Freemen Vs The Mental Health Act

[fnulnu]

Hypothetically speaking,let's imagine "Mr X" has a condition which is stress-related.If life events conspire against him,heaping an inordinate level of anxiety upon him,he can end up in a state of "psychosis".

He has researched his condition extensively,and knows that "psychosis" is a temporary state which the brain can resolve for itself without any medical intervention whatsoever.

Should the situation ever arise,he wishes to protect himself from forcible imprisonment within "the psychiatric system".

"The Mental Health Act 1983 (1983 c. 20) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom but applies only to people in England and Wales."

"An Act of Parliament is a statute enacted as primary legislation by a national or sub-national parliament. It is broadly equivalent to an Act of Congress in the United States."

Hypothetically speaking,Mr. X should be able to immunise himself from this statute as a Freeman.

I hoe noone minds me posting this.I'll update with details as I concentrate upon researching this very specific area. :)

[the worm that turned]

My problem with this and the Freeman idea in general is the enforcement of it. I.e. how do you convince a Police officer, tax inspector, soldier etc etc that the statutes and acts they are adhering to and attempting to enforce are not relevant to you?

With regards to the Mental Health Act, they'll have you locked-up and in a straight jacket quicker than you can say "one flew over the cuckoos nest" and then who is going to listen to you saying "but I'm a Freeman, let me out of here, I'm not like the rest!"

I believe that there needs to be a MASS Freeman MOVEMENT if this is going to work

[boots]

My problem with this and the Freeman idea in general is the enforcement of it. I.e. how do you convince a Police officer, tax inspector, soldier etc etc that the statutes and acts they are adhering to and attempting to enforce are not relevant to you?

First you set up the NoI and CoR and when you are challenged that by them and stand your ground they will have you on record, as a freeman, they will even take a photo of your car for future reference. They know that a freeman can hold them liable for personal injury and they dont want to be sued. This goes for all government departments, so I can't see why not the Mental Health services.


I believe that there needs to be a MASS Freeman MOVEMENT if this is going to work

I feel it will be a growing movement that will eventually reach critical mass, a bit like the hundredth Money Effect.

.

[fnulnu]

With regards to the Mental Health Act, they'll have you locked-up and in a straight jacket quicker than you can say "one flew over the cuckoos nest" and then who is going to listen to you saying "but I'm a Freeman, let me out of here, I'm not like the rest!"

I absolutely agree,which is why I'm researching this particular area.There must be someway of authoring somesort of document which prohibits the detention (pre-emptively of course).Hence the use of the word "hypothetically".

Of course,this whole scenario is hypothetical,because "Mr X" shouldn't ever come to the attention of these authorities,since he has made provision to remain in a "place of safety",within his own home should the occasion arise.

However,it would be bloody nice to know he's never going to be imprisoned needlessly strapped to a table and given ECT against his will,say,wouldn't it?

[mo_123]

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/3664846.Family_sues_over_patient_s_injuries/

[fnulnu]

First you set up the NoI and CoR and when you are challenged that by them and stand your ground they will have you on record, as a freeman, they will even take a photo of your car for future reference. They know that a freeman can hold them liable for personal injury and they dont want to be sued. This goes for all government departments, so I can't see why not the Mental Health services.

Hey,thanks boots.You posted as I was typing my last.
Yep,sounds right to me :)

[the worm that turned]

First you set up the NoI and CoR and when you are challenged that by them and stand your ground they will have you on record, as a freeman, they will even take a photo of your car for future reference. They know that a freeman can hold them liable for personal injury and they dont want to be sued. This goes for all government departments, so I can't see why not the Mental Health services.
.

Last week I took the opportunity to quiz a friend who is in the Metropolitan Police about various issues.

He is quite high up now and has a team of plebs in uniform below him. He had never heard of the Freeman of the Land Act and said he had never heard any of his colleagues talking about it.

I really do wonder if ANY of them would have heard about it because surely they too would want to take advantage of it.

[fnulnu]

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/3664846.Family_sues_over_patient_s_injuries/

:mad:

[fnulnu]

He is quite high up now and has a team of plebs in uniform below him. He had never heard of the Freeman of the Land Act and said he had never heard any of his colleagues talking about it.

I really do wonder if ANY of them would have heard about it because surely they too would want to take advantage of it.

You're right there,which is precisely why the whole process is worrying to some.I'll bet most "paper shufflers" wouldn't know what the heck you were talking about,if you declared "I'm a Freeman-On-The-Land".

A brave few trailblazers are going to have to enlighten the authorities :D
What an incredible time to be alive :)

[the worm that turned]

:mad:

That is disgusting how he was treated!!

Have you noticed in the article it says "West Midlands Police", not "the Police" as we were all brought up to believe they were called. I think this is further proof that ALL organisations in the UK like this are either, Ltd companies or Public Limited Companies (plc). They are not public service institutions, they are businesses, and I think this is a key piece of information that will wake up the masses to the bull S that is being fed to them.

It is ALL a big money-making scheme that purports to protect us from the baddies!

[alternative_answer]

Hypothetically speaking,let's imagine "Mr X" has a condition which is stress-related.If life events conspire against him,heaping an inordinate level of anxiety upon him,he can end up in a state of "psychosis".

He has researched his condition extensively,and knows that "psychosis" is a temporary state which the brain can resolve for itself without any medical intervention whatsoever.

Should the situation ever arise,he wishes to protect himself from forcible imprisonment within "the psychiatric system".

"The Mental Health Act 1983 (1983 c. 20) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom but applies only to people in England and Wales."

"An Act of Parliament is a statute enacted as primary legislation by a national or sub-national parliament. It is broadly equivalent to an Act of Congress in the United States."

Hypothetically speaking,Mr. X should be able to immunise himself from this statute as a Freeman.

I hoe noone minds me posting this.I'll update with details as I concentrate upon researching this very specific area. :)

You can still be detained under common law, look up section 5:4 it's called nurses holding power.

[fnulnu]

You can still be detained under common law, look up section 5:4 it's called nurses holding power.

"Under section 5(4), you can be held up to 6 hours"

Thanks for the info,am looking into that now.

[cacadores]

First you set up the NoI and CoR and when you are challenged that by them and stand your ground they will have you on record, as a freeman, they will even take a photo of your car for future reference. They know that a freeman can hold them liable for personal injury and they dont want to be sued. This goes for all government departments, so I can't see why not the Mental Health services.

I feel it will be a growing movement that will eventually reach critical mass, a bit like the hundredth Money Effect..

Yeh, right.

Except it's all bunkum. UK Statutes apply and are applied to all persons within the UK. End of story. Liability of the authorities to action by a 'freeman' is irrelavent: you're still subject to the law, and any penalties it imposes, period.


UK Compulsory Admission to Hospital and Guardianship
2. Admission for assessment.— (1) A patient may be admitted to a hospital and detained there for the period allowed by subsection (4) below in pursuance of an application (in this Act referred to as “an application for admission for assessment”) made in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below
Procedure for hospital admission

(2) An application for admission for assessment may be made in respect of a patient on the grounds that—
(a)he is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which warrants the detention of the patient in a hospital for assessment (or for assessment followed by medical treatment) for at least a limited period; and(b)he ought to be so detained in the interests of his own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons.
(3) An application for admission for assessment shall be founded on the written recommendations in the prescribed form of two registered medical practitioners, including in each case a statement that in the opinion of the practitioner the conditions set out in subsection (2) above are complied with.

[cacadores]

You're right there,which is precisely why the whole process is worrying to some.I'll bet most "paper shufflers" wouldn't know what the heck you were talking about,if you declared "I'm a Freeman-On-The-Land".

A brave few trailblazers are going to have to enlighten the authorities :D
What an incredible time to be alive :)

I doubt very much anyone in authority with half a brain is worried about a few half wits babbling on about a concept that doesn't exist.

[boots]

Yeh, right.

Except it's all bunkum. UK Statutes apply and are applied to all persons within the UK. End of story. Liability of the authorities to action by a 'freeman' is irrelavent: you're still subject to the law, and any penalties it imposes, period.


.

Yeah thats right dopey, statutes only apply to persons which by definition of blacks law dictionary is a corporate entity.

You haven't got a clue, what you are talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by boots http://www.davidicke.com/forum/images/buttons_green/viewpost.gif (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=669840#post669840)
First you set up the NoI and CoR and when you are challenged that by them and stand your ground they will have you on record, as a freeman, they will even take a photo of your car for future reference. They know that a freeman can hold them liable for personal injury and they dont want to be sued. This goes for all government departments, so I can't see why not the Mental Health services.

I feel it will be a growing movement that will eventually reach critical mass, a bit like the hundredth Money Effect..

It works and I have seen it work, as have others on this forum.


.

[boots]

You're right there,which is precisely why the whole process is worrying to some.I'll bet most "paper shufflers" wouldn't know what the heck you were talking about,if you declared "I'm a Freeman-On-The-Land".

A brave few trailblazers are going to have to enlighten the authorities :D
What an incredible time to be alive :)

It is already being done The NoU&I and the CoR set up a legal bases for you and they cannot answer to them as they would make themselves liable.

All these departments have legal advisers and they would certainly know about it, of course they will not let this knowledge out.


.

[fnulnu]

It is already being done.

Thanks,boots.I truly appreciate all such efforts :)

I wanted to ask you something about NoI in general,yesterday,but in the light of trolltastic transgressions,have decided it would be better to send the info via PM if that's agreeable to you.

I'm not carrying logs for their pyre,if you know what I mean :D

[dondaz]

Freemen on the Land are not subjectect to statute and act obligations and anyone who says different doesn't know the truth or is a disinfoer.

Statute & acts are not the Law of the Land and they never will be!

[i_am]

How about everyone read the sticky at the top of this forum and book a seat to have the legal aspect explained by people who have done the research?

Good start?

[boots]

Thanks,boots.I truly appreciate all such efforts :)

I wanted to ask you something about NoI in general,yesterday,but in the light of trolltastic transgressions,have decided it would be better to send the info via PM if that's agreeable to you.

I'm not carrying logs for their pyre,if you know what I mean :D


Sure, you can PM me. But give me some time to get back to you. Please.


.

[fnulnu]

Sure, you can PM me. But give me some time to get back to you. Please.


.

During the day,I've pretty-much figured-out what I was going to ask,Thanks anyway :)
Best of luck with your court day,btw.Looking forward to an epic thread on that.

[boots]

During the day,I've pretty-much figured-out what I was going to ask,Thanks anyway :)
Best of luck with your court day,btw.Looking forward to an epic thread on that.

:cool:

Send them off to as many people as you can think of. It can save a lot of hassle in the future.

I dont intend to go to court because any matter that arises will be settle before it get's to court and if it does, then I have shown that with good intentions I tried to settle the matter before wasting the courts time.

I will act with honour.;)


.

[cacadores]

That is disgusting how he was treated!!
Have you noticed in the article it says "West Midlands Police", not "the Police" as we were all brought up to believe they were called. I think this is further proof that ALL organisations in the UK like this are either, Ltd companies or Public Limited Companies (plc). They are not public service institutions, they are businesses, and I think this is a key piece of information that will wake up the masses to the bull S that is being fed to them.
It is ALL a big money-making scheme that purports to protect us from the baddies!'Masses...asleep..' Somewhat patronising, don't you think?
David Icke makes a living from his activities. Does that make him suspect to you?

Why shouldn't the public have the access to court financial records that corporation status gives us? Would you give our right away?

No hurry :rolleyes:

[cacadores]

Yeah thats right dopey, statutes only apply to persons which by definition of blacks law dictionary is a corporate entity..
[/I]Quote the line: you'll find it's not an exclusive term.

You haven't got a clue, what you are talking about.Possibly. But you are nowhere near proving it, and rather far from making your own case sound like anything more than a 'repeater' in action

It works and I have seen it work, as have others on this forum.
Show me one case, where a defendant won because he declared 'Freeman' status.

[cacadores]

How about everyone read the sticky at the top of this forum and book a seat to have the legal aspect explained by people who have done the research?

Good start?You mean, have it explained by people with an interest in having us believe it, and who charge for the privilage?

As opposed to looking the law up ourselves?

I only ask :)

[cacadores]

Re: Advocation of belief before fact:

Freemen on the Land are not subjectect to statute and act obligations and anyone who says different doesn't know the truth or is a disinfoer.
Statute & acts are not the Law of the Land and they never will be!

I note the lack of evidence.

[cacadores]

Re: Irony, case study:

Yeah thats right dopey, statutes only apply to persons which by definition of blacks law dictionary is a corporate entity.]
The Mental Health Act refers to a 'patient' ('patient' = corporate entity? LOL).


I agree, someone is not fully awake here.

:)

[boots]

Re: Irony, case study:


The Mental Health Act refers to a 'patient' ('patient' = corporate entity? LOL).


I agree, someone is not fully awake here.

:)

Yeah it you.:rolleyes:

Because we are under statutes, being persons. Then a patient is a person and a person is a vassal for a corporation, which is what governments are.


Simple really.

[malvern]

Originally Posted by cacadores
Re: Irony, case study:


The Mental Health Act refers to a 'patient' ('patient' = corporate entity? LOL).


I agree, someone is not fully awake here.



Yeah it you.

Because we are under statutes, being persons. Then a patient is a person and a person is a vassal for a corporation, which is what governments are.


Simple really.
__________________
We say there is a right time and place for everything. It's easy to say, but hard to understand. You have to live it to understand it."--Rolling Thunder,

"We have to be the change, we want to see in the world".




they use this act to take care of your affairs ( nice people ).... through the court funds ....


From the earliest times the courts have always been anxious to protect those under a disability. The two obvious classes of such persons are those under the age of 18 who cannot, with certain exceptions, contract on their own behalf and those who are deemed to lack the capacity to manage their own financial affairs.
The first of these groups are termed “children” and the second are known as protected parties (formerly known as patients) when they are litigants and as “protected beneficiaries” once the award has been made.
This protection is given by the need for the court to approve settlements or compromise of claims involving children or protected parties and is accorded by the courts to: -


I do feel this is an area that needs your time to understand ...... everything they do they place in plain sight... it's down to yourself to understand it...!!!
we all are patients until we have been discharged ... have you your discharge ? read the act see what a patient is .


freedom is the grandchildren.... nobody said beening a true caretaker is easy

[dondaz]

He had never heard of the Freeman of the Land Act and said he had never heard any of his colleagues talking about it.

I've never heard of the Freeman on the Land act either.:eek::rolleyes:

Anyone who is not bloodline is deemed mentally deficient. You won't find this written in the statures as I have said it, but it is true non the less!

[cacadores]

a person is a vassal for a corporation

Evidence? A quote from a statute?

[cacadores]

I've never heard of the Freeman on the Land act either.:eek::rolleyes:

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/images/crests/20100.gif

Free Man on the Land Act 1959
1959 c. 72 7_and_8_Eliz_2


An Act to repeal the Lunacy and Mental Treatment Acts 1890 to 1930, and the Mental Deficiency Acts 1913 to 1938, and to make fresh provision with respect to the treatment and care of disordered free men and with respect to their property and affairs; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.

[darketernal]

This thread is being closed at the request of the OP.

[lottie]

This thread has been re-opened after moderator discussion...

Please be reminded of the forum guidelines!

[fnulnu]

This thread has been re-opened after moderator discussion...

Please be reminded of the forum guidelines!

In hindsight,that's probably the correct decision.
Now that I reflect upon it,this thread is a perfect example of the preconceptions and prejudices faced,most notably that anyone with a mental condition must lack intelligence - "half-wit","mentally deficient"...

I would like to add,I have arrived at my own conclusions regarding the Freeman Movement.Just because I do not express my thoughts here,it does not mean I lack them.

[micklemus]

Show me one case, where a defendant won because he declared 'Freeman' status.

Going to do something of a fence-sit here but this is my truth and I'm entitled. First of all, cacadores (and 1694 and others on other threads) may I say I'm with you COMPLETELY on this point. Just because it's unpopular to say this thing doesn't work (or at least I have still seen NO evidence to say otherwise) doesn't mean that the rational/skeptical point of view shouldn't be heard. It's a valid opinion that, if anything, must be heard to help people make balanced decisions. I speak from a position where I can offer a lot insight on this subject and I think it's time a line was drawn between "Freeman" status (which is a complete misnomer) and trying to find legal loopholes (which is what this really is). And I stand shoulder to shoulder with cacadores, 1694 and others in saying that if we're wrong can someone PLEASE show us one (just one would be a start) example of a person who has become truly immune from the laws of the land and subject to their own "common law" doctrines because he has declared himself a freeman (or she come to that).

Now the fence-sit....

Dondaz made a fabulous point on another thread to the effect that this is really more about reconnecting with your natural state and doing what is right, not necessarily what you're told to do -

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!

Now that I do connect with and Dondaz I applaud you too.

But you don't need to waste time learning how to be a "Freeman" to do any of this; just be yourself. You've got the answers inside of you; just express what you know to be right and true. I wonder if the freeman thing is more about people being scared of the consequences of being true to themselves (battles with authority etc). If fear is my motivator then I have learnt nothing...;)

[rob menard]

It may help you to understand that one becomes a Freeman not by declaring they are one, but by using a Notice of Understanding and Intent and making a claim. If you cannot distinguish between a claim and a declaration, then you lack the knowledge needed to make any sort of proper judgment.

You want to see someone who has achieved freedom from statute by claiming his rights? I am one. But now you wont believe and will ask for proof of a greater and greater variety and I have no time for fence sitters nor do I intend to try to prove something to someone who has already made up their mind to reject the truth.

People who have seen my ID and have seen me interact with the police know I speak the truth. The Police know the truth. The judiciary knows the truth. It is not the police or the judiciary that will attempt to stop us, but the mindless monkeys who will reject the status or idea of a Freeman and will demand the authorities do something about it....

Either you accept that we are equal in which case the idea of someone governing you without consent is asinine, or you accept that some other party can govern others without their consent and thus cannot accept equality.

So may I respectfully ask fence sitter, do you accept that we are all equal in the eyes of God, or do you believe some people have the natural right to govern and regulate others and they are so divinely blessed they do not need consent?

Rob

[fnulnu]

Edit: Oh,I see.Ne'ermind.

[malvern]

they use this act to take care of your affairs ( nice people ).... through the court funds ....



Quote:
From the earliest times the courts have always been anxious to protect those under a disability. The two obvious classes of such persons are those under the age of 18 who cannot, with certain exceptions, contract on their own behalf and those who are deemed to lack the capacity to manage their own financial affairs.
The first of these groups are termed “children” and the second are known as protected parties (formerly known as patients) when they are litigants and as “protected beneficiaries” once the award has been made.
This protection is given by the need for the court to approve settlements or compromise of claims involving children or protected parties and is accorded by the courts to: -


I do feel this is an area that needs your time to understand ...... everything they do they place in plain sight... it's down to yourself to understand it...!!!
we all are patients until we have been discharged ... have you your discharge ? read the act see what a patient is .


freedom is the grandchildren.... nobody said beening a true caretaker is easy


as the post i did above .....contract on their own behalf and those who are deemed to lack the capacity to manage their own financial affairs.
thats everyone who have not claimed that they are free and of life and can STAND with that view.


nice joke freeman act..........cacadores, cut'n paste the Mental Health Act.....but the answer of how they remove your consent and control your affairs does lie in this area of the law ..... they have us down as patient ( In England and Wales the Lunacy Acts 1890 - 1922 referred to lunatics, but the Mental Treatment Act 1930 changed the legal term to "Person ...)

think about it...... are you free.

freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[micklemus]

It may help you to understand that one becomes a Freeman not by declaring they are one, but by using a Notice of Understanding and Intent and making a claim. If you cannot distinguish between a claim and a declaration, then you lack the knowledge needed to make any sort of proper judgment.

You want to see someone who has achieved freedom from statute by claiming his rights? I am one. But now you wont believe and will ask for proof of a greater and greater variety and I have no time for fence sitters nor do I intend to try to prove something to someone who has already made up their mind to reject the truth.

People who have seen my ID and have seen me interact with the police know I speak the truth. The Police know the truth. The judiciary knows the truth. It is not the police or the judiciary that will attempt to stop us, but the mindless monkeys who will reject the status or idea of a Freeman and will demand the authorities do something about it....

Either you accept that we are equal in which case the idea of someone governing you without consent is asinine, or you accept that some other party can govern others without their consent and thus cannot accept equality.

So may I respectfully ask fence sitter, do you accept that we are all equal in the eyes of God, or do you believe some people have the natural right to govern and regulate others and they are so divinely blessed they do not need consent?

Rob



Well it seems some sort of gauntlet has been laid down. If you look at some of my posts you’ll see I have repeatedly said I want to be proved wrong; I am not coming at this from a fixed position. Therefore I accept the challenge. It is all helpful to me, either way.

First things first then, claims and declarations. I certainly can distinguish the two (in UK law anyway) and I’d be 200% confident I understand my legal system is far greater than you could imagine. I think the distinction you’re seeking to draw is that if you declare yourself not part of ‘the system’ then you are not bound by its rules. Fine, in principle. Certain problems then arise, however-

1. If you declare yourself not part of the system and not bound by its rules, you cannot legitimately make a claim or enforce it anyway; it’s no more than simply saying “this is my own private party”. For the concept to succeed you need everyone to subscribe to your system, which will ultimately and inevitably lead to the very snowballing of rules and procedures that you rally against. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the idea that regulations, jurisdictions and jurisprudence have developed over hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of years for the sole purpose of bringing in a tyrannical New World Order. Human nature is far more complicated than that and that is the principal reason why we are where we are (not to say that there aren’t sinister influences too). Fear, hatred and greed have been the greatest influencing factors in that time and they do not disappear through a declaration, they disappear through an evolution of human nature. In saying all that, I emphasise that I would be very much in favour of a true evolution of nature involving the genuine introduction of a truly simple and just regulatory system. In my world, however, I think that if you can make the mental leap into seeing the deficiencies in how things operate now then you can make a further mental baby step into realising that the key is to lose all ‘systems’ altogether and acknowledge what you are.
2. Nor does a declaration immunise you from enforcement from authority, much as it is nice to think it would. First and foremost many, if not most, of the paragraphs in the declarations I’ve seen are fundamentally wrong (at least insofar as the UK is concerned, and I must emphasise that) and do not have any operative effect except to look cool to the uneducated. However, if you send me your declaration (by PM or on thread) I am happy to explain whether it works or not (I emphasise, for the UK though). And I won’t vainly point-score; if I’m wrong I’m wrong, it’s a valuable lesson for me anyway and I don’t want to mislead anyone. Secondly (and this is very much linked to 1. above) even it they were effective, they’re absolutely irrelevant unless recognised by everyone anyway, and ‘the system’ does not recognise them. Speaking from experience, when little guy has a success over Big Guy it’s not because little guy is a freeman but because either Big Guy has made a mistake, can’t be bothered to deal with little guy or little guy simply gets lucky, sometimes a combination of all three. When the day comes that little guy has a huge success over Big Guy and the operative cause was little guy being a freeman then I will put the napkin round my neck and step towards my hat collection.

I am disappointed to see you categorise me as a mindless monkey fence sitter who has made up my mind to reject the truth, especially when you also tell me you have no time to explain how you have beaten the system. In two paragraphs you have told me I’m ignorant, you’re right and I just have to take you at your word that you’re right and that’s all there is to it. Thank you but…..

Even if you aren’t prepared to disclose the full details, perhaps you could at least help me with these basic points. I could be setting myself up for a fall here because the answers to these questions might not be relevant to me if you’re not based in the UK. Anyway, here goes (and I recognise that these might have been asked before) –

1. I assume – and correct me if I’m wrong – you still use a recognised currency of some sort? That being the case, I assume you trade in some way or are employed? After all you certainly could not be free of the system if you’re using state benefits of any kind.
2. The tax question then inevitably arises. Am I correct in thinking you are immune from paying tax because you are a freeman? Do you have correspondence or documents to that effect? I have plenty in my case to show that I am definitely still a taxpayer. Even a taxpayer when my name is spelt in normal case.
3. As for indirect taxes, have you contracted yourself out of paying VAT at the point of sale? Again, this is one that can be PDF’d and posted with ease.
4. You mention your dialogue with the police. Living aside general misdemeanours which the police might or might not be interested in getting involved in anyway, what provable and serious criminal situation have you been involved in where the police have stepped aside because you’re a freeman? [And why would a freeman get in that situation anyway of course?]. Alternatively, what about civil disputes?

You ask if I accept we are all equal. I most certainly do.

You ask if I think consent is the issue. I do, but I don’t think many have a clue about what consent really means for this purpose.

You ask if I think we are all equal in the eyes of God. I can’t answer that question directly because God isn’t separate from me. God is in me, it is me, this computer, the trees outside, the air, you, everything. Characterising God as a separate entity is completely illusory and meaningless to me, and for me is one of the plethora of reasons (probably the main one) why human beings have got themselves into such a mess. Separation is illusory, therefore hierarchy is illusory, therefore the system is illusory. Therefore, also, Freemanism is illusory.

So yes, perhaps there is a philosophical chasm between us. However, I want to learn and understand, so I ask openly and genuinely if you could help me with the above and/or provide me with another mental key into your room.

Peace

[rob menard]

Allow me to apologize for apparently categorizing you, especially as a mindless monkey as that was not my intent, and nor is it my belief. I appreciate your willingness to pick up the gauntlet so to speak, and acknowledge yoou have done so honourably.

Fist things first. You said:
If you declare yourself not part of the system and not bound by its rules,

This is where you establish a foundational premise and it is completely off the mark. I do not declare I am not part of the system. I came to my beliefs not by saying "I don't like the system and therefore reject it" and then searched for justification of my rejection. I studied it with a clean and unfettered mind and with intent merely to find the truth regardless of what that was. The only truth I had at the time was what was in my heart, and I used that as a light when studying the system.

What I have found is the system actually has paths available within that most fail to see. I take that other path. Because you associate your path, and the regular one that most have been conditioned to take as 'the system' you assume that because I take a different one I reject the system. I have actually learned to accept and embrace the system, but I do so with a level of understanding that I previously did not enjoy. Because of that understanding, I have found remedy and recourse within the system. Therefore your premise that I reject the system is unfounded. Many people have drivers licenses and will argue that the system requires you to have one. However, those same people will admit they did not read the motor vehicle statutes under which they applied and thus cannot prove the need for a license. Having deconstructed the Act here, and having investigated this by way of letters, phone calls and action, I can honestly state and prove that there is absolutely no requirement for a DL if one is not engaging in commerce on the public roads and highways. However, many will argue the need for them, much like mindless monkeys who really are arguing that you should do what they do, not do what is right to you.

Now, with that in mind I ask you realize I have used the system after having developed a fair understanding of how to use what is essentially merely etiquette to avoid conflict and yet not accept subjugation or regulation. There is a path we can take, if we wish and most will never see it because they are the types who will apply for a license and never read the Act under which the applied. The end result is in fact a document that you flash to the police who when they see it back off like you have diplomatic immunity. I acknowledge that I have limited knowledge of the UK system and much of what I have uncovered and shared is specific to Canada however I have also found evidence that the same remedy is available in other commonwealth countries.

In my research I made calls to a bunch of MP's. I only ever managed to speak directly to one, and he answered his own phone. His name was Chuck Cadman and sadly he is no longer with us. He was a very good guy and regular joe, and when I shared with him my beliefs he asked what the purpose of it was. I told him that it was the greatest tool we have at our disposal to peacefully ensure full and complete government accountability and was a surefire way to lawfully halt a tyrannical government. He thought about that for several moments and replied "Fair enough."

I agree with you on the points about fear and anger and hatred, although I call them fear, anger and shame. I think those are the big baddies we face. In this journey I have taken, I did not hop on one leg. Along with the understanding of the statutes and the system, I also had to learn about my own spirit. This process is just as much a spiritual and consciousness growth as it is learning about the law. One needs two legs to walk this path, and trying to take it with only a knowledge of the law will be like trying to hop up a slippery muddy path on one leg.

As for whether a declaration will stop the enforcement officers, I would agree a declaration will not. However, a notice of understanding and intent and a claim of right will establish a colour of right and can be used to secure Permanent Estoppel which when you flash that at the cops the back right off. Again, I am talking about remedy which is clearly available here in Canada and which people are successfully using. Some who have used this simple and effective and honourable process have confirmation that they have essentially diplomatic immunity from statutory control and regulation. MP's have acknowledged their status as Freeman-on-the-Land and cops leave them alone.

Much of the problem I see with how people perceive this is that they think it is about securing greater freedoms and rights. However as a Freeman, I realize that those stem from the fulfillment of duties, and a true Freeman finds this path not because they want more rights and freedoms, but because they are compelled to do their duties. The performance of those establish the greater freedoms and rights.

On to your other points before the sandman hits me.
1- Currency. Yes I use it. If you claim that it is a benefit, and thus now I am bound by all the endless regulations that others who use it are bound by you assume the binding is a result of its use, when that is not the case. A benefit is only a benefit if the one using it feels they have gained an advantage. If you say, money is a benefit, I may agree, but I would have to know what price is paid before I agree it is a good deal. If you then say that I am now bound by all your regulations, I would then say it is no longer a benefit, and is in fact an attempt to unlawfully take what should be merely a tool for lawful exchange and use it to subjugate.

2- I do not pay Income Tax, as I do not have an account with the organization that administers that and as such merely have no obligation topay them anything. I do not have a Social Insurance Number, and they cannot claim otherwise. Here in Canada that number is your account number, and if you do not have a number, you have no account, if you have no account you have no obligations to an account. Do I have documentation that I am not bound to them? No. Nor do I have documentation establishing that I am not bound to The Royal Bank of Canada for a loan I have never applied for or received. I have no evidence that I am not bound to Visa for a credit card I have never had. Nor however do either of those parties have any evidence that I am bound to them in any way.

3- Indirect taxes in the form of what we call GST and PST are a different kettle of fish. Again your argument seems to indicate a position that it is all or nothing and that is not the case. There are those who have claimed that they are exempt from paying and they have been successful, however I did not wish to take that path and do realize there are things I appreciate and want to continue accessing. Things like emergency health care. In my NUI and COR I established agreement that my paying into those instead of claiming immunity was evidence that I have paid for my health care. I pay them what they call GST and PST and what I call my health care payments. Since then I did require emergency care when I broke my elbow. (Note to all. Avoid doing that.) When I asked them if they wished to present a bill, because I did not have a health care number, they looked on their computer and said I was paid up, even though I had no number. They had never seen anything like it before.


4- I do not get involved in serious criminal offenses or even frivolous ones. I do not harm my fellow man, damage property or use fraud or mischief in my dealings. The idea that there are serious criminal offenses that do not involve any of those is alien to me, and I simply do not understand how you can have one and not the other. As for being a Freeman, if you do any of those things, you are breaking the law and you can and will be punished. As for civil disputes, an offer of amends would be your first step, and if you do that with good faith you will almost always find your resolution.


I appreciate your views on God and they closely mirror mine, even if mine were not as well expressed although if you take your claim that all is illusion to its extreme, then so must the system be an illusion, and if that is the case, why would one accept IT?

Have a great day!
Rob

[micklemus]

Rob

That for me IS helpful and I appreciate the time you have taken to explain your position. That gives me something to cogitate.

My one immediate concern is that it appears some have taken your Canadian experience and translated it as an automatic solution in the UK. It's not that simple, most definitely not, but you've given me some food for thought.

More importantly though, we're all walking in similar directions and whatever one's personal emphasis is, that has to be a good thing.

Will be in touch again at some point.

All the best

[1694]

3- Indirect taxes in the form of what we call GST and PST are a different kettle of fish. Again your argument seems to indicate a position that it is all or nothing and that is not the case. There are those who have claimed that they are exempt from paying and they have been successful, however I did not wish to take that path and do realize there are things I appreciate and want to continue accessing. Things like emergency health care. In my NUI and COR I established agreement that my paying into those instead of claiming immunity was evidence that I have paid for my health care. I pay them what they call GST and PST and what I call my health care payments. Since then I did require emergency care when I broke my elbow. (Note to all. Avoid doing that.) When I asked them if they wished to present a bill, because I did not have a health care number, they looked on their computer and said I was paid up, even though I had no number. They had never seen anything like it before.

If you pay for healthcare why don't you have a health care number? Since you seem to have specific taxation for this service which you must have paid to access it is pretty much private healthcare? All be it with a state sanctioned monopoly. Over here anyone gets NHS treatment regardless of what taxes you have paid. Many already don't pay income tax, or National Insurance and are supported by benefits/welfare and can use the NHS (this could lead me to a seperate rant). Not having a number seems immaterial, I have an acount with my courier, I could probably with enogh pressure get them to replace my account number with my name, they wouldn't care aslong as I paid for what I used.

4- I do not get involved in serious criminal offenses or even frivolous ones. I do not harm my fellow man, damage property or use fraud or mischief in my dealings. The idea that there are serious criminal offenses that do not involve any of those is alien to me, and I simply do not understand how you can have one and not the other. As for being a Freeman, if you do any of those things, you are breaking the law and you can and will be punished. As for civil disputes, an offer of amends would be your first step, and if you do that with good faith you will almost always find your resolution.

If someone was drowning, but there was a safety line available and you prevented/refused that safety line from being used would you be liable? You haven't actually harmed anyone, who is to say the safety line would have been used, and been effective if you hadn't stopped/declined its use, but such an action is a statutory offence and amoral from my own perspective.

[boots]

If you pay for healthcare why don't you have a health care number?



If someone was drowning, but there was a safety line available and you prevented/refused that safety line from being used would you be liable? You haven't actually harmed anyone, who is to say the safety line would have been used, and been effective if you hadn't stopped/declined its use, but such an action is a statutory offence and amoral from my own perspective.


Ahhh you edit after you have a thought.... and it's bullshit too:rolleyes:

Point 3... Read the whole fucking thing. nong brain.


.

[rob menard]

I pay and dont have a number. Easy.

The safety line analogy I do not see. By doing what you describe I would be harming another.
Rob

[1694]

I pay and dont have a number. Easy.

The safety line analogy I do not see. By doing what you describe I would be harming another.
Rob

I expanded the point. What is the benefit of not having a number would have been the less ambiguios question?

OR

What is the cost (negative effect not necessarily financial) of having a number?

[rob menard]

The cost of having the number is how you have to get it. You must apply for it. You must beg. This creates a legal transfer of authority which otherwise would not exist and allows them to look at you and treat you as if you are a child. You have a right to health care regardless of if you have health insurance. You may then accept an obligation to pay a properly presented bill for the services you receive, but they cannot restrict access for lack of a number.

Their health care system is a scam, and they have people paying to access that which is theirs by right. Why should I beg for that which is mine by right is a question I could never answer satisfactorily.

Rob

[1694]

The cost of having the number is how you have to get it. You must apply for it. You must beg. This creates a legal transfer of authority which otherwise would not exist and allows them to look at you and treat you as if you are a child. You have a right to health care regardless of if you have health insurance. You may then accept an obligation to pay a properly presented bill for the services you receive, but they cannot restrict access for lack of a number.

Their health care system is a scam, and they have people paying to access that which is theirs by right. Why should I beg for that which is mine by right is a question I could never answer satisfactorily.

Rob

This confuses me a bit. In the other thread you said we had only privilidges rather than rights IIRC, CMIIW.

Why do you have a right to it if you have not paid for it? I don;t believe we have a de facto right to healthcare, infact any such belief of entitlement in this country is only backed by statute.

No doctor is my slave that he should work for free for me. I can only ask (beg) and if he makes me an offer of paying him for services rendered I can accept or refuse.

Rant:
I find the notion of a "right to ....." or entitlement without earning is exactly what enslaves people. We have a right to health care, we have a right to public roads etc. So if you have a right to them without doing them youself, you hand over the power of administering them to the gov. If you didn't think someone else should have done them for you would take care of these things yourself.

What brought about the excess compulsory taxes that we pay for the health care? The idea that those who couldn't pay had a right to the same services as those who could and therefore those who could pay extra would pay extra for those who couldn't pay anything. With private healthcare everyone gets what they pay for and it is optional. If you have money left over you can give it to charity, if you choose.
/rant


As you demonstrated people not restricted access for lack of a number, they only restric access if they don't pay. You are the proof. I don't see how your postion is any different to anyone elses, you pay for it you get it, you dont pay you dont get, doesn't matter if they identify you by name or number or the birth mark on your bumb.

Unless I have missed the point and having a number means that not only do you have to pay for your health insurance (which not having a number doesn't exclude) but you are also bound to additional obligations?

You say:

You must beg. This creates a legal transfer of authority which otherwise would not exist and allows them to look at you and treat you as if you are a child.

I would think that as the "patient" all those things are done regardless of paperwork. You hand over legal authority to the medical staff to administer you with your request (beg) for medical service ....you might as well get the lolly at the end of it.

Health care isn't yours, it is someone elses time, energy knowledge and skills. I fail to see how you can stake a claim over what is very much another persons (I would go further than to say property) essence? If you want those things you better strike a trade that they agree to.

[ag3nt5mith]

They can't refuse to medically treat anyone who needs care:-

Hippocratic Oath—Modern Version

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

;)

Also if the governments used our taxes to actually invest in our health care system instead of machines of war & detruction, we'd all have free health care.

The medical personnel have a duty to care for the sick, cost would be considered an after thought.

You would get basic treatment, but that's better that nothing I suppose.

To be honest most ailments can be self treated with a little education.

I believe everyone should have some basic first aid knowledge.

1694, not everything revolves around money, it is better to give than to receive, I know your looking for the holes within the freeman concept, just try to be a little more positive about its application.

We shouldn't have to pay for the right to a healthy life.

Edit:

Would you refuse a premature baby medical treatment because he has no insurance?

Would you then hold said debt for services over the offspring until they had accounted for the cost?

Would you make the mother pay for potentially life threatening treatment?

I would consider the last one extortion...

Sorry I rambling, I only post when I've had a smoke... hehe

[1694]

Also if the governments used our taxes to actually invest in our health care system instead of machines of war & detruction, we'd all have free health care.



This sentance really needs some thought :rolleyes:

[ag3nt5mith]

This sentance really needs some thought :rolleyes:

Is that the only issue you have with my last post?

Have you nothing of value to add to the information I presented?

Your response is vague, care to expand a little?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: I like this smiley too...

But I prefer this one... :D

[1694]

Is that the only issue you have with my last post?

Have you nothing of value to add to the information I presented?

Your response is vague, care to expand a little?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: I like this smiley too...

But I prefer this one... :D

How is the healthcare free if you paid for it? (via the gift of taxes)

I don't see a hell of a lot of value in the hypocratic oath. If I tell a mate Ill give him a lift at 7 and I get stuck in traffic and arrive at 7.30 what value was my word, it doesn't turn back time.

[ag3nt5mith]

How is the healthcare free if you paid for it? (via the gift of taxes)

The answer is no, it isn't free (For a % of the population).

There has to be some taxes, I agree on this, but I don't agree with greedy governments who give themselves gold plated pensions & claim expenses in the thousands, then tell the people that they must cut the NHS budget, close wards & remove beds etc...

What madness is this.

My problem isn't with paying the taxes on this issue, it's the corruption within the handling of said taxes that pisses me off.

By all means if the corruption is removed I would happily pay for the funding of the NHS to provide everyone with free health care, even those that can't/haven't/won't pay, I'm willing to sacrifice for the greater good in this instance.

Aren't you?

The system is sound, it's the Human component that is corrupt...

Night... zZZZZzzzzzzzzzZZZZz

[boots]

How is the healthcare free if you paid for it? (via the gift of taxes)

I don't see a hell of a lot of value in the hypocratic oath. If I tell a mate Ill give him a lift at 7 and I get stuck in traffic and arrive at 7.30 what value was my word, it doesn't turn back time.


YOU WHAT. Are you some sort of heartless bastard :mad: Thank god your not a doctor.

You are a slave and will always be one defending the system. Stuck in your own prison.

.

[1694]

YOU WHAT. Are you some sort of heartless bastard :mad: Thank god your not a doctor.

You are a slave and will always be one defending the system. Stuck in your own prison.

.

So because a doctor said something that';s the way it is? That is a system and you are defending it.


What matters in life is what a man can do and what a man can't do. If your capabilities fall short of what you want who can you blame.....the system?

If a doc said he he would give me medical aid and then he couldn't or just didn't, what am I going to do? Be a cry baby, I couldn't give my self the medical aid otherwise i would have done. When you put your faith in others you betray yourself.

[malvern]

1694 ...would you stand by and let a fellow man suffer/die in front of you, or are you one of the few who would see if they could help.... doctors by contract will help ...only afew who have no contract will help ...let alone no what to do .
have you every spent time and talked withsome one who suffers from an extream mental illness, or someone who wishes to kill themself everynight ... they do not pay for health care ...so you would not allow them care too
....should we just empty the hospital and units for they do not pay for thier health care ....




freedom is the grandchildren...do you have children1694

[1694]

1694 ...would you stand by and let a fellow man suffer/die in front of you, or are you one of the few who would see if they could help.... doctors by contract will help ...only afew who have no contract will help ...let alone no what to do .
have you every spent time and talked withsome one who suffers from an extream mental illness, or someone who wishes to kill themself everynight ... they do not pay for health care ...so you would not allow them care too
....should we just empty the hospital and units for they do not pay for thier health care ....




freedom is the grandchildren...do you have children1694

Hey if I see someone in trouble I will help.....but if I help a few people out and then people start queing up outside my house asking for help, hey, I only have limited resources of my own we are going to have to strike a bargain I need food, I need water, I need to pay my taxes and bills (won't be able to help many people from a jail cell).

Never really spent time with someone with a mental illness. If someone wan't to kill themself, I really don't know what to do; do I "help" them kill themself-what they want, or do I "help" them not to kill themself-what they don't want. The assistid suicide topic is not something I would be keen to involve myself in on a practical level, or even really a philosophical one so I am not going to go looking to put myself in that situation. If I end up having to face it then I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

RE: Turfing people out of hospitals if the can't pay. In essence, yes that is the fair thing to do. What do you want? Government to force a new statutory law that taxes you to pay for them.....and then bitch when the money is missapropritated and the service sucks.

Private healthcare for those who can afford ensures more efficient health care so we pay alot less for it. More money in our pockets and less taxes give us a better economy so fewer people are poor, and we have more spare cash we can volunteer to charity. Freedom.

It seems everyone only want's the freedoms that would benefit them, when other people are given freedoms that might take away from their lifes they are in oopostion. Healthcare, benefits, etc etc things they see as their "right" which enslave others to pay for them.

Life ins't easy, never has been never will be, best we can hope for is that it is fair.

[malvern]

Hey if I see someone in trouble I will help.....but if I help a few people out and then people start queing up outside my house asking for help, hey, I only have limited resources of my own we are going to have to strike a bargain I need food, I need water, I need to pay my taxes and bills (won't be able to help many people from a jail cell).

Never really spent time with someone with a mental illness. If someone wan't to kill themself, I really don't know what to do; do I "help" them kill themself-what they want, or do I "help" them not to kill themself-what they don't want. The assistid suicide topic is not something I would be keen to involve myself in on a practical level, or even really a philosophical one so I am not going to go looking to put myself in that situation. If I end up having to face it then I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

RE: Turfing people out of hospitals if the can't pay. In essence, yes that is the fair thing to do. What do you want? Government to force a new statutory law that taxes you to pay for them.....and then bitch when the money is missapropritated and the service sucks.

Private healthcare for those who can afford ensures more efficient health care so we pay alot less for it. More money in our pockets and less taxes give us a better economy so fewer people are poor, and we have more spare cash we can volunteer to charity. Freedom.

It seems everyone only want's the freedoms that would benefit them, when other people are given freedoms that might take away from their lifes they are in oopostion. Healthcare, benefits, etc etc things they see as their "right" which enslave others to pay for them.

Life ins't easy, never has been never will be, best we can hope for is that it is fair.


"thank you for an open answer......"

it is all about finding a balance ..."agreed."

so a good starting point would be.......... that all are equal..

why is there crime ..some because it's easy.. some for need.. some for want....all the reason could be removed, if we cared too....with all were equal would there be the need or want..... and as for easy thats would be made pointless .
mental illness and others of ill heath should be give care of the best for everyone , these companies who steel lifes everday through over priced drugs and equipment should be made accountable along with the MP's and bankers ....


freedom is not something that someone grants you ..."freedom is you. "
unless you understand that you will never find your freedom .



freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[john white]

^ You seem to have had the last word Malvern

[bob_jones]

You don't need to become an Outlaw or a freem to protect yourself against the mental health Gestapo.
You need to know the law.
The history is simple.
King John signed the Magna Carta in the year 1215 and you gained a right not to be gone against without due process of law.
He didn't want to sign it he was forced to and to this day you only have the rights you can shove down the enemy's throat!
By "gone against with due process of law" they meant you had to be accused of a crime, given a trial and punished only afetwards.
So if you commit no crime they can't touch you, from social worker to police officer to the Queen (now abdicate by due process).
And to give you a trial you have the right to trial by your peers i.e a jury and they decide your guilt not the state.
But the Victorians decided that they could cheat people out of this right by saying that if someone could not understand they have a right not to be gone against without due process due to their madness then it would be ok to do it.
But they never tell people this because they can easily potray ignorance of the law as madness.
So the Mental Health Act 2007 (formerly 1983) says the criteria for detention is an illness of such a degree as to cause you to be a danger to yourself or to others. (Only 1% are detrained due to being a 100% danger to others, most are a danger to thenselves and others and quite a few only to themselves).
But Magna Carta is Fundamental law.
That is if any law placed on to of it dose not comply with it it counts as nought.
So an ASBO is not a real law.
Any act of Parliament that contravienes fundamental law counts as nought.
Parliamentarians, police ,and social workers do not respect this right and so you have grounds for a civil war to put them back in their place.
So to comply with the fundamental right not to go against anyone without due process of law you must have an illness of such a degree as to make you unable to understand that you are gone against without due process of law.
The whole mental health act is about going against you without due process of law.
That is you are never accused of a crime and given a trial by peers.
If you proclaim your rights under Magna Carta you prove that you understand you are gone against without due process of law and so you may not leagally be heled one second longer on the gounds of mental health, to do so is the criminal offence of false imprisonment and once you get to court you get nearlt £600 a day for false imprisonment.
This is the absolutely correct version of the law.
However it dose not work in practice.
So basically the state is not at law with you it is at war with you and you need to educate people as to their rights so when the civil war hots up your side know what they are fighting for.
Or even voting for if the state stops it's war long enough to allow you your right to stand for Parliament instead of dogging you with slandering bent bio-warfare terrorist pigs all the time (pigs are the police).

[bob_jones]

bump

[whitenight639]

Hypothetically speaking,let's imagine "Mr X" has a condition which is stress-related.If life events conspire against him,heaping an inordinate level of anxiety upon him,he can end up in a state of "psychosis".

He has researched his condition extensively,and knows that "psychosis" is a temporary state which the brain can resolve for itself without any medical intervention whatsoever.

Should the situation ever arise,he wishes to protect himself from forcible imprisonment within "the psychiatric system".

"The Mental Health Act 1983 (1983 c. 20) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom but applies only to people in England and Wales."

"An Act of Parliament is a statute enacted as primary legislation by a national or sub-national parliament. It is broadly equivalent to an Act of Congress in the United States."

Hypothetically speaking,Mr. X should be able to immunise himself from this statute as a Freeman.

I hoe noone minds me posting this.I'll update with details as I concentrate upon researching this very specific area. :)


i think Mr X would do well to enlist 3 friends that would sign an contract and affidavid? to ensure that should Mr X become in need of medical attention or is a danger to himself or others then they will take responsibilty for him and either have him cared for by a proffessional or by themselvs. Therefore wiavering any liability from governement local or national should something bad happen as a possible result of Mr X's detroiration, seeing as laibility (more specifically money) is all tptb care about that would probably sit well with them.

[bob_jones]

Blackmail and Psychiatry
On Wednesday the 16th of August 2000 Robert Alexander Jones was arrested under suspicion of blackmail.
He had been in a mental hospital for a while earlier that year. He was previously arrested on 18/01/00 in Llanelli town precinct for refusing to clean a slogan off a wall that he had written in coloured chalk.
The slogan was not complete when the police arrived and was going to read:-
NIPA VIAGRA FRAUD MONEY BRIBES PRIME MINISTER
There was no complaint of criminal damage by the owners of the wall and so the arrest for criminal damage was by definition unlawful. The police were keen to take the local celebrity “psychopath” off the streets as a previous precinct chalking stunt had made the BBC Wales news the previous November and had upset the Home Secretary.
Robert Alexander Jones was discharged from hospital on 10/03/00 having been tortured with the strongest and most soul destroying chemical tortures.
They had accused him of being delusional about being called a psychopath and were keen to take bribes from the police to give opinions and make accusations that were grossly defamatory, baseless and malicious.
Robert had not been the sort of person to be taken in by the frauds of psychiatry and so was not going to allow the state to get rich with corrupt and illegal payments at the expense of his career and liberty.
So Robert made a reasonable approach to the hospital for damages.
The demands for money were clear. Robert Alexander Jones wanted damages of £21,000 for the false imprisonment, deformation of his character and a complete and utter withdrawal of the slanderous and malicious allegation of hyper mania.
The hospital had a familiar tactic of making a criminal allegation in order to achieve an arrest so that access could be gained with a pre-determined plan to place Robert under section of the mental health act.
So on Wednesday the 16th of August 2000 the hospital contacted the police; to tell them that there were being blackmailed and made a complaint.
The police arrested Robert and took him to the police station.
Robert was immediately sent to see the doctor as the police had no intention of perusing the complaint of blackmail and had made the arrest on entirely false premises.
However the corrupt social worker that was part of the ambush did not get her way.
The doctor was satisfied that Robert Alexander Jones was fit to be interviewed and so after Robert had put the heavies on Inspector Lindsey and found the police to have told lies about the theft of four pieces of A4 paper from his bed-sit, the police reluctantly had to interview Robert about the very serious criminal allegation that had been made.
During interview under suspicion of making unreasonable and unwarranted demands for money with menaces Robert Alexander Jones took control and did most of the talking.
It was pointed out to the police that the menaces are that I say the hospital have made false and malicious allegations of mental illness and it is obviously true that the allegations of mental illness were indeed false and malicious or the hospital would never have perceived my assertion of that fact to be a threat.
It is thereby and only thereby that my demands for money are both reasonable and warranted.
It was pointed out that if the allegations of mental illness are not false and malicious then the demands for money are neither reasonable nor warranted and Robert was guilty of a very serious offence and the police must press charges.
It was accepted by the police that the allegations of mental illness were indeed false and malicious and thereby the demands for money were both reasonable and warranted and it was therefore accepted that Robert Alexander Jones was not guilty of the offence of blackmail and was released without charge.
There is no way Robert could have been released without charge unless the allegations of mental illness were indeed false and malicious because that is what made Robert’s demands for money both reasonable and warranted.
However Llanelli police were not to be defeated by logic and rational argument and so as soon as Robert was released in the lobby of the police station he was immediately re-arrested under section 136 of the mental health act and forced to under go psychiatric assessment.
This was a blatant unlawful arrest as the police had been comprehensively defeated in their attempts to present a gross defamation as fact and had no logical basis to make any utterance whatsoever.
By this time the time was getting late and the corrupt social worker had gone home and so the assessment under the mental health act was done by professional that had not been given corrupt and illegal payments.
Robert Alexander Jones was declared to be not sectionable and so had to be released from custody again with the promise that he would go and see a general practitioner to get something to take the edge of like Valium for example.
By this time Robert had missed his date and so did not have the fun he was intending to have that day.
The general practitioner was under whelmed by Robert when he sat down in his office a few days later.
Robert told him he needed something to take the edge off and was ordered out of the surgery immediately for wasting the doctor’s time.
This was the art of logic applied to a bogus medical system that claims to have medical products that promote rational thinking.
And yet anyone with a basic grasp of the concept of logic will accept that Robert Alexander Jones had proven that the allegations of mental illness were indeed false and malicious in the first place.
The slanderers were confounded by rational thinking and didn’t like their quackery being shown up for the fraud it really is.
To this day they can not accept that they lost big time. But it is not them that I seek concurrence with and so again they are devalued and discredited for the frauds and irrational oppressors that they really are.
VICTORY ROBERT ALEXANDER JONES

[cacadores]

It may help you to understand that one becomes a Freeman not by declaring they are one, but by using a Notice of Understanding and Intent and making a claim. If you cannot distinguish between a claim and a declaration, then you lack the knowledge needed to make any sort of proper judgment.

Are you saying that we 'lack knowledge' and are incapable of 'judgement' if we can see that you've made an assersion here with no evidence?


You want to see someone who has achieved freedom from statute by claiming his rights? I am one.

Yet again, no evidence


But now you wont believe

This is surely the crux: why should 'belief' enter into it? Either it is true and you have evidence, or it's false and you have none.

I mean, there's no in-between, is there?


and will ask for proof of a greater and greater variety

Bertrand Russell made the same claim, that variety of information constitutes a truth.......and was comprehensively debunked: the first peice of evidence can overturn the whole ediface.

Are you presenting an ediface, or do you have evidence?


and I have no time for fence sitters nor do I intend to try to prove something to someone who has already made up their mind to reject the truth.

The thread is now open: you're free to show evidence to people with an open mind. If you have some.

People who have seen my ID and have seen me interact with the police know I speak the truth. The Police know the truth. The judiciary knows the truth.

Which is that statute law applies to all people and that the term 'person' used in the law is descriptive and applicable.


It is not the police or the judiciary that will attempt to stop us, but the mindless monkeys who will reject the status or idea of a Freeman.....

Is it not also 'mindless' to accept a myth, with no evidence to support it?


Either you accept that we are equal in which case the idea of someone governing you without consent is asinine, or you accept that some other party can govern others without their consent and thus cannot accept equality

This choice has nothing to do with the law. I can 'accept' that we are equal, but I'd be fooling myself if I thought that the democratic right to vote in or out a Government did not restrict the form and immediacy with which my rights can be excercised, and the crowns position above the law: something that those Governments consent to.


So may I respectfully ask fence sitter, do you accept that we are all equal in the eyes of God,

Are you basing the 'freeman' concept on a religoius belief?

or do you believe some people have the natural right to govern and regulate others and they are so divinely blessed they do not need consent?

We live in countries where the right to govern has been delegated to representative government. If you want to ask why the Queen is above the law, then she's there by right of conquest. If you've any doubts on the matter asks the Indians in Canada or the Aboriginals in Australia.

Nice lark and good luck to you Rob.

[whitenight639]

We live in countries where the right to govern has been delegated to representative government. If you want to ask why the Queen is above the law, then she's there by right of conquest. If you've any doubts on the matter asks the Indians in Canada or the Aboriginals in Australia.




can you explain to me what DIEU MON DROIT means then? its latin and written on UK coins and passports. It means the divine right to rule, so does conquering a nation of people make you divine? if so shouldnt we be praising / worshipping our criminals in prison?

[whitenight639]

Are you basing the 'freeman' concept on a religoius belief?




Law is (was) based on religion if you dont understand this look it up, notaries in the UK are givern there posts by the arch bishop of canterbury.

[rob menard]

Are you saying that we 'lack knowledge' and are incapable of 'judgement' if we can see that you've made an assersion here with no evidence?


Yet again, no evidence


This is surely the crux: why should 'belief' enter into it? Either it is true and you have evidence, or it's false and you have none.

I mean, there's no in-between, is there?

Bertrand Russell made the same claim, that variety of information constitutes a truth.......and was comprehensively debunked: the first peice of evidence can overturn the whole ediface.

Are you presenting an ediface, or do you have evidence?


The thread is now open: you're free to show evidence to people with an open mind. If you have some.

Which is that statute law applies to all people and that the term 'person' used in the law is descriptive and applicable.


Is it not also 'mindless' to accept a myth, with no evidence to support it?



This choice has nothing to do with the law. I can 'accept' that we are equal, but I'd be fooling myself if I thought that the democratic right to vote in or out a Government did not restrict the form and immediacy with which my rights can be excercised, and the crowns position above the law: something that those Governments consent to.


Are you basing the 'freeman' concept on a religoius belief?

We live in countries where the right to govern has been delegated to representative government. If you want to ask why the Queen is above the law, then she's there by right of conquest. If you've any doubts on the matter asks the Indians in Canada or the Aboriginals in Australia.

Nice lark and good luck to you Rob.

Hi! The problem I see is not that you want proof, but that you have not defined it nor identified who would be the one to determine if the standard had been met. You certainly do not wish to be the one to determine what is or is not proof and if that has been met anymore then you would want me to do so.

Would you accept an Affidavit from a Notary Public which identifies me as a Freeman-on-the-Land and not subject to statutes? The cops here do. How about simple logic and reason? You merely have to read three simple sections of the Criminal Code here to see that a Claim of Right establishes lawful excuse to disobey the courts and the governments. How about evidence that when a claim was legally made, the people in the government defaulted on a legal claim and thus are in apparent agreement with the position. Define what you would accept as proof before expecting me to provide you proof. Secondly, define who besides you or I will be the one to determine if the standard of proof has been met. How about Affidavits from others who have done so and are now in agreement with the government and live completely free of statutory obligations and restrictions.

I can and will provide evidence. But you will not be the one to decide if it is proof. Also, you are essentially asking for proof that something does not exist. You want me to prove that Elizabeth or her agents do not have the right to govern me without my consent. You ask I prove a negative. To your satisfaction.

Nice try.

Rob

[cacadores]

can you explain to me what DIEU MON DROIT means then? its latin and written on UK coins and passports. It means the divine right to rule, so does conquering a nation of people make you divine? if so shouldnt we be praising / worshipping our criminals in prison?
Not sure what your question is, but monachical systems are hierachical and the question, 'who gave the Crown the right to be over us?' is answered by the Crown itself by the word 'God'. In practical terms, brute power has devolved to a democratic assembly (it could force a referrendum on having a republic, for example), but it withholds it's brute force and allows the old assumptions to continue.

The UK House of Commons is like a large butler who controls his weak master with unstated threats.

[h2pogo]

Not sure what your question is, but monachical systems are hierachical and the question, 'who gave the Crown the right to be over us?' is answered by the Crown itself by the word 'God'. In practical terms, brute power has devolved to a democratic assembly (it could force a referrendum on having a republic, for example), but it withholds it's brute force and allows the old assumptions to continue.

The UK House of Commons is like a large butler who controls his weak master with unstated threats.

the people gave consent for the crown to rule.remember cronwell
the queen swears an oath and her ministers are subject to law like every one else.

[drael]

Just act "sane", admit nothing, take the pills, be a good boy and dont do any crimes etc, and theyll let u go after the official period.

Even if santa claus is clinging on tenaciously to your psychiatrists head, when he says "how are you", say 'im a little confused as to why im here, i was just feeling a little anxious or depressed or my pet monkey died and i was sad - total miscomunication".

Then when ur free, u just drop the meds and do what u want.

And remember to laugh ur arse off at how silly and ignorant people can be, assuming they know mind, when actually the patients know it better.

I remember when i was in psych hospital, i wrote a letter to the board of health complaining about the overuse of the medical model as a treatment/diagnosis. I never went back there, but they have actually started a interveiw process on the matter, asking people about the models. Maybe one day they use jung and this will all be a matter for the past...(Well, fingers crossed anyway....the medical model is just one theory, and its the one where people have no rights and no cure......).

Sometimes its easier to stick your head down, like court or psychiatric hospitals. Rebellion is a dish best served cold ;)

[cacadores]

Hi! The problem I see is not that you want proof, but that you have not defined it nor identified who would be the one to determine if the standard had been met.

It's not a problem: quote a legal provision or right or a legal judgement. The standard of proof needed to convince a group of strangers on here, requires reference to psychology, but nevertheless evidence that can stand up to questioning meets most people's standard.


You certainly do not wish to be the one to determine what is or is not proof and if that has been met anymore then you would want me to do so.

The context here is one of debate. The skills required to convince people are either rhetorical (if the subject is theoretical), or narrative (if it's from personal experience). Either way, evidence can be presented that quotes from written published sourses (not exclusively internet sources) or from spoken or internet-based sources if you have other people to back you up. I only point out, that without evidence, you're not convincing people.


Would you accept an Affidavit from a Notary Public which identifies me as a Freeman-on-the-Land and not subject to statutes? The cops here do.

I could write that I think I'm a monkey and a notary would would witness it.
An affidavit is a formal sworn statement, signed by you. The notary does no more than attest that you signed it! An affidavit is not 'from' a notary. You're seriously confused as to the legal status of an affidavit, and, I would guess, you're lucky to have cops there who are too. The affidavit places YOU under an obligation, should you chose to use it, no one else.


How about simple logic and reason? You merely have to read three simple sections of the Criminal Code here to see that a Claim of Right establishes lawful excuse to disobey the courts and the governments.

If they do, then quote the sections that state a 'Claim of Right establishes lawful excuse to disobey the courts and the governments'. That would be interesting.:)



How about evidence that when a claim was legally made, the people in the government defaulted on a legal claim and thus are in apparent agreement with the position.

The USE of such a tool, would be if the government wanted you to do something, and you made a claim (which doubted or questioned or counter-claimed) to which they didn't reply. In a court of law, you could use this to show evidence of a trail of reasonableness and the lack of reply (in the case where no specific statute to the contrary exists) as agreement. Yes.

But what's that got to do with the 'Freeman' concept? You've simply made use of the law, just like any citizen or legal entity can.


Define what you would accept as proof before expecting me to provide you proof.

You appear worried about my request for 'evidence'.......to the point that you mis-quote me. 'Evidence' is the start, proof is what you claim, not I.

Secondly, define who besides you or I will be the one to determine if the standard of proof has been met.

You are now obstupificating by questioning what 'proof' is, even though I never asked you provide it to a determinable standard. That's interesting. Not answering the question and covering the fact by diverting attention? May we read something into the fact that you are reluctant to back up your theories with any evidence?

How about Affidavits from others who have done so and are now in agreement with the government and live completely free of statutory obligations and restrictions.

I am not a court of law, so therefore the knowledge that a notary attested someone's signature isn't much use as evidence. If the affidavit was used as a tool to confuse or threaten a government official, that would be interesting only.



I can and will provide evidence. But you will not be the one to decide if it is proof.

Well, of course I will be one of those deciding, if you yourself voluntarily set the bar at the level of 'proof'. And good luck to your efforts.


Also, you are essentially asking for proof that something does not exist.

Reductio ad absurdum as a rhetorical tool (discussing a thing's existance, when you bought it into existance).
A statement not based on facts (I did not personally ask you for proof here), Obstupification (we were not discussing proof for something that does not exists, but evidence for something you asserted, namely that it is possible to assert a 'freeman' status, free of statute.

You want me to prove that Elizabeth or her agents do not have the right to govern me without my consent. You ask I prove a negative. To your satisfaction.

I never asked you to do this. That statement is scurrilous invention, you cheeky man.:)


Nice try troll.
Rob
My questions to you have been polite and genuine in both form and content and thus honourable to us both. I hoped for some reciprocity.

I'm sorry Rob. With that last, unprovoked ad homina attack, you demean both yourself, your theory and David's website.

[rob menard]

I could write that I think I'm a monkey and a notary would would witness it.
An affidavit is a formal sworn statement, signed by you. The notary does no more than attest that you signed it! An affidavit is not 'from' a notary. You're seriously confused as to the legal status of an affidavit, and, I would guess, you're lucky to have cops there who are too. The affidavit places YOU under an obligation, should you chose to use it, no one else.

I am capable of using my words properly. I have an Affidavit, FROM a Notary, which they attested and not witnessed, wherein they state that I am a Freeman-on-the-Land and that they witnessed the process by which said status was achieved. Allow me to restate my claim. I have an Affidavit FROM a Notary which is HIS sworn statement. It is not my Affidavit which he merely witnessed. Ok? That Affidavit places HIM under an obligation, not I.

Rob

[cacadores]

the people gave consent for the crown to rule.remember cronwell
the queen swears an oath and her ministers are subject to law like every one else.
Thank you.

I don't know that the people ever gave consent for the crown to rule, since the crown siezed what rights it has by conquest. Subsequent treaties between crown and people have been in the form of contracts in attempts to mitigate the Crown's role. Do you have any evidence of consent anywhere? It's only in the past couple of decades that people have ciesed to be styled 'subjects'. That would be interesting if you have.

Unfortunately, although the ministers are subject to law as individuals and as heads of their departments, the Crown itself is not and does not officially pay tax even.

Have a look at what the body corporate of the Crown is (which is a different organisation to the ministries), and you'll see it's above the law.

[cacadores]

I am capable of using my words properly. I have an Affidavit, FROM a Notary, which they attested and not witnessed, wherein they state that I am a Freeman-on-the-Land and that they witnessed the process by which said status was achieved. Allow me to restate my claim. I have an Affidavit FROM a Notary which is HIS sworn statement. It is not my Affidavit which he merely witnessed. Ok? That Affidavit places HIM under an obligation, not I.

Rob

Thank you. Then you have done well to get a notary to sign such a thing.

If the notary believes that you are a 'free' man and attests to the fact, then he is attesting his to own belief. It's not proof, but it's interesting evidence that you have support of another's opinion. How important thst opinion is, is open to question. In the UK persons who are not trained as solicitors or barristers but satisfy the Master of the Faculties of the Archbishop of Canterbury (who himself is not a lawyer) that they merely possess an adequate understanding of the law, can be a notary. In some states in the US, the qualifications are even lower.

If the notary attests that he has evidence that you are not subject to statute
in law, then he would be not be putting himself in much legal jeopardy, since he only has to be reasonably confident of his opinion. You have to bear in mind however, the statement itself would be unlikey to place him in much professional jeapardy, since the statement, if carefully worded would not place him in contempt in a court and it would be unlikely to harm his professional standing either....even if the statement is untrue.

What you have then, is an opinion of someone who has no automatic role within a court and who could plead limitied knowledge of the law.

It might be enough to scare minor officials or, if involves a legal opinion related to a case against you, it might scare a magistrate enough to dismiss the case rather than refer it to a higher court. It would hold no water in a high court.

Can you share the text of the affidavit with us?

Could you tell me where the phrase 'Freeman-on-the-Land' comes from? Thank you. Would an apology for your ad homina lapse be in order, Rob?:)

[h2pogo]

Thank you.

I don't know that the people ever gave consent for the crown to rule, since the crown siezed what rights it has by conquest. Subsequent treaties between crown and people have been in the form of contracts in attempts to mitigate the Crown's role. Do you have any evidence of consent anywhere? It's only in the past couple of decades that people have ciesed to be styled 'subjects'. That would be interesting if you have.

Unfortunately, although the ministers are subject to law as individuals and as heads of their departments, the Crown itself is not and does not officially pay tax even.

Have a look at what the body corporate of the Crown is (which is a different organisation to the ministries), and you'll see it's above the law.

look at the queens coronation oath.she swore to uphold and defend our common law rights.

[cacadores]

look at the queens coronation oath.she swore to uphold and defend our common law rights.

I'm afraid she didn't.


Text of the oath taken by Elizabeth II in 1953

The Queen having returned to her Chair, (her Majesty having already on Tuesday, the 4th day of November, 1 9 5 2, in the presence of the two Houses of Parliament, made and signed the Declaration prescribed by Act of Parliament), the Archbishop standing before her shall administer the Coronation Oath, first asking the Queen,
Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?
And the Queen answering,
I am willing.
The Archbishop shall minister these questions; and the Queen, having a book in her hands, shall answer each question severally as follows:

Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, 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.

Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premises: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Archbishop (The Bible to be brought) and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and be brought saying these words:

The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.
Then the Queen shall kiss the Book and sign the Oath.

[h2pogo]

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

caccadores what does the underlined bit mean then

[micklemus]

Thank you. Then you have done well to get a notary to sign such a thing.

If the notary believes that you are a 'free' man and attests to the fact, then he is attesting his to own belief. It's not proof, but it's interesting evidence that you have support of another's opinion. How important thst opinion is, is open to question. In the UK persons who are not trained as solicitors or barristers but satisfy the Master of the Faculties of the Archbishop of Canterbury (who himself is not a lawyer) that they merely possess an adequate understanding of the law, can be a notary. In some states in the US, the qualifications are even lower.

If the notary attests that he has evidence that you are not subject to statute
in law, then he would be not be putting himself in much legal jeopardy, since he only has to be reasonably confident of his opinion. You have to bear in mind however, the statement itself would be unlikey to place him in much professional jeapardy, since the statement, if carefully worded would not place him in contempt in a court and it would be unlikely to harm his professional standing either....even if the statement is untrue.

What you have then, is an opinion of someone who has no automatic role within a court and who could plead limitied knowledge of the law.

It might be enough to scare minor officials or, if involves a legal opinion related to a case against you, it might scare a magistrate enough to dismiss the case rather than refer it to a higher court. It would hold no water in a high court.

Can you share the text of the affidavit with us?

Could you tell me where the phrase 'Freeman-on-the-Land' comes from? Thank you. Would an apology for your ad homina lapse be in order, Rob?:)


Didn't want to say anything else on this subject but I have to pop a comment in here to echo what Cacadores is saying - and I'm afraid, Rob, that involves clarifying, or qualifying, your remarks. A notary is not a legal advisor when exercising his notorial role; he is just witnessing documents. I could ask a notary to witness that I am Mungo from Planet Zarg reincarnated here to deliver us all from evil if I like. It doesn't make the document legally effective.

Sorry, but the notorial exercise is of limited legal significance.

[rob menard]

A notary public is witness to the process by which the other party, in this case the government, defaulted and abandoned the rule of law, thus losing their ability to dispute either in court or not. It is called an Estoppel, and that which created the estoppel was a process or battle which I and the government engaged in. I won. He witnessed. It's done and the notary does not need to have any special legal powers at all, and if he did the question would be where did he get them?

All he has to do is be a good witness in the eyes of any court, and he is.
Rob

[micklemus]

Rob, I think you misunderstand my point. A notary is a witness, yes that is correct. All I am saying is a notary will witness whatever he's asked to witness. He does not create anything legally significant in the process of witnessing a document, but the document may be significant once witnessed.

Then again it may not.


Mungo
Sworn this 7 day of January 2009)
Before me Sidney Shite )
Commissioner of Oaths )

[micklemus]

PS - on a slightly more constructive note, I think I have spotted a significant point here and that is that there appears to be an implication that what works in Canada automatically works in the UK too -

Would you accept an Affidavit from a Notary Public which identifies me as a Freeman-on-the-Land and not subject to statutes? The cops here do.

No, I don't accept that at all and I can't stress that enough.

The Canadian legal system does have some parallels with the UK but the two systems are markedly different on the whole. In particular (and as Cacadores has repeatedly sought to highlight) you have to understand what having a Monarchy means in the UK and how the UK Parliamentary and legal systems were spawned from it. It also needs to be recognised that the freeman understanding of what a UK statute represents is actually a total misunderstanding. A UK statute is one and only one form of legislation, being an Act of Parliament. Parliament is not operated by society, much as one might believe it is; it is the province of the Monarch, whose Lords and Ministers rule over society. Society may vote for MPs but they are still subjects of the Monarch. An Act of Parliament is an Act of the Queen in Parliament, not a directive of the people in contract with a corporation. Democracy is a legal illusion, not just the political one that David Icke explains in his books.

There seems to be a belief that one can rely on old concepts of “statute merchants” and “statutes staple” as to what the word "statute" means in modern UK law. These terms are obsolete. There is no such thing.

Forgive the lecture but my point is (as Cacadores keeps explaining) that people of the UK are subject to the Monarch's rule, through Parliament. So, coming back to the fundamentals of all this, YES consent is the key to all this and YES we would all love to see this work but you can't (in the UK) make it work by either picking and choosing what statutes you think should apply to you, or even by swearing a declaration that no statutes apply to you. You didn't choose them in the first place, the Monarch did and you operate within an illusion that you are given choice. If freemen want to continue down this path they have to get their heads round the fundamentals of 'consent' and look further up the chain (at least as far as the UK is concerned). In simple terms you can claim that statutes don't apply, you can claim that you are not bound by/contracted to Parliament, but you are still the Queen's subjects and still bound in practice. Freemen must misunderstand what consent and withdrawal of consent actually necessitate in the UK for their concepts to work.

Someone will now say "well I don't agree with any hierarchy so that doesn't apply to me". You're wrong mate. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that you are correct in principle, you forget that all the agencies of this country swear allegiance to the Queen and to uphold her laws. So if a freeman contravenes a law in the UK it doesn't matter two hoots if he thinks he's bound or not. If the police, tax authorities, legal system, MPs, whoever it may be, decide he's contravened and they want to do something about it then they can.

Its time for free thinkers to actually get to grips with what they're talking about and stop the ignorant back-slapping and ego massage. It's my right to say this as much as it is anyone else's to call me whatever they like (maybe I'm a monkey this week, maybe I'm something else, I really don't care anyway, it's your right to say what you like mate). My point is we're all moving in similar directions and I wouldn't want to see some ignorant UK members of this Forum landing themselves in difficulty because they believe what apparently works in Canada will automatically work here. Its dangerous to draw parallels.

I would implore UK members of this forum to truly understand how the UK operates (and rubbish like Wikipedia will not help you) and really get to grips with consent, if they want to keep on the freeman path. Its your right to ignore me, but I urge to you truly investigate before doing so.

As a final post script, to address those who think I'm just sitting back and poo pooing anyone who is trying to be different, let me emphasise that -

a) I'm not, I just want you to make your own informed choices and not blindly follow the mantras of others;
b) Having a background which allows me to speak with knowledge on this subject, I've concluded that freemanery is not for me but I am not stopping there - I am moving forward on my own path. If at some point I do satisfy myself that it works then I'll take it all on board, but at this moment my path takes me in a different direction and I am very content to be in the minority. It matters not anyway.

Good luck everyone.

[boots]

Rob, I think you misunderstand my point. A notary is a witness, yes that is correct. All I am saying is a notary will witness whatever he's asked to witness. He does not create anything legally significant in the process of witnessing a document, but the document may be significant once witnessed.

Then again it may not.


Mungo
Sworn this 7 day of January 2009)
Before me Sidney Shite )
Commissioner of Oaths )

A notary witnesses your NoU&I and CoR and any other documents you wish to present. 2 notaries have more power than 1 judge. It's a Maxim of Law.

BTW.. Hi MUNGO is that on your birth certificate? Is that what the corporation's know you as, in their comprehension of you as a person, one of their chattel?


.

[micklemus]

A notary witnesses your NoU&I and CoR and any other documents you wish to present. 2 notaries have more power than 1 judge. It's a Maxim of Law.
.

Do you mind giving me your citation to back that up??????

[rob menard]

my point is (as Cacadores keeps explaining) that people of the UK are subject to the Monarch's rule, through Parliament.

That's a nice mantra you have there. However, all you can really say is that you think that you are subject to her rule, and because you accept it, then so must they.

I need to ask one simple question to know how to address the points you raise.

Do you feel that the Queen enjoys a divine right to govern you? Through her agents, and tax officers or parliament or whatever, that does not matter. There is only one key question at this point so let's focus on that. Do you think she has Divine Right to govern, control, regulate or otherwise dictate how you live your life?

Can you please just answer yes or no?

Thanks.

Rob

[micklemus]

Rob

We've had that debate already - want me to highlight the posts?

The answer is "no" but that doesn't mean that you have provided the solution. Read what I've said.

[boots]

Do you mind giving me your citation to back that up??????

Nope.

The Queen is a servant of God. Just as we are. In law.

Creator.
Man.
Government.
Corporations.

There's your hierarchy.

.

[micklemus]

Nope.

The Queen is a servant of God. Just as we are. In law.

Creator.
Man.
Government.
Corporations.

There's your hierarchy.

.

My friend, I asked for a citation for 2 notaries having more power than 1 judge.

And I am sorry but I'm not one for hierarchy at all. My references to hierarchy relate to the freeman issue, not my belief system. In my world all hierarchy, including your reverse hierarchy, and especially including the belief in duality (as that is what leads to any hierarchy) is an illusory construct. One is not better than the other; everything just is and we create the illusions of division and hierarchy. Hence the current political climate is no better or no worse than freeman world. I'm moving beyond them all. Losing the illusion.

That doesn't preclude me from looking at your belief system though. So I ask again, what is your citation for 2 notaries having more power than 1 judge?

[f3dom]

So I ask again, what is your citation for 2 notaries having more power than 1 judge?

I am curious as to were that 1 judge gained this power spoken of in the first place?

Enlighten me!

[boots]

My friend, I asked for a citation for 2 notaries having more power than 1 judge.

And I am sorry but I'm not one for hierarchy at all. My references to hierarchy relate to the freeman issue, not my belief system. In my world all hierarchy, including your reverse hierarchy, and especially including the belief in duality (as that is what leads to any hierarchy) is an illusory construct. One is not better than the other; everything just is and we create the illusions of division and hierarchy. Hence the current political climate is no better or no worse than freeman world. I'm moving beyond them all. Losing the illusion.

That doesn't preclude me from looking at your belief system though. So I ask again, what is your citation for 2 notaries having more power than 1 judge?

This was told to me by a lawyer.

There are lawyers and judges in this country who understand the freeman concept. I would have to go and ask him for more detail on that.

Your still here on this earth right. so you have not broken the illusion as of yet.

Freemanary is the first step to breaking that Illusion in the practical world,. All things are connected even this practical world and the spiritual world are connected together.

In this hierarchy man is above any other. A co creator as well. All else is an illusion.
But it's your path to chose. Who am I to judge. Good luck friend.

.

[micklemus]

I am curious as to were that 1 judge gained this power spoken of in the first place?

Enlighten me!

No, lets not dodge the point. I didn't raise it in the first place, Boots did -

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=714935&postcount=82

I therefore ask yet again, citation please.

[micklemus]

PS - Sorry Boots, we crossed posts. Noted and I'lll wait to hear once you've taken advice.

[boots]

PS - Sorry Boots, we crossed posts. Noted and I'lll wait to hear once you've taken advice.


Thats OK I felt no animosity but you generally questioned from your own perspective and your inquiry was heart felt. I could feel that.

I will find out. The guys on holiday, so it might take a week.

.

[cacadores]

A notary witnesses your NoU&I and CoR and any other documents you wish to present. 2 notaries have more power than 1 judge. It's a Maxim of Law.

So we could be getting to the heart of the 'Freeman' concept right here:

Having shown you have absolutely no citation for the above, may ask why you believed it?