards it belonging to the opponent but you client produces a document that backs up his version of events. He candidly it 's a forgery the he knocked up using photoshop & a decent printer. He still wants you to admit it as evidence. What do you do?

In both scenarios you cease to represent the clients immediately. They're attempting to pervert the course of justice & purjure themselves & it's contrary to your duty to the Court to be a party to that kind of thing. That's what the duty to the Court is all about (& nothing more :D)

+1

[wolfhead]

Humm.
Why should he 're- present' me?

Why does he not ACT on my instructions. I know the law you don't. Now let us explore the angle of the Common Law.
No Statute Trumps Common Law. Closes his eyes and covers his ears with h is hands and makes ner ner ner ner sounds. Refusing to even countenance what I'm saying.

So he is a know all and a charlatan. Now not all are like this. Some DO go and look it up. And come back and say.
Now look here. You've got it all wrong.
I say I am instructing you to go in and.
Why should I sit there like an imbecile and instruct an imbecile to act for me?

For as soon as I do that Statute law DOES TRUMP THE LAW OF THE LAND that's why. :rolleyes:


Can you show us a definitive document/dictate etc that confirms that Common Law trumps Statutes? I cannot find anything.

[yozhik]

They are an agent of the courts.

What is so hard to comprehend about that?
That is NOT an impartiality.

The simple fact that they do not simply witness documents confirms it.

FFS.

[micklemus]

They are an agent of the courts.

What is so hard to comprehend about that?
That is NOT an impartiality.

The simple fact that they do not simply witness documents confirms it.

FFS.

You need to further your research. You may even find some useful stuff on the Law Society website. I haven't checked but it has a lot on professional conduct.

Hang on, silly me, I'm showing my age. These days you need to look at the SRA website -

http://www.sra.org.uk/code-of-conduct.page


Also try reading up on notaries.

http://www.thenotariessociety.org.uk/what-is-a-notary

[yozhik]

You need to further your research.

Already done.

The role of a notary is not simply to witness documents.
A notary public in England is an officer of the law appointed by the Court.

http://www.seldon-notary.co.uk/articles/latest-news/the-role-and-duties-of-the-notary.html

[micklemus]

Already done.



http://www.seldon-notary.co.uk/articles/latest-news/the-role-and-duties-of-the-notary.html

You've missed the point completely. I'm saying further your research into what being an officer of the court means. I'm politely trying to point out that you're doing a 2 + 2 = 5 job.

[micklemus]

PS - on the court point, from the Notaries Society website:

What is a Notary?
A Notary is a qualified lawyer - a member of the third and oldest branch of the legal profession in the United Kingdom. He is appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and is subject to regulation by the Court of Faculties. The rules which affect Notaries are very similar to the rules which affect Solicitors. They must be fully insured and maintain fidelity cover for the protection of their clients and the public. They must keep clients' money separately from their own and comply with stringent practice rules and rules relating to conduct and discipline. Notaries have to renew their practising certificates every year and can only do so if they have complied with the rules.

Functions

Notaries are primarily concerned with the authentication and certification of signatures and documents for use abroad.

They are also authorised to conduct general legal practice (excluding the conduct of court proceedings) They may exercise the powers of a Commissioner for Oaths.

The majority also practise as solicitors but the scrivener notaries do not, nor do some 150 of the general notaries.

The Faculty Office

The Faculty Office is the administrative body of which the Master of the Faculties is head. Part of its responsibilities is the governance of the notaries. The Registrar of the Faculty Office oversees the training and qualification of notaries, has the responsibility for issuing the faculty and the annual practising certificate which, together, enable them to practise.

The Notaries Society has prepared a leaflet about the profession which we hope will be of interest. This has been translated into a number of languages and the Society acknowledges, with our grateful thanks, the efforts made by the various translators. Click below to open the leaflet.

[wolfhead]

PS - on the court point, from the Notaries Society website:

Maybe our answer lies in their function as 'Commisioner of Oaths'?

[micklemus]

Maybe our answer lies in their function as 'Commisioner of Oaths'?

Yep

If you just want to get a document sworn, that seems the most obvious course to me.

[mfrey0118]

999 times out of 1000 there is no conflict between the duty to the Court & the duty to the Client.

How could there be? The client has already begged their incompetence and pleaded it before the court. The client needs the officer of the court to represent them. An officer of the court represents them, an officer of the court represents the plaintiff, and an officer of the court sits behind the bench...all perfectly harmonious, no conflict...

[yozhik]

You've missed the point completely. I'm saying further your research into what being an officer of the court means. I'm politely trying to point out that you're doing a 2 + 2 = 5 job.

Then why don't you simply state 'the point'?

... and are you stating that the information posted on the Seldon-Notary website is incorrect?
Notaries are NOT officers of the law?
Notaries are NOT appointed by the Court?

[micklemus]

Then why don't you simply state 'the point'?

... and are you stating that the information posted on the Seldon-Notary website is incorrect?
Notaries are NOT officers of the law?
Notaries are NOT appointed by the Court?

O for heavens sake. If you're an officer of the court, it means you owe certain duties to the court, which Rumpole has already illustrated and I will come back to. Note also what that website says about notaries and the court, which is not the Supreme Court; the latter being the one that solicitors, barristers and judges are officers of.

Being an officer of the court means, in simple terms, that you don't conduct yourself in a way which undermines the court, for want of a better way of putting it. So, you can't lie (actually that's the main one) and you must not do things which are contrary to the rule of law and proper administration of justice.

Swearing a document does not of itself place a solicitor in breach of his duties to the court. A notary may refuse to swear a document because it's a crock of shite piece of piss nonsense though.

[yozhik]

A notary may refuse to swear a document because it's a crock of shite piece of piss nonsense though.

According to who and what guidelines?
:rolleyes:

[micklemus]

According to who and what guidelines?
:rolleyes:

The man on the moon

[malcap1]

This might be stating the obvious, so I apologise in advance! It would be useful if some intelligent person could interpret the Free man on the land and put it into simple lay mans terms, this help speed up the process for anyone wanting to be a Free man on the land. I have started reading a lot of info on the subject and get more and more confused by all the terminology etc. I get the basic premise about common and statute law, how can this be put into practical day to day action when dealing with every day life?
Wrote a song a while back called "Legal Fiction" see here: Legal Fiction by Mal Capone - demo - YouTube

My understanding is that FMOTL is to kinda 'get divorced' from your legal fiction and to assert your real identity - the living soul YOU

[reverendjim]

The man on the moonyou claim the existance of the man on the moon, that he decides the duties of notaries? i must ask that you provide proof of this claim.:D

actually yozik has a point. if the notary is being asked to swear the authenticity of a document, it would be up to the court to decide wether its a load of shit...e or not. if some one is making a claim and all paper before the court must be notarized then it seems to me that he should have to notarize it. then let the court decide. otherwise a notary could just "decide" any case he liked by simply refusing to document papers. that doesn't seem right. it actually seems a little dangerous.