Freeman Successes and Court Victories

[boots]

I'd like to see others post any successes they have had or heard about.

It will help to get over the fear of the system.

CHECKMATE! SPEEDING FINE - CASE DISMISSED
That's a good one Jose.
He has been doing his homework and must have been reading Mark Stevens stuff.
I used some of that years ago too with the plaintiff being QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE and asked him to come to the witness box as I wanted to face my accuser.
The hearing called it quits and they relocated to another court.
Is all games.
Well done to Paul
Marko
-----------------------------------------
Hello Jose
Something that happened to me three weeks ago.
On Tuesday (before Dural workshop) at 6.45 pm, knock on door and who should be there but local constabulary with summons to attend local court next day at 10.00am.
Item number 310 on list failure to pay speeding fine camera offence.
When the matter was called I appeared, the Magistrate asked was I Mr. Clear
I said “I am the party known as Paul of the family Clear”’
Well Paul! How do you plead?
I said, “I am here by special appearance and I have not come to testify but I do have a question. “As the plaintiff and its representative are claiming aggrieved status by contracting a third party to issue a fine for an alleged offence should we not be hearing from them first”?
A fellow called Archinold from the Crown Solicitors Office represented the State Debt Recovery Office was the Prosecutor. He went through the detail of time of alleged offence; the kms per hour recorded and had a 10x8 photo in his hand. He held it up so the Magistrate could see it and said “This is Mr. Clear's car your worship”.
I said, “I have not been presented with any material facts or evidence that that is my car and the unfinished part of my question is, is the plaintiff in court?
The Magistrate says to Archinold “who is the real plaintiff in this matter”?
Before Arch replies I pipe up and say “Is it not that the Camera is the real plaintiff in the matter and I further ask is the Camera going to testify?”
Arch has a bit of a stutter and stammer and without lifting his head Magistrates raises one eyebrow and looks at me and says case dismissed.
Arch yells out what about costs your worship.
Mag says I don’t think we should pursue this matter any further Mr. Archinold.
He was in the foyer as I went out talking to what appeared to be other solicitors, he pointed at me and they all looked around.
I said to myself checkmate.
Regards
Paul
-------------------------------------------

[boots]

On one hand it seems there
On one hand it seems there are those who are keen to have their remedy based on common law, hence common sense, and then there are those who choose to approach it from an honour/dishonour/commercial law/admiralty law perspective in using what the system is based on at the moment
I can comprehend where both perspectives are coming from, but at the same time, I am seeing results and successes in using the honour/dishonour side of things. I have also heard good success stories from the sovereignty camp, in abandoning all attachments to the person/personage/artifical entity, but not first hand successes like what I have seen from the honour/dishonour COMBINED ( key word here ) with holding them liable
What seems to be working, and what I think has the greatest potential to work on, is to use the tools of honour dishonour/commercial law and hold them liable at the same time. Mark Pytellek and his friends are having amazing successes, simply because they hold whoever attempts harm on them liable for what they are doing.
I think a strategy that could be very successful is to hold them liable to the full extent of the damages they are doing. They are committing war crimes by denying fair trial, using military subversion, deception and diversion, propaganda, physical and mental torture, assault, kidnapping, coercion to contract at gunpoint, raising funds for terrorist activities, kidnapping, perversion and defeating justice, gaining personal benefit from your detriment, abuse of office, terrorism, and the list goes on. We can provide evidence of these occurences in a simple, straight forward manner, and anyone who plays the "I know nothing" Schulz act can be held liable for knowingly with intent choosing to commit these crimes. Everything they say CAN be used against them, because they are committing terrorism and destroying the country from within with everything they do. Anyone who then covers up their crimes can then be joindered in the conspiracy.
e.g.
Is it not true that you have assaulted me, kidnapped me, deprived me of my liberty and of justice unlawfully and without any evidence or fact in the matter?
Is it not true that under your criminal code act, the offences of abuse of office, assault, kidnapping etc are very serious offences and you can be held liable?
Is it not true that your criminal actions and harm against me, is now your consent to transfer all your assets to me immediately? ( they dishonour ) do we not know have an agreement? Thankyou
Is it not true that the entities calling themselves governments, have murdered at least 250 million in the last 100 years, and anyone who blocks lawful remedy and justice is a war criminal, a terrorist, and supporting genocide? Isnt that the reason why your human rights acts protects rights and liberties, and are you not know committing serious offences against those liberties?
What is your insurance indemnity number? Who is your superior? Can you give me the number of the attorney general, internal affairs, and the federal police immediately?
Have I not agreed to your offer ( fingerprints, DNA, license etc ) upon you me X for my personal property and services?
Do you realize my fee for being interrogated in an attempt to illegally raise revenue is $50 per minute of my time?
Do you deny that you are here to raise revenue, for a corporation not a lawful purpose, and that you are acting with criminal intent?
Do you consent to me placing liens against your property and assets for this harrassment and unlawful coercion?
Are you not committing fraud by forcing and blackmailling me into contracting with you, using fear, intimidation and torture?
If they say NO WE ARE NOT
Then can you sign an affidavit to that effect that you are not committing those acts and that you are acting lawfully
If they refuse
Is that NOT your admission of guilt that you ARE doing those things and now you are covering up your crimes?!
If they say WE ARE ACTING LEGALLY
Then can you sign an affidavit to that effect saying you are not committing those crimes?
If they refuse
Is that not your admission of guilt that you are, especially when I know have evidence that you are committing those crimes right NOW? Is that not a very serious offence and are you not now conspiring with conscious criminal intent? Is that not your consent now to transfer all your assets to me from your harm?
Just keep having fun and use their own weapons against them! They love to quote statute so you quote their statute law and show them how they are now liable hehe!
Of course all these things COULD be raised in a calm, polite but firm manner, in a question or a conditional acceptance form. I also do not see why we could not hold their criminal actions AS their consent to transfer their assets immediately to us, for the benefit of the community. Behaviour is very simple, we will DO ANYTHING to AVOID PAIN and GAIN PLEASURE. If you use the carrot and the stick concept it may do wonders.
I would not be afraid of them just know if they want to knowingly choose to ignore those crimes continue to assault, kidnap and imprison you illegally, you will send them justice with the power of EFT every single day until you are released. You can then give them a powerful soul lesson as they taste the horror they are creating for others and you assist them to mend their ways.

[boots]

:cool:


Hi fellow freedom seekers,


Today was Brian's day at Dandenong Magistrate Court, and what a first time performance he put in. He actually took the magistrate. and prostitutor (prosecutor) by surprise as he had not 'reported to the general enquiries desk on his arrival, however it appears evident to us that they only want you to do that so that the prostitutor can contract you prior to the defendant being called.
Anyhow he told the magistrate that he wanted to plead guilty to the facts.
The look on the mag's (and the prost's) faces was a mastercard moment.
Priceless.
He immediately tried to intimidate Brian into agreeing that he wanted to plead guilty to the charges!
Now WHY would he insist that Brian had to plead either guilty or not guilty to the charges if there was no difference between charges and facts?
Brian stuck to his guns and did not waiver from his stance.
However, after the mag got really frustrated, telling Brian that he was trying his patience and got quite red in the face, it was obviously a Mexican standoff.
At that point the prostitutor jumped in and offered that the mag do a short adjournment to allow him to discuss the case with the deft out in the foyer.
Well the prost wanted to plea bargain and offered to withdraw the 'Dog at Large in Daylight Hours' charge if Brian was prepared to nod the scone to 'Fail to Re-register Dog' charge.
So after a few minutes discussion Brian decided that on this occasion, his first ever time at court, that he would accept the prost's offer.
Back in the court, the mag, whom we expected to still be burning up inside, went through the motions of striking out the first offer, and then blow me down if he didn't say 'I find the case proven without proceeding to conviction OR FURTHER PENALTY.'
You should have seen the prost scrambling to his feet to put in the council's claim for costs!
Shit it was funny.
So all in all, Brian went from facing nearly $400 in fraudulent claims that most unfortunate slaves end up paying with barely a wimper, to only $62 in costs.
What we learned most of all today, was what Mark stated heaps of times last w/e,
'You must break their presumption!'
The only thing Brian didn't remember to do was to break their presumption that he and the deft (defendant) were one and the same.
Other than that he did very well for a first time appearance.
But very importantly Brian's performance was more than enough to make them feel the ground tremble under their feet. Even to the extent that the prost chased us up the street wanting to find out if Brian intended advising others about how to deal with them.
Next it's my own turn at the same venue on June 30.
My biggest challenge will be to not let them engage me in argument!

[resistance]

Nice:D

[pleasuredome]

excellent stuff, boots. all the best for when your in court. let us know how it goes. :cool:

[boots]

excellent stuff, boots. all the best for when your in court. let us know how it goes. :cool:

I will if I get there ;) pleasuredome.:)These are cases and articles from people who have successful challenged the court system.

.

[boots]

Try and remember that this guys originally joined the "police" force With good intentions and enthusiasm for the job but came to realize that they were policy enforces instead.


It's a bit cheesey but you will get the gist.;)


When pulled over by ‘Peace Officer’
Y (you) ‘How are you my good friend & neighbour, what I can do for you today?’
1.
PO(Police/Peace Officer) ‘You were speeding/whatever’
Y ‘My goodness, my friend, was I really?, thank goodness you were around to quickly pull me up
and bring it to my attention, so few people are so considerate these days you know and the
last thing I want is an accident or to harm anyone else, thank you so much for bringing it to my
attention. I shall now take much more care today while I’m on the road, thank you my friend…’
……and make as if you are to proceed with your journey
PO ‘One minute, you admitted you were speeding, I will need your license so I can issue a ticket’
Y ‘Oh, have I dishonoured you, my friend, in some way or have I harmed someone, why would
you require a license from me and for what purpose? Are you wishing to engage me in
commerce and to maybe hope to make some money out of this transaction?’
PO ‘No no, we just want to see your license’ – or whatever
Y ‘Well my friend, I do not wish to engage you in commerce but also I do not wish either to
dishonour you so I shall issue you my license or name if they asked for that. Here it is’ Issue
the Notice of Written Communication
PO ‘What is this?’
Y ‘My friend, it is a contract, written in my favour, it appears that you wish to engage me in a
contract against my expressed will, so rather than dishonour you and say I refuse to engage
your contract, as we are operating in admiralty are we not, are we not in commerce? then I
reserve the right to issue the terms of the contact and here they are. Now if you wish to
proceed then it is taken that you accept my terms and could you please sign the bottom of the
page please…’
PO ‘Not signing anything’ (Usually they will now contact a superior for instructions and usually
come back and let you go with a warning)
Y ‘Ok, great so we do not have a contract, well thanks for showing your concern earlier and I will
take more care, goodbye my friend….’
PO ‘You cannot go…….stop! etc etc….’
Y ‘Really, I’m happy to stay as long as you will sign my contract, or are you attempting to put me
into the untenable position of involuntary servitude, bondage, a slave in fact and does your law
NOT expressly forbid that in the Crimes Act 1914? Have you read that Act lately? I make it my
business to study your laws… and is it not so that you could face 7 years jail for placing
someone into bondage? Sir I do appreciate your assistance earlier and am very grateful for it,
but please be careful how you proceed now because I do not wish to harm you nor anybody, it
is not our position to do so as people of faith, but I cannot stop people from harming
themselves so I am putting you on notice that I cannot stop you doing whatever it is you wish
to do BUT I can lawfully and am quite capable of holding you personally liable under your
unlimited & unrestricted commercial liability for your actions should you chose or wish now to
injure me against my will and without my permission. As you are my bother I have a duty of
care to look out for you too. So what do you wish to do my good friend, I have matters to
attend to, (silent, thinking) I take it that you rather have a friend rathe than an advesary,
thank you and have a great day,
bye!’
2.
PO ‘Have you got your license OR what is your name?’ either requires same response
Y ‘Why do you require that, what do you wish to do with that(License or name)? Are you wishing to engage me in commerce?’ See above
3.
PO ‘Your vehicle is unregistered….’
Y ‘You are correct my friend, it is unregistered to Queensland Transport but registered privately
for very good reason, it is not engaged in commerce. Do your transport laws not say only
vehicles engaged in commerce are required to be registered to Queensland Transport?’
PO (no answer or yes) ‘Yes, but you are driving using the road!’
Y My friend, you are most perceptive as I certainly was journeying along the road just now till
you pulled me over. Now my good man, you say this car needs to be registered with
Queensland Transport, that’s right isn’t it? I’m happy to accommodate that as long as you can
show me the precise law/act/statute that shows this privately owned car NOT undertaking or
engaged in commerce, is required to be registered with Queensland Transport because I have
made it my business to study your laws and I cannot find it, I’d be obliged if you could locate it
and show it to me… and while we’re at it, can you also show me the precise law that shows a
man using a privately owned car for private purposes is required to register it at Queensland
Transport, coz I’m sue as bananas it’s not there coz I cannot find it.
Does your legislation not refer to ‘persons’?.... Let me quickly check my Black’s law
Dictionary here, PERSON, a firm, labour organisations, partnerships,
associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy or receivers
includes individuals, corporations, partnerships: Individual: artificial person: Mmmmmm doesn’t
sound like me does it? Am I an artificial person or a corporation, partnership or am I a man?
Guess that excludes me from your statutes and acts/laws doesn’t it?’ So you see I am NOT
required to have this privately owned and operated car registered with Queensland Transport.
PO ‘Smart arse…’
Y ‘That’s ok, just please put that in writing now and sign it and I am happy to go to court to
answer to that name. My friend, I have some more Q’s, if you don’t mind, because I really
need to clarify these issues so we all understand our lawful rights and obligations, ok?
First, can you show me any law that shows I must engage in commerce with you? Are we
NOT in admiralty or commercial law/equity, where contract law applies, so every transaction is
a contract, & isn’t a contract consummated when there is full disclosure and transparency, a
meeting of the minds, equitable consideration, lack of force etc etc… I am meeting my duty of
care to you my brother & neighbour as I will collect far more from you than you will ever collect
from me, should you chose to proceed and injure me, BUT I do NOT wish to harm you nor is it
my intent to do so, as are we NOT people of faith, and as such are we NOT commanded to
love thy neighbour, NOT injure them, but I can not stop you from injuring yourself so I am just
noticing you that I can not stop you wishing to do whatever it is you wish to do, but if whatever
you do injures me, then show me any law that evidences I can not and do not have the
capacity to, hold you personally liable under your own unlimited and unrestricted commercial
liability for any injuries you cause me, by placing me into involuntary servitude against my will.
Do your own laws not expressly forbid involuntary servitude or bondage/slavery within the
Crimes Act 1914? Are you not peace officers there to protect people? Then why do you wish
to go against your own oath to protect me but declare war on a peace loving man like me? Is
that not treason?
By the way, here’s my Claim of Right to permit me to journey where ever I choose in peace
as is my higher right. Is the Claim of Right NOT evidenced in your laws within the Australian
Criminal Codes 1995 S2.3 V9.5, wait, I have a copy here, where it shows one has a right to
defend their property, well that includes this body does it not. And we are protected from
criminal responsibility when we have a claim of right, so your own statutes evidence.
Well, my good friend, I do appreciate your diligence in pulling me over to investigate that I am
not one of those public persons parading as a fraud, and I do bid you a very pleasant day.
4.
PO ‘I/we will have to take those plates…’
Y ‘That’s ok, I have no problem with you stealing personal property, because the law will deal
with that, & as I said earlier, I cannot stop you and have no intent on stopping you from doing
anything you decide to do, however you are noticed that I am now holding you personally
liable for the injuries you are now causing me & I am quite lawfully capable of pursuing injury
against you, though it is not & never was my intent to harm you, but I cannot stop you from
harming yourself/selves.’
Always have a recorder and camera with you as well as paper and pen to record the offenders name and car rego
That’s IT! Get the picture, the key is:
1. Break the presumption you are one of their slaves/vessels in commerce & in their society using their language
2. ALWAYS hold them liable for whatever action they take against you without contract or your consent/permission
IZZZZZ easy once you get the concept in your head. No-body wants to be held liable for anything in this litigation mad world.
Have FUN!




.

[fnulnu]

[B] Y ‘Oh, have I dishonoured you, my friend, in some way or have I harmed someone, why would
you require a license from me and for what purpose? Are you wishing to engage me in
commerce and to maybe hope to make some money out of this transaction?’

.

So "Little Britain" - "I am a lay-dee" :D

[boots]

So "Little Britain" - "I am a lay-dee" :D

:D

I did say it was cheesey:)


But it's a kind of attitude that you hold your head high and dont take shit from anyone who THINKS they have power over you.;)

[boots]

This bloke from the UK has got the perspective as well as dondaz and has done the research into the so called tax that people have to pay.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PrhApYOWgzM&feature=related


.

[friendsinthesky]

That was good reading there, cheers boots.

* I wonder how many closed courts and or settled out of court was due to freeman on the land.

[boots]

Once you establish the fact that you are a freeman and will not play their game and hit them with liable. Cops will back off, once they talk to their superiors and they have you on record as a freeman.

They will of course test you, to see that you are, what you say you are.


.

[pinkfreud]

Try and remember that this guys originally joined the "police" force With good intentions and enthusiasm for the job but came to realize that they were policy enforces instead.


It's a bit cheesey but you will get the gist.;)


When pulled over by ‘Peace Officer’
Y (you) ‘How are you my good friend & neighbour, what I can do for you today?’
1.
PO(Police/Peace Officer) ‘You were speeding/whatever’
Y ‘My goodness, my friend, was I really?, thank goodness you were around to quickly pull me up
and bring it to my attention, so few people are so considerate these days you know and the
last thing I want is an accident or to harm anyone else, thank you so much for bringing it to my
attention. I shall now take much more care today while I’m on the road, thank you my friend…’
……and make as if you are to proceed with your journey
PO ‘One minute, you admitted you were speeding, I will need your license so I can issue a ticket’
Y ‘Oh, have I dishonoured you, my friend, in some way or have I harmed someone, why would
you require a license from me and for what purpose? Are you wishing to engage me in
commerce and to maybe hope to make some money out of this transaction?’
PO ‘No no, we just want to see your license’ – or whatever
Y ‘Well my friend, I do not wish to engage you in commerce but also I do not wish either to
dishonour you so I shall issue you my license or name if they asked for that. Here it is’ Issue
the Notice of Written Communication
PO ‘What is this?’
Y ‘My friend, it is a contract, written in my favour, it appears that you wish to engage me in a
contract against my expressed will, so rather than dishonour you and say I refuse to engage
your contract, as we are operating in admiralty are we not, are we not in commerce? then I
reserve the right to issue the terms of the contact and here they are. Now if you wish to
proceed then it is taken that you accept my terms and could you please sign the bottom of the
page please…’
PO ‘Not signing anything’ (Usually they will now contact a superior for instructions and usually
come back and let you go with a warning)
Y ‘Ok, great so we do not have a contract, well thanks for showing your concern earlier and I will
take more care, goodbye my friend….’
PO ‘You cannot go…….stop! etc etc….’
Y ‘Really, I’m happy to stay as long as you will sign my contract, or are you attempting to put me
into the untenable position of involuntary servitude, bondage, a slave in fact and does your law
NOT expressly forbid that in the Crimes Act 1914? Have you read that Act lately? I make it my
business to study your laws… and is it not so that you could face 7 years jail for placing
someone into bondage? Sir I do appreciate your assistance earlier and am very grateful for it,
but please be careful how you proceed now because I do not wish to harm you nor anybody, it
is not our position to do so as people of faith, but I cannot stop people from harming
themselves so I am putting you on notice that I cannot stop you doing whatever it is you wish
to do BUT I can lawfully and am quite capable of holding you personally liable under your
unlimited & unrestricted commercial liability for your actions should you chose or wish now to
injure me against my will and without my permission. As you are my bother I have a duty of
care to look out for you too. So what do you wish to do my good friend, I have matters to
attend to, (silent, thinking) I take it that you rather have a friend rathe than an advesary,
thank you and have a great day,
bye!’
2.
PO ‘Have you got your license OR what is your name?’ either requires same response
Y ‘Why do you require that, what do you wish to do with that(License or name)? Are you wishing to engage me in commerce?’ See above
3.
PO ‘Your vehicle is unregistered….’
Y ‘You are correct my friend, it is unregistered to Queensland Transport but registered privately
for very good reason, it is not engaged in commerce. Do your transport laws not say only
vehicles engaged in commerce are required to be registered to Queensland Transport?’
PO (no answer or yes) ‘Yes, but you are driving using the road!’
Y My friend, you are most perceptive as I certainly was journeying along the road just now till
you pulled me over. Now my good man, you say this car needs to be registered with
Queensland Transport, that’s right isn’t it? I’m happy to accommodate that as long as you can
show me the precise law/act/statute that shows this privately owned car NOT undertaking or
engaged in commerce, is required to be registered with Queensland Transport because I have
made it my business to study your laws and I cannot find it, I’d be obliged if you could locate it
and show it to me… and while we’re at it, can you also show me the precise law that shows a
man using a privately owned car for private purposes is required to register it at Queensland
Transport, coz I’m sue as bananas it’s not there coz I cannot find it.
Does your legislation not refer to ‘persons’?.... Let me quickly check my Black’s law
Dictionary here, PERSON, a firm, labour organisations, partnerships,
associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy or receivers
includes individuals, corporations, partnerships: Individual: artificial person: Mmmmmm doesn’t
sound like me does it? Am I an artificial person or a corporation, partnership or am I a man?
Guess that excludes me from your statutes and acts/laws doesn’t it?’ So you see I am NOT
required to have this privately owned and operated car registered with Queensland Transport.
PO ‘Smart arse…’
Y ‘That’s ok, just please put that in writing now and sign it and I am happy to go to court to
answer to that name. My friend, I have some more Q’s, if you don’t mind, because I really
need to clarify these issues so we all understand our lawful rights and obligations, ok?
First, can you show me any law that shows I must engage in commerce with you? Are we
NOT in admiralty or commercial law/equity, where contract law applies, so every transaction is
a contract, & isn’t a contract consummated when there is full disclosure and transparency, a
meeting of the minds, equitable consideration, lack of force etc etc… I am meeting my duty of
care to you my brother & neighbour as I will collect far more from you than you will ever collect
from me, should you chose to proceed and injure me, BUT I do NOT wish to harm you nor is it
my intent to do so, as are we NOT people of faith, and as such are we NOT commanded to
love thy neighbour, NOT injure them, but I can not stop you from injuring yourself so I am just
noticing you that I can not stop you wishing to do whatever it is you wish to do, but if whatever
you do injures me, then show me any law that evidences I can not and do not have the
capacity to, hold you personally liable under your own unlimited and unrestricted commercial
liability for any injuries you cause me, by placing me into involuntary servitude against my will.
Do your own laws not expressly forbid involuntary servitude or bondage/slavery within the
Crimes Act 1914? Are you not peace officers there to protect people? Then why do you wish
to go against your own oath to protect me but declare war on a peace loving man like me? Is
that not treason?
By the way, here’s my Claim of Right to permit me to journey where ever I choose in peace
as is my higher right. Is the Claim of Right NOT evidenced in your laws within the Australian
Criminal Codes 1995 S2.3 V9.5, wait, I have a copy here, where it shows one has a right to
defend their property, well that includes this body does it not. And we are protected from
criminal responsibility when we have a claim of right, so your own statutes evidence.
Well, my good friend, I do appreciate your diligence in pulling me over to investigate that I am
not one of those public persons parading as a fraud, and I do bid you a very pleasant day.
4.
PO ‘I/we will have to take those plates…’
Y ‘That’s ok, I have no problem with you stealing personal property, because the law will deal
with that, & as I said earlier, I cannot stop you and have no intent on stopping you from doing
anything you decide to do, however you are noticed that I am now holding you personally
liable for the injuries you are now causing me & I am quite lawfully capable of pursuing injury
against you, though it is not & never was my intent to harm you, but I cannot stop you from
harming yourself/selves.’
Always have a recorder and camera with you as well as paper and pen to record the offenders name and car rego
That’s IT! Get the picture, the key is:
1. Break the presumption you are one of their slaves/vessels in commerce & in their society using their language
2. ALWAYS hold them liable for whatever action they take against you without contract or your consent/permission
IZZZZZ easy once you get the concept in your head. No-body wants to be held liable for anything in this litigation mad world.
Have FUN!




.



lmfao bootsie... so cheesy :p but great stuff nonetheless. will have to read up more on this freeman thing.. is it only in the us/uk/oz :confused:

[boots]

lmfao bootsie... so cheesy :p but great stuff nonetheless. will have to read up more on this freeman thing.. is it only in the us/uk/oz :confused:

Hi Pinkfreud :).

It should stand for all countries that are based on the Westminster system of government. (commonwealth). So I guess it should be applicable for India too. Although each country has different terminologies but the structure is the same.

I have not heard of anyone in Indian doing this. Hey maybe you could be the first ;) Your young and smart, so thats a definitely an advantage.:)

.

[pinkfreud]

sounds very promising, but i would have to read up on law, or seek the help of a couple of lawyers. it would be remarkable if i could apply it here, though 'offenses' such as speeding, parking and littering are always overlooked. nobody gives a flying f**k. the cops do it themselves lol.

still very handy i must say. thankoo :D

[boots]

sounds very promising, but i would have to read up on law, or seek the help of a couple of lawyers. it would be remarkable if i could apply it here, though 'offenses' such as speeding, parking and littering are always overlooked. nobody gives a flying f**k. the cops do it themselves lol.

still very handy i must say. thankoo :D

NO forget the lawyers they are part of the game. Have a look at the vids put out in the threads. that is a good starting place to get a handle on the concept. The Magnificent Deception is a good starter.

Here's some vids to check out from dondazs post.


http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=662760&postcount=20

The main point is to break the presumption that you are the name on the birth certificate as this is a corporate entity, it is not you, the flesh and blood woman.

HeHe it's a bit like that over in India, pretty cool really:)


This is good too I love this lady.

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2008/08aug/RICR-080807.php


.


.

[pinkfreud]

NO forget the lawyers they are part of the game. Have a look at the vids put out in the threads. that is a good starting place to get a handle on the concept. The Magnificent Deception is a good starter.

Here's some vids to check out from dondazs post.


http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=662760&postcount=20

The main point is to break the presumption that you are the name on the birth certificate as this is a corporate entity, it is not you, the flesh and blood woman.

HeHe it's a bit like that over in India, pretty cool really:)


This is good too I love this lady.

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2008/08aug/RICR-080807.php


.


.

wow, thanks for that boots. will defo give this a look when i get home :)

[cacadores]

The examples written up on this thread are interesting and inspiring in a way.
But are we all aware that these victories did not involve declaring oneself a 'freeman' at all?


That’s IT! Get the picture, the key is:
1. Break the presumption you are one of their slaves/vessels in commerce & in their society using their language
.'Breaking the presumption' is a useful mnemonic. It will often work in cases where the prosecution has got used to not having to prepare its cases properly. So when the procecution's evidence of speeding is presented by a police sub-contractor, they can be easily put on the back foot if you make them define the plaintiff. It's about asking them to prove every assumption they've made, including linguistic definitions. At a magistrates court, the 'procecution' is often lead by a legal trainee, and too often, they're just not up to the job. If it's a policeman, it's even easier to obstuficate them and no policeman is going to volunteer for the paperwork involved if he can help it. Staying polite is not about 'honouring' them, it's about guarding againt them pasting you for emotional reasons.

The 'Freeman' concept, didn't enter into it.


2. ALWAYS hold them liable for whatever action they take against you without contract or your consent/permission
IZZZZZ easy once you get the concept in your head. No-body wants to be held liable for anything in this litigation mad world.
Have FUN!.
This can help: a lowly official might think it's hardly worth his while proceeding while the suspiscion he could be wrong won't leave him - life's too short. Again, this has nothing to do with the 'Freeman' concept, it has everything to do with using legal words to issue an incomprehensible threat to a minor official. Do not try this in the High Court!:eek:

[cacadores]

Once you establish the fact that you are a freeman and will not play their game and hit them with liable. Cops will back off, once they talk to their superiors and they have you on record as a freeman.

???????? Can you show me one case where a man got let off because he declared himself a 'freeman'?
Thousands of people get let off with a caution every day. The fact they may have mumbled something about 'freeman' or 'international bankers' or 'admiralty jurisdiction' LOL might get them the sympathy vote, I guess.


:)

[boots]

The examples written up on this thread are interesting and inspiring in a way.
But are we all aware that these victories did not involve declaring oneself a 'freeman' at all?

Mmmm, well that is the whole point cacadores this is how freeman act in a court.

'Breaking the presumption' is a useful mnemonic. It will often work in cases where the prosecution has got used to not having to prepare its cases properly. So when the procecution's evidence of speeding is presented by a police sub-contractor, they can be easily put on the back foot if you make them define the plaintiff. It's about asking them to prove every assumption they've made, including linguistic definitions. At a magistrates court, the 'procecution' is often lead by a legal trainee, and too often, they're just not up to the job. If it's a policeman, it's even easier to obstuficate them and no policeman is going to volunteer for the paperwork involved if he can help it. Staying polite is not about 'honouring' them, it's about guarding againt them pasting you for emotional reasons.

Breaking presumption is what it is all about cacadores, it's about sticking to you guns and not wavering from that. This is how it can be done with everyone in Authority, even the judge.

The honour and dishonour process is not about being polite it's this.

Full Acceptance=Honour
Conditional Acceptance= Honour always conditionally accept on proof of claim that what they say is true, correct, not misleading, having first hand personal knowledge with full commercial liability.

Silence = dishonour.
Argue = dishonour.


The 'Freeman' concept, didn't enter into it.

:confused: Thats who these people were and they are Freeman.


This can help: a lowly official might think it's hardly worth his while proceeding while the suspiscion he could be wrong won't leave him - life's too short. Again, this has nothing to do with the 'Freeman' concept, it has everything to do with using legal words to issue an incomprehensible threat to a minor official. Do not try this in the High Court!:eek:



Nice to see that the process does work. hey cadadores. even with the high court.


.

[1694]

I would venture that the commerce element of the legal system is not to be overlooked. The govt is broke as fuck, police have to fund themselves through fines as their aint enough taxes to pay for them, so while they are quick to hand out fines, if it looks like a fine will cost more to collect than it's worth they will just blow it off.

Legal gibberish might work as their is what we call "time cost" but a savvy legal defence will probably work better. Their is a famous lawyer for getting peeps of speeding tickets etc. just because they know ever legal formality that needs to be perfect for the claim to stick; has the camera been calibrated by the correct person in the required time, was the ticket issued within 96 hours etc. etc. They can't be arsed with the cost of all this so more just dismiss the case in search of easier prey.

[boots]

I would venture that the commerce element of the legal system is not to be overlooked. The govt is broke as fuck, police have to fund themselves through fines as their aint enough taxes to pay for them, so while they are quick to hand out fines, if it looks like a fine will cost more to collect than it's worth they will just blow it off.

Legal gibberish might work as their is what we call "time cost" but a savvy legal defence will probably work better. Their is a famous lawyer for getting peeps of speeding tickets etc. just because they know ever legal formality that needs to be perfect for the claim to stick; has the camera been calibrated by the correct person in the required time, was the ticket issued within 96 hours etc. etc. They can't be arsed with the cost of all this so more just dismiss the case in search of easier prey.


What do you mean "legal Gibberish" that legal gibberish is what the system uses so you use it against them.

The point is not to play the game not to be a debtor or chattel You give the court system a remedy which is your bond or as you call it in the UK CR that way the books are balances and everybody is happy. It's all about acounting when you get down to it.

read and listen to Mary Croft.

.

[boots]

.



Want more confirmation HDH process works???




Hi folks.
On Wednesday had a call from my friend and workshop organiser in Melbourne David t wanting to share several results he and others have now achieved – even without paperwork, just MINDSET!
Another example:
Only a couple hundred metres from the Melb Supreme Court last week Tuesday 2nd Sept when coming to act as 1 of 2 witnesses for me before the registrar at the court, Ahmed was pulled over by a peace officer after being tailed because he was journeying in a car with DC plates (and no flippen standing yet the dill!!!! – is that big cohunas or what?).
Ahmed had plastered his plates right over the Victorian plates!!!!!!
Geese, what a blunder!!
Never mind we all have done silly mistakes.
Well the officer threatened to arrest him and kidnap him to the peace (police) station but Ahmed promptly stated he had no contract with the man and that if he wanted to take the body, it was ok, but he better have heaps of insurance because Ahmed was going to sue the pants off him.
That was sufficient to cause a stand-off.
The officer radioed for backup and 3 or 4 cars attended and officers surrounded poor ol Ahmed but he never let his cool slip.
When they threatened arrest again he said ‘fine’ but hope you all got ya houses protected because I’m going to sue the pants off you all.
Meanwhile David and I were anxiously waiting for him and after several mobile phone conversations between David and Ahmed over a 30min period David and I decided to morally assist him and sped down the road to him.
Upon approaching the group of officers we realised the ‘air’ was not hostile.
An officer was removing the heavily cemented private plates from the Victorian ones and handing the shattered remains of Ahmed’s plates back to him with orders that the car was NOT to be driven and that Ahmed would be paid a visit and served to attend court.
Ahmed agreed to leave the car and NOT drive it and after brief exchange of friendly communication between the parties, the 3 of us got in David’s car and returned to the Supreme court.
Incidentally, after we had finished with matters in the Supreme Court (presented the registrar with a Habeas Corpus for the release of a body unlawfully detained – the matter is still continuing but will soon provide updates) we went back to Ahmed’s car so that he could take it for a journey home as we didn’t wish to break any statute laws by driving it home!
Hahahahaha mmmmmmm is this fun???
This week – Wednesday, Ahmed did receive the delightful visit that many of us have experienced and despite NOT admitting to be the person on the summons and also noticing the officers that Ahmed had NO contract with them and that any kidnap would be treated as such as well as assault, the officers apprehended him to the ‘peace’ station.
When he reached the station Ahmed immediately asked for the commanding officer and a Sergeant attended to interview Ahmed.
(I failed to mention earlier that Ahmed has been profusely studying the material on my DVD’s and attended the June workshop. He has finally come round to realise short fuses achieve little and quiet diplomacy via conditional acceptances and holding people to account is achieves EVERYTHING!).
Ahmed immediately noticed him, that he had free man of the land status and was not one of the State of Victoria’s chattel unless of course Sargie babe could prove otherwise.
His precise words as far as David could recall was ‘Unless you can prove your claim that I am not a free man and that I am a person and under the jurisdiction of the State of Victoria and you will sign an Affidavit to that effect right now, I will hold you personally accountable and liable for the injuries you and your people have committed against me UNLESS YOU IMMEDIATELY RETURN ME IN YOUR CAR TO MY HOME NOW!.
Well. Low and behold, the Sergeant said ‘well, we better take you back then’, and did so immediately. He didn’t want the personal liability!!!!!
Even more interestingly, he asked Ahmed for permission to take a photo of his car, and when Ahmed looked at him in surprise, he said: ‘Oh its only so I can show the officers the car so they will in future leave you alone’ !!!!!!!!!
Howz a that?
And Ahmed hasn’t even finished his standing!
So folks what does this tell us???
The process WORKS.
* DON’T ARGUE OR ACT DISHONORABLY
* BE AT ALL TIMES POLITE BUT FIRM. Eg.
I am not that person.
Show me the contract, because if you do not, I take it there isn’t one and I will hold YOU personally liable for anything you do to harm me.
Are you insured?
Is your house protected?
What’s your bank account number?
Where do you live?
* HOLD THEM PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE AND LIABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
IF OFFICERS ARE NEGLIGENT OR FAIL TO PERFORM THEIR DUTY OR BREACH THEIR DUTY, THEIR INSURANCE IS VOID.
THEREFORE ASK THEM FOR THEIR INSURANCE INDEMNITY NUMBER.
* AMONGST ALL ELSE, DITCH THE FEAR BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO, THEY BECOME FEARFUL.
REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY
* ACT AS THE CREDITOR AND YOU CONTROL THE CONVERSATION AND SITUATION
To achieve the results we expect/desire do we not have to act like creditors in order to achieve it?
There are many leaders within the wider group in every state of Australia and abroad. If we ALL take stock of how we approach those within the establishment, we will hold them accountable and the day will come when a team of peace officers will be commissioned that will immediately identify creditors from debtors and treat them as such, even offering to protect creditors against vexatious agents within the establishment as well as acting to penalise those within the establishment that wrongfully and unlawfully harm people.
I see the day coming
Because I see many within the establishment who do NOT like what they do and would rally to a process/system of honour and away from dishonour.
That time is coming FAST.
I can only say: ‘Where do you wish to be?’
Amongst those walking as creditors, and speaking with ‘power’, acting in honour
Or
Being a winging, complaining, duck shoving, cowering debtor – expecting all remedies from Government, the precise group that currently enslave you? (Not implying all people are like this!)
ISN’T IT OUR CHOICE? YOU CHOSE WISELY AND… DO IT NOW!
Well done Ahmed, and David who have joined the small of free people family who journey wherever they wish without state interference. I truly hope this encourages more to follow.

[cacadores]

.Want more confirmation HDH process works???
........... Well done Ahmed, and David who have joined the small of free people family who journey wherever they wish without state interference. I truly hope this encourages more to follow.It's not evidence the HFH process works, since he got off because he threatened lay people.

Out of interest, would he have followed through on the suing threat?

[boots]

It's not evidence the HFH process works, since he got off because he threatened lay people.

Out of interest, would he have followed through on the suing threat?


It is evidence that it works.

Threatening lay people I wouldn't call cops lay people thats stupid the "police" study the statues and law before they hit the streets.

Yes he would have followed through with a liable claim as one of the Maxims of law is. All are equal before the law. That mean judges and cops.

.

[goldman]

This bothers me, everyone seems to be "FREE". And all I read is about speeding tickets. Ever pondered the idea that speeding isn't clever and that you might actually hurt someone, some day?

Ah hell, go ahead push the pedal to the metal, your free right? so free that is has become legit to drive as fast as you want.

[boots]

This bothers me, everyone seems to be "FREE". And all I read is about speeding tickets. Ever pondered the idea that speeding isn't clever and that you might actually hurt someone, some day?

Ah hell, go ahead push the pedal to the metal, your free right? so free that is has become legit to drive as fast as you want.

Have you actually read through the thread, or decide to pick on one post?

Do you think everyone out there is a fucking idiot?

Listen buddy. I've driven more K's than you've had hot dinners. So you want to talk about driving, then you've picked the right man to talk too.

Peace officers should be out there upholding the peace. Not as it is now, where they hand out tickets on restrictive laws that have nothing to do with sensibility. If some idiot is speeding where there are children about or in built up areas then they should be pulled up by a peace officer and given a warning then others are to be alerted to a dangerous driver. If this man or women continues to be dangerous then a good thing would be to confiscate the car, not for long, just so it's an inconvenience. Why issue a fine, some people have loads of money and couldn't careless if they have to fork out 0.1% of a weekly wage to a corporation.

Speeding and parking fines are revenue collectors. They have nothing to do with commonsense. Have a look at the way these things are set up.

It's best to say on topic with the intention of this thread instead of coming up with shit like this.


.

[friendsinthesky]

Speeding and parking fines are revenue collectors. They have nothing to do with commonsense. Have a look at the way these things are set up.


That's so spot on!

Not to mention that, if a road is signed 80 per hour doesn't actually mean it's not safe to do 100 at 4am.

[boots]

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/38/pictureym0.jpg (http://img166.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pictureym0.jpg)
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/pictureym0.jpg/1/w931.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img166/pictureym0.jpg/1/)

[boots]

Sorry for this being so large and a bit off center.

This a good set of questions to ask a bank when going to court.

[friendsinthesky]

^I'll look forward to eventually meeting Mark Pytellek in the new year. I'll probably ask Mark to repeat himself more than once. I do hope he has a freeman on the land for dumbies book coming out soon.:)

[boots]

^I'll look forward to eventually meeting Mark Pytellek in the new year. I'll probably ask Mark to repeat himself more than once. I do hope he has a freeman on the land for dumbies book coming out soon.:)


LOL, Yep I know what you mean about a book for dummies :) But once you get the workshop manual and the DVD it starts to become a lot clearer. It becomes your own thoughts, if you know what I mean. You start to nut it out yourself.:cool:;)

.

[goldman]

That's so spot on!

Not to mention that, if a road is signed 80 per hour doesn't actually mean it's not safe to do 100 at 4am.


Sure, why not go 200 then eh? or 300? Remember these words when you are about to die in a crash. Who cares, go drunk driving because the money collected is for their profit eh? Ever crossed your mind that they might fine you because you have created a possible dangerous situation with too much horses under your control that is good for you? But you are probably the best driver there is right? who never makes a mistake. Until that final moment of regret, even a good driver can loose his might over the wheel due to a million circumstances beyond your control.

I guess not? because they do it ALL for profit, right? so who pays the officers to enforce that you don't hurt someone else? Who will come to your rescue when someone drives over your body when strolling for a walk? the profit right?

So narrow minded. damn.


--

[steevo]

Sure, why not go 200 then eh? or 300? Remember these words when you are about to die in a crash. Who cares, go drunk driving because the money collected is for their profit eh? Ever crossed your mind that they might fine you because you have created a possible dangerous situation?

I guess not? because they do it ALL for profit, right? so who pays the officers to enforce that you don't hurt someone else? Who will come to your rescue when someone drives over your body when strolling for a walk?

So narrow minded. damn. no wonder they want to eliminate 80% of humanity, you guys really make me sick.


--

Strawman.
No-one suggested doing 200 or 300 MPH except for YOU Goldman. In any case 200-300 MPH is ALOT different from doing 100 MPH, but ANYWAY that is the strawman argument, so it's not worth discussing cos it just steers away from the GENUINE discussion.

A tactic that the PTB use is, for example, a solitary terrorist commits a terroist act (SUPPOSEDLY), then the WHOLE of Britain is then to be survailled as potential terrorists. In other words they are saying to us, if you believe that we have a terrorism problem and you want protection from terrorists, then you must ALL lose your freedoms. They go to such extremes, and this is because they are just using strawman to further their hidden agenda. And if a person thinks that it's wrong to go to such extremes then they are treated as some sort of terrorist sympathiser. It's the same with your post Goldman - "If you are willing to go 100 MPH then you are willing to go 300 MPH and therefore you are a danger to everyone and therefore 80% of the population should be culled".

Anyway, I'm glad that I have you on my ignore list Goldman because that means that I tend to ignore and eliminate approximately 80% of your posts.

[boots]

Sure, why not go 200 then eh? or 300? Remember these words when you are about to die in a crash. Who cares, go drunk driving because the money collected is for their profit eh? Ever crossed your mind that they might fine you because you have created a possible dangerous situation with too much horses under your control that is good for you? But you are probably the best driver there is right? who never makes a mistake. Until that final moment of regret, even a good driver can loose his might over the wheel due to a million circumstances beyond your control.

I guess not? because they do it ALL for profit, right? so who pays the officers to enforce that you don't hurt someone else? Who will come to your rescue when someone drives over your body when strolling for a walk? the profit right?

So narrow minded. damn.


--


So narrow minded:rolleyes:

To take on the responsibilities of being a freeman and a good member of society you have to use commonsense, SOMETHING you sadly lack. YOU have taken friendsinthesky's comment out of context, with your narrow mindedness.

That's so spot on!

Not to mention that, if a road is signed 80 per hour doesn't actually mean it's not safe to do 100 at 4am.

1. What is drunk? is it .02 or .05 or .08 or.10 Your statement is ambiguous and nothing to do with this thread.

Now, this is a warning to you. Stay out of this thread. Got it goldman.


.

[goldman]

Go drive, make it whatever speed you wish, your free now because you can evade the tickets and do what you like.


Now, this is a warning to you. Stay out of this thread. Got it goldman.
.

I bet you would be the first one to join the thought police in the freedom land. It is the sign of socialist rats to give the critical party the blame for their own agenda, again: verifiable history. The socialists and communists blamed the socialists and communists in order to rise to power, remember that, they do this all the time.

Also I never said anyone in the freemen movement was in on it, yet I get those claims because of being critical on someone's tunnel views considering freedom.

Go ahead, give the NWO a reason to launch martial law, be glad to know you helped it into existence. I guess that never crossed your mind, right? because it's too obvious for you to wrap your head around it.

[goldman]

Strawman.
No-one suggested doing 200 or 300 MPH except for YOU Goldman. In any case 200-300 MPH is ALOT different from doing 100 MPH, but ANYWAY that is the strawman argument, so it's not worth discussing cos it just steers away from the GENUINE discussion.

A tactic that the PTB use is, for example, a solitary terrorist commits a terroist act (SUPPOSEDLY), then the WHOLE of Britain is then to be survailled as potential terrorists. In other words they are saying to us, if you believe that we have a terrorism problem and you want protection from terrorists, then you must ALL lose your freedoms. They go to such extremes, and this is because they are just using strawman to further their hidden agenda. And if a person thinks that it's wrong to go to such extremes then they are treated as some sort of terrorist sympathiser. It's the same with your post Goldman - "If you are willing to go 100 MPH then you are willing to go 300 MPH and therefore you are a danger to everyone and therefore 80% of the population should be culled".

Anyway, I'm glad that I have you on my ignore list Goldman because that means that I tend to ignore and eliminate approximately 80% of your posts.

I thought I was on your list already, go block me because truth hurts doesn't it.

So it's bad if Youtube censors, but if YOU want to censor me, it's legit to do. See the fallacy of your opinions now? Got a mirror? go use it one day instead of scapegoating people for your flawed arguments. I bet a lot would see me vanish or being censored, I hope someone draws a lesson out of this, but I think it's pointless to assume it.


--

[friendsinthesky]

I guess not? because they do it ALL for profit, right? so who pays the officers to enforce that you don't hurt someone else? Who will come to your rescue when someone drives over your body when strolling for a walk? the profit right?


We the people pay the police to govern us. Being a 'freeman on the land' is taking back responsibility. If we all became responsible, we wouldn't need a police force, but there'll always be people like you who's choice it is to remain governed.

[shodan]

ok can you guys stay on topic and avoid posting personal attacks. cheers.

[boots]

Here's An Example Letter To Redraft An Invitation To Testify In Order To Hang Yourself - Mark Pytellek 14th October 2008

Here's an example letter to redraft an invitation to testify in order to hang yourself.
Hahahha its a reply to an accountant firm noticing their client that the ATO wish to send an officer to
meet with the client over a large transfer of funds from overseas to Australia, which always sets off alarm bells in this Gestapo land
Bestest
M
Hi Maxwell. Please find enclosed mindset letter as an example to how not to argue with anyone
and that you are happy to meet with the tax officer on your terms since you don't need/want them but they want you, so you dictate the terms.
Feedback appreciated. The letter could be mailed to yr accountant or it can be amended
regards
m
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Smart
Principal
Peace Road
New South Wales [Postcode]
14th October 2008
Angry? (these guys are working for the ATO)
Accountant for
Lower & Lower & Lower
41 Depressed Close
Punishment [Postcode]
Greetings
Thank you for your written communication dated 10th October 2008 addressed to crown entity – security interest Mr M Smart and accepted by myself, the free man on the land commonly called Maxwell Smart, hereinafter ‘Principal’, on 13th October 2008.
This notice is to inform you Mr Smart is unlikely to attend the meeting of Wednesday 23rd October 2008 due to either unforeseen circumstances or impossibilities on account that he’s dead but that if he could he would in order to maintain his honour in settling all claims and issues alleged against him. In all likelihood he would ask that Principal pass on his apologies.
The good news is Principal can and offers to attend on behalf of Mr M Smart on the basis that
1. any questions asked by the interrogating ATO officer be recorded in writing so any required/requested replies are done in as honourable and accurate way as possible
2. that the ATO officer conducting the interrogation indemnifies all requested attendees, by affidavit, against using any information provided against testifiers
3. provide Principal a cheque for $2,000 made out to Mr M Smart in consideration of Principal’s valuable time. Naturally it would not be expected by any party that Principal donate his valuable time to any party he has no interest in or benefit from without some valuable consideration by the requesting party in order to consummate the agreement to meet.
4. It is agreed by the officer from the ATO that any alleged liability arising from the meeting against Mr M Smart or companies associated with him be confirmed by affidavit in order to constitute a lawful and valid bill and also that the officer on behalf of the ATO agrees to accept either offset of the alleged liability/debt by either tender of crown consolidated account E.I.N. XXXXXXXX in consideration for the debt/obligation or tender of a promissory note to discharge it.
5. Should said officer or nominee for the ATO fail to verify claim against Mr M Smart or companies associated with him, that they pay Mr M Smart a cheque to the value of their claim + 3 fold damages (Luke 19:8)
6. Interrogating ATO officer accept Principal’s right to digitally record the meeting to maintain its integrity
7. Interrogating ATO officer accept and agrees Principal’s private property is not required to be brought to the meeting.
In regard to the requested documents the dead fella bring to the meeting, I’m afraid for the most part, they don’t exist possibly because M R Smart neglected to keep such records and also likely because of the rather permanent state of his persona, namely that of a deceased, being a corp – oration.
The remainder is personal property belonging to Principal as the Holder in Due Course as evidenced by the enclosed UCC1 financing statement/security interest, unless of course the interrogating ATO officer can show by affidavit bearing his own commercial liability that he/she has lawful authority showing the precise law that evidences aforesaid lawful authority, to intervene in the private affairs of a man or woman and garnish their private property without the consent of the parties concerned.
In regard to the Tax Payers Charter, please find enclosed duly endorsed accepted for value and surrendered for value Charter without dishonour to issuer. Principal thanks issuer for offering said document to Mr M Smart, but due to the nature of his condition, the document or any other document for that matter including the Authorized Version of the King Jame’s bible, is unlikely to help him, in order to ‘detailing you rights in relation to your dealings with the Tax Office’ and if the intent was to issue said document to Principal then Principal humbly conditionally accepts the gift on the basis that acceptance does not forego/waive his higher rights and that there wouldn’t be any one else that could benefit more from its educational pages then what would be gained by Principal should he elect to return the document.
I may have some other points I wish to raise with the interrogating ATO officer which might include but are not limited by:
Show
1. the free man commonly called John and the free woman commonly called Alicia are subject to scrutiny and public investigation showing the precise law statute evidencing the ATO authority to examine private records from private people.
2. should the ATO or/and its employees/nominees/agents fail to substantiate their claim to authority over the free man and woman that those effected by unauthorized and un-consented to interrogation, harassment, investigation and scrutiny by personnel from/of the ATO cannot be sued and held personally liable under their own unlimited commercial liability for the injuries they cause.
3. if employees/nominees/agents of the ATO and the ATO fail to produce the document that evidences a contract with the free people of the land commonly called Maxwell Smart, Alfred Smart, John Smart and Alicia Smart that should the ATO proceed in this matter against aforesaid free private people it would not be a breach of their oath of office (to protect people), a breach of due process of the law and a breach of the Australian tax laws.
4. In timely manner any law that evidences Principal does not have the standing capacity and lawful right and duty to hold all ATO claimants accountable and personally liable for all injuries including but not limited to, negligence, delinquency, theft, extortion, harassment, malfeasance, misfeasance and non feasance of office, that said claimants cause Principal and members of his family should said claimants pursue the matter in the absence of any proof of claim.
Unless Principal receives written communication stating otherwise, it shall be taken that all parties to this matter agree and have accepted the above terms of Principal’s agreement and that the meeting shall proceed on the terms delineated.
Thank you for your written correspondence.
Best Regards
By,
Maxwell: Smart. Principal and primary creditor to Mr M Smart.
All rights, powers, privileges and immunities, whether actual, contingent, or prospective, reserved




.

[dondaz]

Hey boots, good thread mate. It deserves some more positive Freeman results, and here's just the job.

This freeman was up in court for not having car insurance, nor his car registered, no inspection sticker and he also had an unregistered gun in his car. Read how this trial goes, very logical in it's process and application of how the system really works:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The trooper said, "No."

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

Trooper Phillips said, "No, Sir."

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

"No", said the trooper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I objected.

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

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

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

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

I was dumbfounded.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[boots]

Hey boots, good thread mate. It deserves some more positive Freeman results, and here's just the job.

This freeman was up in court for not having car insurance, nor his car registered, no inspection sticker and he also had an unregistered gun in his car. Read how this trial goes, very logical in it's process and application of how the system really works:

Cheers dondaz.

Interesting read. It was touch and go for this guy. Good for him he stuck to his guns.

I would have tried to break the presumption that I was the name when I was called ...I wouldn't have let the clerk know I was there. Just appeared out of respect and honour.;)

He had done a smart thing by filing those documents. Good move. Also by saying that they had no jurisdiction over him was smart thinking, as they dont.

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

I objected.

I would have said, are you denying me due process of law? That put's them on the spot. If judgie wudgie, haha got upset. Then I would have said I conditionally Accept your honour.;)

Although the Judge had a lot of respect for him, being in the Army, his was honourable when he stated that he did not accept any pensions:cool:

I feel what this shows is that he showed a lot of respect to the court and the Judge and this does go a long way in how you are treated. After all these guy's are only human too.


.

[rob menard]

After all these guy's are only human too.

That is the greatest lesson I learned in my journey and it empowers you to bring them compassion and yet still reject their claim of authority. Bringing both is what I have found causes them to become open to accepting the perspective.

Rob

[boots]

That is the greatest lesson I learned in my journey and it empowers you to bring them compassion and yet still reject their claim of authority. Bringing both is what I have found causes them to become open to accepting the perspective.

Rob

It certainly is Rob these guys know what is happening in the legal system and what is happening with statutes and us being corporate entities. They are between a rock and a hard place. Their life is on the line, literally. Some have been murdered for agreeing with the freeman movement. But they follow the law and with the law we can win.

If you catch my drift.

Some dont.:(

.

[boots]

HOW TO STOP AN ACTION BY HOLDING YOUR ADVERSARY LIABLE by Mark Pytellek

Note: See Original Word Document Attached Below.
HOW TO STOP AN ACTION BY HOLDING YOUR ADVERSARY LIABLE
Below is an actual example of how to stop a process/action against you in the event of a private meeting by taking full control. The principals also apply with written issues if applied correctly. The key concepts here are:
· Attitude that you, as Creditor, are taking control
· Immediately breaking the presumption you are the debtor & by language showing you are the real creditor, PRIMARY CREDITOR, NOT them
· Acting at all times honourably, never arguing or remaining silent, but conditionally accepting everything on proof of claim
· Acting as an ally to assist them accomplish what they want (to assist you to victory)
· Requiring them to verify/establish their claim
· Giving them alternatives which are in you favour
· Show them as the ONLY Creditor that you are holding THEM liable for injuries for any unauthorized/unlawful action against you/your agent in commerce
· BE PREPARED – have your copy of copyright docs, UCC1 financing statement/security interest, Certificate of Dishonour/Mediation AND Affidavit of Truth, AAAAAAAAAND DE REAL KILLER, Affidavit for ALL CLAIMANTS
Eg. 1.
Private Bankruptcy Meeting at Queensland Public Trustees Office
I was asked to attend a close friend’s private bankruptcy meeting with the Queensland Public Trustees in Brisbane mid 2007.
Circumstances are this friend had a car accident caused by other party but nevertheless was taken care of by other parties insurance years ago. Was for about $700 but issue came back last year (so not closed!) and claim has now has risen to $7,000 with legals ( why use lawyers and make em rich?). Due to car breakdown interstate while returning to attend a hearing to set aside Bankruptcy Orders, this friend missed the hearing and consequently the order went in favour of applicant to proceed with bankruptcy and a Public Trustee was consequently appointed by Court to oversee the liquidation of the estate (1/2 share in property worth $400,000 debt free, over a $7,000 fictitious claim!!!!! An they call us vexatious litigants ha ha)
Naturally this friend was overwhelmed by the decision despite issuing the court letters of apology for missing the hearing. The Public Trustees wished to collect their ounce of flesh and wrote her a letter to attend a private meeting to facilitate the procedure to settle her outstanding creditors. I was at that point approached to attend with her for moral support.
The following meeting went for approx 1.5hrs and it is RECORDED – by my watch ha ha hee hee!
The first words from the mouth of one of the two attending gentlemen in grey suites at the Brisbane Office of the South Queensland Public Trustees after introducing himself was:
‘who are you?’
To which I replied ‘I am just a good friend of this woman (pointing to L….) who is here attending the matter of L…… K……. and (Insurers). Notice that from the beginning I did NOT use any name to address ‘L’ as she is NOT a name nor a debtor!
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT GUYS!
The gentleman who earlier described himself as the manager of the very PLUSH facility, said ‘You cannot come into this meeting’ and then motioned for L… to enter.
I immediately attained eye contact with ‘L’ and said ‘You have the lawful right to have a witness and I’m telling you that if you go in there alone you are going to be fleeced’
To which ‘L’ said ‘I want him in there or I’m not coming in’. BRILLIANT as is this NOT a conditional acceptance the MOST honourable way to respond to an offer? She did NOT say she wasn’t coming into the office, but that she would only come in with me.
His reply ‘Ok, please come in’. = accepted the contract. Everything is NEGOTIABLE. If ya don’t ask …… WOT? …. Ya don’t get!
After the initial introductions with the two representatives for South Queensland Public Trustees . ‘L’ and I being present, I took immediate control of the direction of the conversation by saying: ‘I am here today, as a friend of this lady but also as your friend to assist all parties to settle and close this matter and ensure all parties are commercially whole. We are not here to argue nor do we wish but to make sure all parties with a real interest get compensated’
To which the man claiming to be the manager responded, ‘that’s why we are here, to help ‘L…’ too (yeah right! – to help her sign the agreement so they have her PERMISSION to sell her property on her – cheeky buggers but notice how they don’t say that so they don’t scare her away, very very well trained professionals without a conscience) to meet her obligations to the creditor. If she could just sign the document before her, we can get the whole matter underway (or words to that effect)’
My reply was ‘fine, no problem, however this woman is not the debtor but is in fact the creditor. What would be the implications of her signing this document if she is not the party on the document, would she be committing a fraud or perjury and bearing false witness?’
The younger fellow, assistant: ‘Yes, but isn’t she the debtor, she’s the debtor here’.
Me: ‘Well, by you asking that question you obviously don’t know who she is or who you are and I suggest you come along to one of my workshops so you may understand the private and public as well as admiralty law’. (Manager now showing a little agitation) but I continued…. ‘so ok, if this lady does sign your documentation, notwithstanding that she is the creditor and would be committing perjury, what would be the repercussions of that action?’
(now physically relieved and slight smile)
Manager: ‘Well, the creditors will get paid’. My reply while looking toward ‘L’,
Me: ‘So you are clear now what will happen?’
‘L’: ‘No’
Me: ‘Once you’ve signed this document, these helpful people will proceed with selling the land and drum up their expenses so that you will get about 10c in the dollar, as well as pay the creditors what they are allegedly owed’
Waaal, ya should have seen the expression on the face of these two men and the tone of the meeting changed immediately ‘L’ responded in horror
‘L’: ‘No way am I signing that document’ (and a few other expletives I might ad hee hee) so to quickly relieve the mounting tension and take again the initiative I interrupted
Me ‘what I’d like to do now is we need an updated account of the alleged debt as it stands now, so that we can honourably settle it with the trust funds that will be released shortly’ (the private pre-paid asset account – sure as buckley’s it ain’t coming out of ‘L’s pocket ha ha) to which the alleged manager claimed:
Manager: ‘no, you can not do that, we have been ordered by the court to liquidate (no covering up now anymore their dishonourable intent) the property as soon as possible to meet the creditor’s claims’ to which my reply:
Me; ‘We are with you, we only wish to ensure all parties with a real interest are made commercially whole, that’s why I’m here, however are you saying there is no other way to settle this matter other than liquidating the property of the beneficiary here?’ (pointing to ‘L’)
Manager: ‘Yes that’s right’ (feeling some return of control and claim to authority)
Me: ‘No problem, if you believe that is the only way to secure funds for the creditors, we are very happy to comply and this lady here is quite happy to sign your document (shoulda seen de expression on ‘L’ face ha ha) and commit perjury as long as the both of you are prepared to sign both your names, each with an identifying name on an affidavit holding you personally liable under your unlimited commercial liability stating you believe that there is NO OTHER WAY to resolve this issue and pay the creditors other than by dissolving the estate of this lady, so that if you are not correct this lady can hold you personally liable for the injuries that you will cause her by the forced sale of the property and for putting her into involuntary servitude or bondage’.
WOW did that go down like a lead balloon…….. at that point the very angry manager stood up stating he would immediately leave to find the senior manager and return with him. My reply!
Me: ‘No problem, that sounds like a great idea to me, we may need his help’ and off he stormed. While we waited approx the five minutes for the manager and senior manager/boss to arrive I spent the time educating our young friend on admiralty law while he listened quite attentively. One must remember these guys are only accountants (with due respect in that they are not versed in law) and scared witless about the threat of being sued for anyfink!
Anyway, when the later two arrived there were the usual cordial handshakes and the ‘BOSS’ Began with an attempt to lay down the riot act and his laws while I patiently waited nodding friendly away, sucking the poor lemon in, he ain’t a clue how we can clamp him either.
Once he finished his spiel, I started as before explaining we were here only in the capacity as friends to assist them to settle and close the matter amicable without dishonour (KEY WORDS) or harm to anyone and it was our intent to leave all parties with a real interest commercially whole and that we wished now to obtain an up to date accounting of the bill in order to effect prompt settlement. Boss was otherwise quite amicable, attentive and agreeable but finally said:
Bossman: ‘We do have a court order requiring us to liquidate the property in order to get the creditors paid’
Me: ‘This lady and I have no problem with that as long as all three of you jointly and severally within the maxim of law notice to agent is notice to principal, can please sign an affidavit attesting that there is no lawful way with which to settle this alleged debt other than by liquidating the property in question and that we cannot go to the law firm for an updated account with which we can effectuate settlement and closure’ ……
Bossman: ‘Well how much time would you need to do that because the creditors need to be paid and we will need to get it back to court as soon as possible, how quickly can you get that done?’
SEE WE IZ DE CREDITOR & WE control the conversation and situation
Me: ‘We will have this settled as quickly as possible so all real parties are compensated’ get it, they aren’t real parties coz they were never injured! The matter is still stalled NOW. The only time the Public Trustees called many moons ago was to ask for payment of $20,000 for that 1.5hr meeting.
GET IT. The SQUANDERING had already started. So ‘L’ asked for an invoice for the meeting and GUESS WHAT THEY SAID?
We CAN’T issue you one UNTIL you have SIGNED our document. THEY NEED ‘L’s PERMISSION to do anything to he including billing her and liquidating her share of the Property.
WE, YOU, HAVE THE POWER AS CREDITORS , NOT THEM – JUST GET YOUR HEAD AROUND IT!

[boots]

HOLDING POLICE LIABLE/ACCOUNTABLE FOR KIDNAP
Not possible ya say? Give me a break. Let me tell ya this one. Geese, how many do ya need?
Ok, late last year, at the peak of the viral attack which knocked the bollocks out of my immune system and left me like a stiff zombie (yeah yeah I’ve heard em all already, I still look like one now!) for about two months, I was working on my XE Falcon Ute putting another fuel pump on the side of the engine block from under the car.
Now imagine ya have two inches clearance (yeah ok, exaggerated – but we all do that ey!) to crawl inch by inch under and your body protesting coz you cannot turn your head, your neck has seized up and you back, so you just get positioned under there at 4.45pm on Friday avo and ya stinkin mobile phone goes off!!
Grrrrrrrrr so quickly inching my way out again in tome to answer it, a fellow ‘Z’ calls up referred from my wonderful friends in Skidnee (Sydney for you proper English readers) saying he was at Ipswich Police Station to tender his finger prints as ordered by said Police when picked up for the third time for unlicensed driving (how can he drive, doesn’t the engine drive the car and he only steer the flippin thing, when will these technocrats get it right?) and he did not want to submit his fingerprints.
I told him he has two choices, the hard way or the easy way.
The easy way is tender them and get outta there without any real hassle and have a great weekend.
The hard way, tender them with conditions (called conditional acceptance – very honourable response) so that they will refuse the conditions – for example you require $50,000 for your valuable property which your finger prints are, are they not?, and let them dishonour YOU by rejecting the offer but by doing so you become the master and controller/creditor but expect them to kidnap you and possibly spend the weekend in police lockup for court on Monday.
Waaaal ‘z’ loved the second option and exclaimed ‘that’s it, that’s what I want to do’. Man, the guy, only about 21 years old – puts us oldies ta shame, has got balls, pardon de language girls.
Couldn’t believe this kid chose this direction so he got my undivided attention which he would urgently require in order to offer him the best protection and preparation I could muster with such short notice. I said he needed to draw up a quick hand written contract stating you require $50,000 for your finger prints if you were to submit them as consideration and compensation for tendering them and that they would accept said contract otherwise the deal was off.
I further instructed him to write up a short affidavit for the claimant = police officer requiring the finger prints would sign attesting said officer would accept all liability should things hit the fan and ‘Z’ get kidnapped and injured etc etc. You must note this all took place in minutes.
‘
Z’ was delighted with the solution to his dilemma and hung up.
No sooner had I crawled inch by inch back under the car in position to screw out two locating bolts on the fuel pump, bustin my head against the car body and clenching my teeth wiff a few choice muffled words exiting my mouth, when the stinkin mobile went off again.
GGGGGRRRRRR I almost went nuts. Quick crawl back under and out in time to nab the phone and found a lovely young girl’s voice on the phone saying her cousin ‘Z’ was in lock-up, that the police had laughed at him and ignored his offer to contract with them and whether I could assist with having him released.
Now please picture again, I am really in agony, my back is spasms with this acute bug and I am in absolutely 20 year old black grease from elbow to a…sehole, oops sorry again, I’ll get the soap – for my mouth…. And SHE WANTS HELP.
Give me a break. Any other time I would have attempted to retain the lovely voice on the phone as long as possible, after all I am a single guy ha ha, but NOT at this particular minute and I admit to being just a wee bit short….
The girl was a little frantic, but level headed under the circumstances, and asked what could she do to get to ‘Z’.
My quickest fob off, sorry again, but my mind was on the car because I needed it going the following day and I was already sore all over wid the work barely started.
I told her to ring the Governor General immediately and he would look into it. No, I didn’t have the number in my black greasy hands or in my back pocket but it WAS available.
We hung up and I again proceeded on the arduous journey back under the car, waal f… me dead, I couldn’t believe my flippin ears when I just got back into precise location under de car with socket ready in the pale light trying to locate the head of the bolt, de flippin Mobile went awf again!!!!!!!!!
Coulda just about cried….
Back out again and the same voice was on the line… ‘Sorry Mark but the Governor General will not take my call, what can I do?’ She was asking me on a Friday afternoon with grease from eyeball to testiball!! Phheeeewwwwwweeee.
I gathered the last of my strength and patience and very slowly squeezed through my teeth, that the next best option would be to call the Attorney General office and speak to someone there and hold them liable should they not come to your aid.
Your cousin was injured and you need their help. Because of the urgency the call lasted likely 30 seconds. That was the upside.
I just got positioned again under the car and yeah. Yeah yeah yeah….. the miserable phone went off again and this time, I’d had it and I swear, back agony or not, I nearly lifted the car off the ground in my fury to get outta there and take this matter into my own grotty greasy black hands and get this persistent irritating polite witch off me flippin back!
She said the Attorney General via the secretary had stated he could not assist in this matter as it could be a conflict of interest so I said ‘Right, leave it with my to chase up, I’ll be back to you shortly’ and hung up. I hobbled into, but it seemed that I’d stormed into the house and ripped the phone handle into my grease filed black grasp and dial 1223 to obtain the Attorney Generals office number.
The call reached a clerk and after quick explanation, to understand the urgency here folks it was now 4.55pm Friday arvo and if I didn’t get someone on that phone immediately that I could threaten intimidate coerce or kill, ‘Z’ would be in lock-up for the full weekend, the clerk returned and said the attorney general was unavailable and also felt he was unable to assist and I said ‘that’s fine however he would now be held liable for negligence, dereliction of duty, malfeasance of office and any other impressive sounding legal crap I could rattle off along with the steam coming off my head!’
The lass said ‘oh, well I do have here the inspector of police’ so I said ‘Great, he’ll do, put him on’.
Within seconds I was biting his ear off, politely of course. Now HERE’S the key people. And I’m serious now, jokes aside. I needed action NOW and I had to get the message across politely and respectfully so they understood that I/we were not a threat nor threatening, but required speedy and deliberate action and I mean NOW.
So I said ‘Sir, I am addressed as Mark and require your urgent assistance’ but he interrupted and asked ‘Mark….’ - prompting a last name, to which I said (and to RESUME CONTOL – man I was hot that night because I was mad! – take no enemies boyo!)
‘Let’s not worry about that, my friend is in urgent need of help, he has just been kidnapped by some fellas at Ipswich Police Station. ‘Z’ was down there to honour an agreement he made with some police down there to tender his finger prints. He has conditionally accepted to tender them as they are his personal property are they not, and as such are valuable to him and he requited some compensation for them but the police their mocked him and very dishonourably assaulted him, kidnapped his body and locked him up against his will thereby injuring him. Is that not involuntary servitude and do your laws not evidence that bondage is unlawful and punishable with a jail term?
I am not here to injure anyone, we are not permitted to, but I cannot stop anyone from injuring themselves, so I am doing my duty of care to you now, and to the arresting officer and the man in charge of that station, that they have two clear choices.
1. that they could release my friend immediately without further harm to him and not be held liable for the injuries they have already caused or
2. they can keep him there over the weekend and be held all personally liable for the injuries they have caused and I hope their indemnity insurance is up to date because kidnap and assault are pretty big fines are they not?
I will leave it with you to notify your man that is in charge of that station and I hope that he makes an honourable decision. By the way could you also please contact his wife (made it sound more urgent if it was his wife rather than cousin) as she is also an injured party and is still down at that station absolutely beside herself as she has never experienced such aggression in all her life’ ha ha ha
Well he said he would call the station immediately as well as inform the wife of developments.
IS NOW I could return to the old banger in peace!
About 30 minutes later (that’s a record if ya ever been in a watch house – takes usually two hours ta get out) ‘Z’ called me to personally thank me for having assisted to get him out of there and that they were very very grateful and that they wished to learn the process to protect them selves in the future.
Is that taking responsibility? I have a duty to respond to that one!
So people please tell me this doesn’t work, any takers ha ha.
Ya want some more stories, can provide plenty more!
Oh the inspector did at the end ask for my phone number so I tendered my mobile to remain in honour. I have nufink to hide and they are building a profile on those who are honourable and not.
Hope this was useful and now NO excuses & NO NEED TO CALL ME anymore
Because the answers are above, RIGHT?
Ha ha de saga continues…..
Mark P for petroublemaker!

[john white]

After all these guy's are only human too. That is the greatest lesson I learned in my journey and it empowers you to bring them compassion and yet still reject their claim of authority. Bringing both is what I have found causes them to become open to accepting the perspective.

Rob

Great Truth Rob

I consider its full implications, and wonder :)

[cacadores]

It is evidence that it works.
.
It is evidence that threatenng people can work, not that the HFH theory works.

To get evidence you would have to a control test where you use the Freeman theories without the threats.


Threatening lay people I wouldn't call cops lay people thats stupid the "police" study the statues and law before they hit the streets.
.
Er....no they don't. They study police proceedure and know the wording of certain transgressions so they can apply them. They are not supposed to know court proceedure.


Yes he would have followed through with a liable claim as one of the Maxims of law is.So......he'd use the law of statute to defend himself and to attack someone else?

Oh. So he'd dump the 'Freeman' myth and use the law of statute suddenly?

So much for the 'Fee man'!

[cacadores]

HOLDING POLICE LIABLE/ACCOUNTABLE FOR KIDNAP!
Let's see what evidence you offer.


I further instructed him to write up a short affidavit for the claimant = police officer requiring the finger prints would sign attesting said officer would accept all liability should things hit the fan and ‘Z’ get kidnapped and injured etc etc.
!
The substantive point of this affidavit is a threat - let's at least be honest about that.

‘
The girl was a little frantic, but level headed under the circumstances, and asked what could she do to get to ‘Z’.
My quickest fob off, sorry again, but my mind was on the car because I needed it going the following day and I was already sore all over wid the work barely started.!
I note your attitude to helping someone in a fix, when you'd put them there.


the clerk returned and said the attorney general was unavailable and also felt he was unable to assist and I said ‘that’s fine however he would now be held liable for negligence, dereliction of duty, malfeasance of office and any other impressive sounding legal crap I could rattle off along with the steam coming off my head!’
!
You make threat number 2 after failing to get the Crown-appointed official to help you, i.e. using the law of statute to help you within the law.


The lass said ‘oh, well I do have here the inspector of police’ so I said ‘Great, he’ll do, put him on’. Within seconds I was biting his ear off, politely of course.

You use controlled aggression.


So I said ‘Sir, I am addressed as Mark and require your urgent assistance’ but he interrupted and asked ‘Mark….’ - prompting a last name, to which I said (and to RESUME CONTOL – man I was hot that night because I was mad! – take no enemies boyo!)
‘Let’s not worry about that

Aside from your admitted verbal aggression and attempt at dominance, you provide him with no immediate means of identifying you: a form of obstupification.


kidnapped his body and locked him up against his will thereby injuring him. Is that not involuntary servitude and do your laws not evidence that bondage is unlawful and punishable with a jail term?
!

You make threat number 3


they can keep him there over the weekend and be held all personally liable for the injuries they have caused and I hope their indemnity insurance is up to date because kidnap and assault are pretty big fines are they not?


You make threat number 4


About 30 minutes later (that’s a record if ya ever been in a watch house – takes usually two hours ta get out)

You provide no evidence.


‘Z’ called me to personally thank me for having assisted to get him out of there

You put him there.


Is that taking responsibility? I have a duty to respond to that one!
So people please tell me this doesn’t work, any takers ha ha.


No one disputes that threats don't work.


Ya want some more stories, can provide plenty more!

No one disputes you can't come up with entertaining stories.





Oh the inspector did at the end ask for my phone number so I tendered my mobile to remain in honour. I have nufink to hide and they are building a profile on those who are honourable and not.

Where is your evidence that ''they are building a profile on those who are honourable and not''? Because the timing of that assersion might lead someone to think you made that up!


Hope this was useful and now NO excuses & NO NEED TO CALL ME anymore
Because the answers are above, RIGHT?
!
They are indeed.


Mark P for petroublemaker!

Just a trouble-maker?:) Good luck to you!

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but during the whole of this process, you:


Make no assertion of the 'Freeman' myth.

You deliver four threats to someone not a lawyer.

You maintain an agreessive undercurrent to your speech.

You emphasise speed: thus giving these non-lawyers little time to think.

You give them reason to believe you are a lawyer thus forcing them to make a decision with few facts:


They can delay to consider this and (in their minds) possibly get accused of doing something unlawful

Or, considering what a minor offence it is, they could just let him go and deal with him later.


A no-brainer really.

What has actually happened, is that the police have no statutary right to take the fingerprints of someone who has not been arrested, and where the fingerprints have no immediate crime-solving purpose. The police were wrong to insist on his fingerprints and over-reached themselves, as can happen. That is all. You simply chose a confrontational way of dealing with it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you simply used the system, made no assersion of 'Freeman' status and thus proved that statute law works.:)

[cacadores]

Do you think everyone out there is a fucking idiot?
look at the way these things are set up.

It's best to say on topic with the intention of this thread instead of coming up with shit like this..

Boots, swearing is an expression of frustration after someone has lost an argument. Please don't lose our respect by stooping to it.

Thank you.

[baron von lotsov]

"Today was Brian's day at Dandenong Magistrate Court"

You can't argue a point of law in a Magistrates court. In the UK it has to be at the High Court, Court of Appeal or the Law Lords. The reason is obvious. Magistrates are not legally trained except for a short course they go on. However, they can refer the case to a higher court with such a defence.

[dondaz]

Make no assertion of the 'Freeman' myth.Why would he want to assert a myth when he know's freeman and it's philosophy is real. It's a rhetoricle question.You deliver four threats to someone not a lawyer.Those were commercial facts mate, just like the police use, but they 'impose' fines on unsuspecting people and use violence to back it up, thus abandoning the rule of law.You emphasise speed: thus giving these non-lawyers little time to think.That's the way to do it alright, keep them on their toes, gets them everytime!You give them reason to believe you are a lawyer thus forcing them to make a decision with few facts: They can delay to consider this and (in their minds) possibly get accused of doing something unlawful Or, considering what a minor offence it is, they could just let him go and deal with him later.Very clever move eh. Well done boots. I think the intention is to get them to let you go and leave you alone, as they should do in the first place.;)

[boots]

It is evidence that threatenng people can work, not that the HFH theory works.

To get evidence you would have to a control test where you use the Freeman theories without the threats.


Er....no they don't. They study police proceedure and know the wording of certain transgressions so they can apply them. They are not supposed to know court proceedure.

So......he'd use the law of statute to defend himself and to attack someone else?

Oh. So he'd dump the 'Freeman' myth and use the law of statute suddenly?

So much for the 'Fee man'!

I see your back.:rolleyes:

What you see as a threat, because you are weak, is actually the way to play the game. The legal game. It holds them accountable to their own rules


.

[cacadores]

Why would he want to assert a myth when he know's freeman and it's philosophy is real. It's a rhetoricle question.Those were commercial facts mate, just like the police use, but they 'impose' fines on unsuspecting people and use violence to back it up, thus abandoning the rule of law.That's the way to do it alright, keep them on their toes, gets them everytime!Very clever move eh. Well done boots. I think the intention is to get them to let you go and leave you alone, as they should do in the first place.;)
The point is that these are just legal tricks, they say nothing about 'freeman' rights at all.

[1694]

The point is that these are just legal tricks, they say nothing about 'freeman' rights at all.

I have noticed a common use of statutes to protect "freemen" to whom they claim statutes do not apply. Using the Magna Carter (a statute) as a freeman for example, would not be possible unless statutes do apply to freemen.

The patch work approach. If there is a staute and it suits you, use it, if it goes against you, ignore it.

[w1nstonsm1th84]

Just a reminder, please debate without resorting to personal insults.

Thanks,

w1nstonsm1th84.

[danster82]

people should be allowed to record their own court proceedings that would be great for education.

[rob menard]

I have noticed a common use of statutes to protect "freemen" to whom they claim statutes do not apply. Using the Magna Carter (a statute) as a freeman for example, would not be possible unless statutes do apply to freemen.

The patch work approach. If there is a staute and it suits you, use it, if it goes against you, ignore it.

I once went to a Walmart and spoke to a manager concerning the actions of their employees. I used a Walmart Employee Handbook to show where the employee failed to meet the standards the company had set. I was not an employee and thus not subject to the standards. Using the book did not make me an employee.

The same situation applies with statutes. As a Freeman I so use them to bind those government agents who are subject to them, and yet that does not mean they bind me as well.

Hope you can understand that very simple example.

Rob

[1694]

I once went to a Walmart and spoke to a manager concerning the actions of their employees. I used a Walmart Employee Handbook to show where the employee failed to meet the standards the company had set. I was not an employee and thus not subject to the standards. Using the book did not make me an employee.

The same situation applies with statutes. As a Freeman I so use them to bind those government agents who are subject to them, and yet that does not mean they bind me as well.

Hope you can understand that very simple example.

Rob

If the manager had asked you to leave would you claim that he cannot fire you without due disciplinary procedure as outlined in the employee handbook? Or would he just throw you out as you are not an employee.

[rob menard]

If the manager had asked you to leave would you claim that he cannot fire you without due disciplinary procedure as outlined in the employee handbook? Or would he just throw you out as you are not an employee.

So you take an example meant to educate and you expand it into the absurd. "If the manager had grown a second head and that head told you you were an employee would cheese turn green?"

OBVIOUSLY, if he asked me to leave and I refused to do so I would have been trespassing and thus breaking the law. Only an idiot would make the claim that you suggested, and in my opinion, only an idiot would raise that question when it was never part of the original example.

I have to wonder what your purpose is, when you rely as you do on idiocy.
Rob

[yozhik]

Again ... 1694 ... are you going to pretend to be interested in the Freeman concept? Or are you here merely to confuse, disrupt and troll?

Don't you have some toys to blow up or some flies to pull the wings off?

[boots]

The point is that these are just legal tricks, they say nothing about 'freeman' rights at all.

You will never break that presumption.

The thing is that you will only see yourself as a person/chattel and not a sovereign man or woman.

You will never see that the name on your birth certificate is a strawman, one who operates in a fictitious world of commerce. IS that you?? Answer this question cacadores, let's see where you really stand. I bet you can't.


It's a very simple question. it's doesn't require a long and complicated answer. Are you a STRAWMAN.

.

[boots]

I have noticed a common use of statutes to protect "freemen" to whom they claim statutes do not apply. Using the Magna Carter (a statute) as a freeman for example, would not be possible unless statutes do apply to freemen.

The patch work approach. If there is a staute and it suits you, use it, if it goes against you, ignore it.


Rob answered your question.

Now this is getting to the crux of it. I've asked the question to cacadores. let's see how intelligent you are 1694.

ARE YOU THE STRAWMAN? a simple yes or no. Then we can go from there.


.

[hey_jude]

Can I be a freewoman or do I have to be a freeman?

I think this stuff is bloody marvellous - I want to be a freewoman and let TPTB have it between the eyes - I wished I'd known all this years ago, how dare this be hidden from us all of this time! I am not a strawman/woman that entity was created on my birth certificate/lawfull name!

I am a human being and I cannot be made a slave as that is unlawfull.

Tell me I'm getting this correct?

[tom bombadil]

Woman is the féminin of the type of Creature that is called the Human.

Woman = Human with a womb.
Man = Human without a womb.

Freeman = Free-human.


Tom.

[tom bombadil]

Chairman = the Human heading the group.
Groundsman = The Human looking after the ground.

Dont be sucked into this 'chairperson' or 'groundsperson' thing as it is a construct by those wishing to adress the balance of the word or term 'man' being anything more than a woman.

At some point the word Man was used to denote Human. It stuck. Mankind or manmade. Humankind or humanmade.


Tom.:)

[tom bombadil]

I am a human being and I cannot be made a slave as that is unlawfull.

You can hey_jude. And have without you knowing. It is up to you to make the change.

Welcome. :)


Tom. Not yet free but getting there.

[1694]

Rob answered your question.

Now this is getting to the crux of it. I've asked the question to cacadores. let's see how intelligent you are 1694.

ARE YOU THE STRAWMAN? a simple yes or no. Then we can go from there.


.

Was Rob the one who came up with the "strawman" name? Sometimes I wonder if he is taking the piss.

The espoused defintion of a person/strawman, is most definatly a strawman.

Strawman: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Presicely what is being attempted with freemand defintions.

"A Human being has a legal personality, it is a person"
"If a human is a person because it has a legal personality we can just send the legal personality to jail when they act on the person and leave the human free"

In Italics you have an example of a strawman.

[boots]

Was Rob the one who came up with the "strawman" name? Sometimes I wonder if he is taking the piss.

The espoused defintion of a person/strawman, is most definatly a strawman.

ARE YOU THE STRAWMAN? a simple yes or no. Then we can go from there.


Let me ask in more simpler terms Do you see yourself as a STRAWMAN/PERSON or as a freeman?


.

[1694]

No man is more enslaved than one who thinks he is free when he is not.

No sir, I am well aware of the bondage I am in, if that makes me a person, sadly that is what I am, adding a colon to my name wont change the fact that I still use pounds as currency, banks will still fractional reserve that money, HMRC will still come after me, a policeman could still detain me. Sure I could claim freedom, and even believe it, but it would not change the phyiscal realities of the world.

Freemanism seems to have moved from claiming to be a practical legal procedure to a state of mind.

Suddam Husein was a freeman, he was ruler of his own soverign country; US soldiers invaded his country, arrested him on an authority he refused to recognise, he was tried in a court he claimed had no jurisdiction and they hung him.

This is an age old trick, tell people they have to really believe it themselves and you absolve yourself of all blame.

Freeman style legal manouvers failed to work in the case of Marc Emery.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/05/11/2005bcsc1192.htm

Rob believed, the Judge did not. Sadly the Judge is all that mattered.

[dreamweaver]

Freeman style legal manouvers failed to work in the case of Marc Emery.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/05/11/2005bcsc1192.htm

Rob believed, the Judge did not. Sadly the Judge is all that mattered.
That, unfortunately, is where I fear this will end up. I want it to succeed - but common law is made by judges and the judges know which side their bread is buttered on.

[boots]

No man is more enslaved than one who thinks he is free when he is not.

No sir, I am well aware of the bondage I am in, if that makes me a person, sadly that is what I am, adding a colon to my name wont change the fact that I still use pounds as currency, banks will still fractional reserve that money, HMRC will still come after me, a policeman could still detain me. Sure I could claim freedom, and even believe it, but it would not change the phyiscal realities of the world.

Freemanism seems to have moved from claiming to be a practical legal procedure to a state of mind.

Suddam Husein was a freeman, he was ruler of his own soverign country; US soldiers invaded his country, arrested him on an authority he refused to recognise, he was tried in a court he claimed had no jurisdiction and they hung him.

This is an age old trick, tell people they have to really believe it themselves and you absolve yourself of all blame.

Freeman style legal manouvers failed to work in the case of Marc Emery.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/05/11/2005bcsc1192.htm

Rob believed, the Judge did not. Sadly the Judge is all that mattered.

Well thats pretty sad really.

The state of mind is what you first have to work on. Then it's the comprehension of legalese and not to trip yourself up in court by falling back in to the public realm. The successor are what I have posted in the opening of this thread and subsequently.

Be a good honourable man or woman and do not deal with statues that deal with the strawman.


Suddam Hussien was never a freeman he had dealing's with corporation linked to the CIA and Neo Cons such as Donald Rumsfield. He was a set up from the start.

.

[boots]

That, unfortunately, is where I fear this will end up. I want it to succeed - but common law is made by judges and the judges know which side their bread is buttered on.

Common law is one thing that I am tending to lead away from.

I am looking more into the fact that I am a man under or equal to god. Then use the references in the Bible, which laws and courts adhere to, to hold the judges and who ever accountable. By affidavits.


.

[1694]

A member of the Cahokia Great Seal Moors, James refused to answer questions, claimed he was not subject to the court's jurisdiction, and sent the judge a bill for $151 million — half a million for each time the judge mentioned his name, which James said was copyrighted. In the end, James was tried and convicted on drug charges, along with two counts of contempt of court.

[hey_jude]

You can hey_jude. And have without you knowing. It is up to you to make the change.

Welcome. :)


Tom. Not yet free but getting there.

Thanks Tom,
I see you're correct - I can be a slave if I allow it. Still some learning to do obviously! :o

Do you know if Notary to the Queen via Affidavit x2 is the only notary you need or do you send back your birth cert. to govt. and inform local police you are a freeman-on-the-land???

[boots]

"Today was Brian's day at Dandenong Magistrate Court"

You can't argue a point of law in a Magistrates court. In the UK it has to be at the High Court, Court of Appeal or the Law Lords. The reason is obvious. Magistrates are not legally trained except for a short course they go on. However, they can refer the case to a higher court with such a defence.

Rough Explanation Of What is Happening Here
by Arthur Cristian
Love For Life Note: To break their (The Rules - Statutes) presumption is determining the courts jurisdiction over i.e. the fiction (The Strawman) and their alleged jurisdiction over the living flesh and blood Man.
What Brian achieved was this......
If you were driving in a 60ks per hour zone doing 70'ks per hour, the Magistrate can only see the charge (the $ - the fines - the fees in line with the statute which is the rule within a society that allegedly has the force of law),........
but the magistrate is unable to look at the facts...
i.e, did anyone get hurt or get injured [the STATE is alleging that you harmed or injured the STATE] and if so could he or she please stand before the court and make a claim that they were hurt by you driving 70ks per hour in a 60ks per hour speed limit zone.
Obviously no real flesh & blood Man can STAND.
"Its a Fictitious entity" we are talking about here (prosecutor, magistrate STATE, statutes etc are all fiction)
And this why the the magistrate and the prosecutor were panicked because Brian was saying yes I am guilty to the facts so please lets look at the facts..........
whooooooo Under Admiralty Law everything is looked upon as commerce and the rules (statutes) sees everything in $ and Maritime contract, as the presumption is that Brian is in their ship not in facts (evidence) which requires a jury.
Breaking the presumption is saying that you are not on/in or part of their their ship at sea.
If you defend a claim against you, the state sends in its prosecutor (prostitute) who has no claim because he cant STAND and so they (including magistrate) can't see the facts. What Brian did, is agree guilty to the facts and not the charges, causing the magistrate & the prosecutor to panic,.......
remember THEY CAN ONLY BRING FORWARD A CHARGE.

[boots]

A member of the Cahokia Great Seal Moors, James refused to answer questions, claimed he was not subject to the court's jurisdiction, and sent the judge a bill for $151 million — half a million for each time the judge mentioned his name, which James said was copyrighted. In the end, James was tried and convicted on drug charges, along with two counts of contempt of court.


If James refused to answer questions then that is one huge mistake and automatically put him in dishonour. James was not very smart was he.

.

[1694]

If James refused to answer questions then that is one huge mistake and automatically put him in dishonour. James was not very smart was he.

.

What would you have done, accepted the questions for value?

[boots]

What would you have done, accepted the questions for value?

Depends on the case so I can't get into the nity grity of it.

You never argue You question on proof of claim. What is the contract. Remember it is Admilitary law on the ship.


.

[yozhik]

:D :D :D :D

1694 ... why are you even on this thread?

You obviously have no genuine interest; why waste your time?

:D :D :D :D

You even have your own "anti-Freeman" thread; why don't you use it?

[intellection]

i think 1694 raises some very good points. he is obviously an intelligent human and is quite capable of research. i find his input very interesting and just because it goes against the status quo of 'we say it's true'' it should not be discouraged. i truly believe he wishes this concept to be workable and so do i but i fear it is not. his approach is not trolling and you should call him names.

there are many concepts that work in theory but not in practice. in fact almost every political stance; democracy, anarchism, comunism, socialism for instance works in theory. I fear this is another and someone is going to get in a lot of trouble.

if it's infallable why not use it to demostrate to everyone.? you could be recognised as saving us from servitude.

speeding and parking fines are one thing but i've yet to see this concept protect a human against a serious statute ie. supply of class A drugs or an unlicensed weapon. walk around london with a bag of chang and a gun and show us that the freeman concept is a truth.

mice and pied piper in my opinion.

[yozhik]

i think 1694 raises some very good points. he is obviously an intelligent human and is quite capable of research.
his intelligence was never questioned, nor his research; only his motives were questioned.

i find his input very interesting and just because it goes against the status quo of 'we say it's true'' it should not be discouraged. i truly believe he wishes this concept to be workable and so do i but i fear it is not. his approach is not trolling and you should call him names.
I see no evidence of this.

there are many concepts that work in theory but not in practice. in fact almost every political stance; democracy, anarchism, comunism, socialism for instance works in theory. I fear this is another and someone is going to get in a lot of trouble.
I agree with you on this.
in my opinion, this is why we need extensive collective research (as 1694 does), constructive criticism (as 1694 does) and SOLUTIONS.

concept --> testing --> analysis --> feedback --> amendments --> back to concept

if it's infallable why not use it to demostrate to everyone.? you could be recognised as saving us from servitude.
1. it is not infallible
2. we're already in servitude


speeding and parking fines are one thing but i've yet to see this concept protect a human against a serious statute ie. supply of class A drugs or an unlicensed weapon. walk around london with a bag of chang and a gun and show us that the freeman concept is a truth.

You've obviously missed the whole concept thing here.
The Freeman concept is about being a responsible adult; it is not about breaking the law. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure of your personal values, but I for one do not believe "walking around London with a bag of chang and a gun" is responsible, adult behaviour.

I don't see how acting irresponsibly is a true and accurate test of whether the Freeman concept "is a truth".

The fact is, for some, the Freeman concept already is "a truth".
Ask Rob Menard, the next time he is online, whether his status of Freeman-on-the-land is a "truth".

[intellection]

breaking the speed limit isn't a responsible act either and is more irresponsible than carrying a gun in my opinion. a gun has to be fired to be a threat whereas a car travelling at speed already is. i would just like to see some evidence of this concept standing up against a statute which is seriously considered by society and the authorities.

i suggest stating you are not a person and are therefore not under the jurisdiction of admiralty statues and acts wouldn't stand up.

an unproven theory is just that. in theory a bee shouldn't be able to fly but in practice it can.

[yozhik]

breaking the speed limit isn't a responsible act

What exactly is a "speed limit"?

The "responsible" comes into play when determining the appropriate speed. Is it "responsible" to travel at 100 m.p.h in an area where children are crossing the road? Of course not. That simple self imposed judgement can be made whether there is a statute or not. It is not the statute that makes the decision. The statute is merely for the imposition of a fine, but is not the decision itself.

Is it "responsible" to travel at 100 m.p.h on a multi laned motorway, when weather conditions, visibility and other factors are favourable? Sure - why not?

a gun has to be fired to be a threat whereas a car travelling at speed already is.

If the car is a threat, then it is in breach of the rationale above. It is not being used responsibly.

Just to repeat, I do not need a statute to make a responsible decision for me. As a responsible adult, I am capable of making responsible decisions.


i would just like to see some evidence of this concept standing up against a statute which is seriously considered by society and the authorities.

i suggest stating you are not a person and are therefore not under the jurisdiction of admiralty statues and acts wouldn't stand up.

You seem totally entrenched in a certain mindset.

How can something stand up against a statute, if the statute itself is the falsehood? :confused:

How can something which is not part of the admiralty statutes stand up in the admiralty jurisdiction? :confused:

That's like asking an English speaking man to pass a test in Russian and then concluding that he must be mentally deficient, because according to the test his oral skills did not "stand up".

an unproven theory is just that. in theory a bee shouldn't be able to fly but in practice it can.

Ummmm ... not sure of the point here. However, what if I was to propose that the Freeman concept was a bee?

Your theory states that it can not fly, but there are some examples on this forum which show that it can. So does that make your theory unproven? How do you explain away the Freeman bee?

[intellection]

yozhik, you sound a reasonable guy and i am pleased you have responded with a lot more decorum than some others on this subject. thank you.

everyone will have different views on safe speed limits but i agree with you partially on this point. i have much researched this concept and agree with the theory but i would not be confident in it keeping me out of prison for committing an offence against a serious statute. let's just wait and see because the evidence i have seen so far is weak against my measures.

good luck.

[rob menard]

There was a guy in Nanaimo who was hunting with noi license or permit. Conservation officer stopped him and seized his firearm. The man said that's ok, I have 13 more. The CO said he would continue to seize the mans firearms. The Man said he would do that till he got to the last gun, then all he would be taking was bullets. Co did not like that and made a call to the RCMP who responded with force and vigour. They found his guns, ammo and grow op.

Facing 13 different charges, ALL STATUTORY YET SERIOUS from unregistered firearms, cultivation, possession, etc etc he called me and had never even heard of Freemanery. I liked him and helped craft a NUI and COR and Fee Shcedule. Three days later they asked him to meet and then asked him to sign an agreement. He did.

All charges were dropped.
All equipment was returned.
He agreed that if he is out hunting and he sees a CO he will refrain from talking to him.

That was a huge win.
Now either you accept those words as truth, or you will ask for proof.
That proof is available, but would require I give some other man's name and he may not like that, especially if I am giving it to those who have not given their own.

Personally I do not think you haver a right to ask for or expect proof if you are remaining anonymous.

Rob

[intellection]

Rob, I have not remained anonymous for any particular purpose or design. my named me jamie blackwell, my parents told me i was born on 01/08/74 and i have been previously convicted of breaking a serious statute (drug related) and served a 4 year custodial sentence. at that the time i had thoughts of how you could leave a society if you didn't agree with the rules but didn't know about this concept - it would have been an ideal opportunity to test it. if i decide this concept is truth i'll be at the front standing up to the ptb because they took something from me which i still cannot reconcile inside.

i'll wait for evidence to appear because i believe the truth always shows itself to me.

thanks for your time.

[boots]

Rob, I have not remained anonymous for any particular purpose or design. my named me jamie blackwell, my parents told me i was born on 01/08/74 and i have been previously convicted of breaking a serious statute (drug related) and served a 4 year custodial sentence. at that the time i had thoughts of how you could leave a society if you didn't agree with the rules but didn't know about this concept - it would have been an ideal opportunity to test it. if i decide this concept is truth i'll be at the front standing up to the ptb because they took something from me which i still cannot reconcile inside.

i'll wait for evidence to appear because i believe the truth always shows itself to me.

thanks for your time.

You should read Mary Crofts book. How I clobbered every bureaucratic cash confiscating agency know to man.

Or listen to this. It has the link to the PDF on it.

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2008/08aug/RICR-080807.php

.

[boots]

:D :D :D :D

1694 ... why are you even on this thread?

You obviously have no genuine interest; why waste your time?

:D :D :D :D

You even have your own "anti-Freeman" thread; why don't you use it?


So true.

Some people just love negativity and the NWO.


.:rolleyes:

[intellection]

You should read Mary Crofts book. How I clobbered every bureaucratic cash confiscating agency know to man.

Or listen to this. It has the link to the PDF on it.

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2008/08aug/RICR-080807.php

.

thanks boots. i have already read it; three times. it is interesting but is difficult to comprehend due to the scatter gun editorial approach and poor writing style (it reads like automatic writing). i have also watched Rob-Menard's videos and numerous others. i have a good grasp of the concept and agree with the theory. i just do not have confidence of it working in practice against a seriously considered issue. i shall wait, watch this thread and see if evidence of any meaningful successes are posted.

[boots]

thanks boots. i have already read it; three times. it is interesting but is difficult to comprehend due to the scatter gun editorial approach and poor writing style (it reads like automatic writing). i have also watched Rob-Menard's videos and numerous others. i have a good grasp of the concept and agree with the theory. i just do not have confidence of it working in practice against a seriously considered issue. i shall wait, watch this thread and see if evidence of any meaningful successes are posted.


I have to agree with you there about Mary's book I felt the same way. Did you listen to the Red Ice interview?

Did you read the start of the thread? Those "stories" that I posted were real.

Start with small step's some thing simple like a parking fine or a small debt from a credit card or a debt collection agency. Have you made up a NoU&I and Claimed your right?

It is good to watch an learn. Best tactic of all intellection.

Boots.

.

[cacadores]

The same situation applies with statutes. As a Freeman I so use them to bind those government agents who are subject to them, and yet that does not mean they bind me as well.

Hope you can understand that very simple example. Rob

You're expressing the theory that statutes do not apply to Freemen. Do you have any examples of this procedure being used successfully in a High or Crown court (i.e. not a magistrates court)?

Thank you.

[cacadores]

breaking the speed limit isn't a responsible act either and is more irresponsible than carrying a gun in my opinion. a gun has to be fired to be a threat whereas a car travelling at speed already is.

Eh? Your metaphor actually suggests the opposite.

It's enough to show or suggest you have a gun for it to be a threat. Once it's fired it's too late to be a threat.

And you won't need to worry about it or anything else.:)

[cacadores]

So true.
Some people just love negativity and the NWO.
.:rolleyes:

Personal attacks are unhelpful, Boots.


Cut out intimidation, free up information.:)

[cacadores]

You're expressing the theory that statutes do not apply to Freemen. Do you have any examples of this procedure being used successfully in a High or Crown court (i.e. not a magistrates court)?

Thank you.
I suppose we have to assume there are no examples :mad:

[wise haven]

I suppose we have to assume there are no examples :mad:

The Freeman concept has been tested in the higher courts of the US and Canada.
The concept is fairly new to the UK and therefore the opportunity to test in the higher court, to my knowledge, has not yet happened.
I suggest you do a little more research yourself to prove that the freeman route is not tenable rather than dismissing it out of hand or getting proponents of the freeman concept to do your work for you.
If you don't believe any of it why don't you quietly bugger off and find something more interesting and to your taste.
Why not write to the BBC/Governemnt - and see if they ever answer any of your questions :D

[cacadores]

The Freeman concept has been tested in the higher courts of the US and Canada.
The concept is fairly new to the UK and therefore the opportunity to test in the higher court, to my knowledge, has not yet happened.
I suggest you do a little more research yourself to prove that the freeman route is not tenable rather than dismissing it out of hand or getting proponents of the freeman concept to do your work for you.
If you don't believe any of it why don't you quietly bugger off and find something more interesting and to your taste.
Why not write to the BBC/Governemnt - and see if they ever answer any of your questions :D


I didn't raise the issue: others did. I asked them simple question, but we're not getting an answer. We're entitled to be suspicious.

[rob menard]

So are we, of you.

Rob

[grenadene]

So are we, of you.

Rob

:) where would we be without humour

[micklemus]

Good grief, here we go again. "You're not in our club so fuck off".

Why such defensive answers to genuine, open questions? I have a whole load that haven't been answered as well, yet I thought one of the common threads between us was that we're supposed to be 'truth seekers'. Ha!

Come on people, just because there are areas of disagreement doesn't mean you need to behave like playground bullies. Cacadores has asked some searching questions, ones which should be capable of answer without insult or sheltering behind rhetoric. Lets try and have a free flow of information here and then who knows, maybe all the sheep will leave the field. Wouldn't that be something?!

:)

[Time to put my stopwatch on for the first one to dodge and reply to the effect of "who's being insulting, with the ref to sheep"....]

[rob menard]

The reason is because what you in your opinion consider to be open questions are actually merely a strategy used primarily by those who seek to disrupt. Would you let me at your car with a wrench and let me take things apart willy nilly, just sop I can learn how it works?

Imagine this analogy. There is a team of people working for a common goal. There is someone who may or may not be working for that goal or merely wants to understand it better before joining in. Fair enough so far. Now imagine this team is in a kitchen and there is not enough space for someone who questions why every thing must be as it is. Like a child under foot, even open questions can be disruptive and offend those who do want to make something worth while.

Endless innocent off point questions are not so innocent. Especially when the ones asking the questions have demonstrated by their previous actions that they do not ask questions after thinking about the answer, nor do they accept the answer when given. They seek merely to disrupt a proper adult discussion by asking childish questions without examining or even trying to determine the answer themselves. They are either very lazy thinkers, or purposely disruptive.

Allow me to ask you this:
Do you believe that TPTB would not try to disrupt our discussions in just such a manner?

I have spent a lot of time in the last few years teaching people and I know when I am dealing with someone who wants to learn or an Eddie Haskel. (Eddie was a smarmy conniving character on a TV show who was always two faced with the parents and was never acting truly. Always had an ulterior motive.) Those who truly want to learn ask certain questions in a certain way. Those who merely want to appear to be such a student while actively disrupting or derailing will ask other questions in a certain way. Based on the questions asked and the way in which they are asked, without any thought given to the answers, nor to the effect of the questions on the whole, they identify themselves not as honest students, but as trolls and potential government agents or happy sheep who are more like a Judas Goat.

Also, as one who is involved in trying to achieve change, I do not have time for time wasters who merely want to slow down the change by endless mindless questions from lazy thinkers. If i do not answer your questions, it is not because I do not have the answers, but because I no longer have time to waste answering those who refuse to even try to think.

Respectfully,
Rob

[micklemus]

Well there it is.

In answer to your first question, I say "yes I would." That is, if someone else is trying to tamper with my car...

Your "child under foot" analogy is very revealing too. So, in short, the metaphor states that this whole thing is fine for Rob and those who follow Rob unquestioningly. Everyone else can get lost and be regarded as tiresome children in the process. OK, fine.

I don't know cacadores, nor 1694, nor the others who have posed questions along the way. I can only speak for myself and from my perspective I only see differences of opinion and perspective, which is perfectly natural. I can remember strongly disagreeing with cacadores over a different subject matter some time back. That's life, we're all different. Yet there seems to be a hell of a lot of insecurity in certain quarters just the same. For sheep trying not to behave like sheep, we're too often terribly good at reverting to type and seeking to standardise the behaviour of everyone else. One thing is certain in life, one of few noble truths, and that is that change is constant and inevitable. It is inevitable that the systems we have in this world will change, whether for foul means or fair. It is also inevitable that this freeman concept will change too, just like the existing legal system has evolved over time. Another truth is that the ego defends change to protect against uncertainty. Why would a person on this site who offers to help others and create change in the process be so keen to defend a concept against genuine enquiry? Is this about change or an individual? It's going to evolve come what may and we could do with helping each other in the process.

I've been a monkey before. Looks like I'm now an Eddie Haskell Judas Goat Troll for agreeing with cacadores today. So be it. The questions still stand when the insults have faded.

I do not ask questions because I dislike you, Rob. I don't even know you, so how could I dislike you? What would be the point of hating anyone anyway? I ask questions because I have an open and constantly enquiring mind. I have been interested in this concept and have asked questions to try and make sense of it in my mind. I have never received an answer to anything, only insults or rhetoric. That is frustrating and I apologise to you and others who I have occasionally been sarcastic towards in consequence. However, any comments and positions that I have taken have been supported with reason and and I have disclosed the grounds for my reasoning. Anyone who cares to look can see where I'm coming from.

I ask the same in return, to you or indeed anyone who seeks to lead others. I don't want to lead anyone but I damn well will make it my business to check those who intentionally or by their conduct seek to lead me. Whether that puts me in a minority of 1 or not.

Believe it or not, I applaud you for questioning the world you live in and trying to find new direction. The fact that my footsteps are not 100% in line with yours does not invalidate either one of us and nor does it prevent me from trying to understand you.

However, you have made your position clear as to further enquiry and I'm not going to waste my time trying to open a padlocked door. So going back to the car analogy, I guess I shall have to keep mine for me, allow you to do likewise and trust that you won't fiddle with the mechanics of anyone elses.


Likewise - and believe it or not - much respect to you too.

[rob menard]

Well there it is.

In answer to your first question, I say "yes I would." That is, if someone else is trying to tamper with my car...

Your "child under foot" analogy is very revealing too. So, in short, the metaphor states that this whole thing is fine for Rob and those who follow Rob unquestioningly. Everyone else can get lost and be regarded as tiresome children in the process. OK, fine.

The logic you use is faulty and is called I believe a strawman argument. You raise as a truth something you wish to attribute to me which I never said. Here I can do it too: "So you claim I should answer every question that is posed and I have a duty to do so. Fine." See, I never said to act unquestioningly at all. I distinguish between questions I believe are well intended and those I believe are designed merely to cause disruption, doubt or division. It is exactly how TPTB infiltrate and it is their MO. The statement of going along unquestioningly are your words not mine. But you use the strawman argument and try dishonestly or ignorantly to attribute to me.

I don't know cacadores, nor 1694, nor the others who have posed questions along the way. I can only speak for myself and from my perspective I only see differences of opinion and perspective, which is perfectly natural. I can remember strongly disagreeing with cacadores over a different subject matter some time back. That's life, we're all different. Yet there seems to be a hell of a lot of insecurity in certain quarters just the same. For sheep trying not to behave like sheep, we're too often terribly good at reverting to type and seeking to standardise the behaviour of everyone else. One thing is certain in life, one of few noble truths, and that is that change is constant and inevitable. It is inevitable that the systems we have in this world will change, whether for foul means or fair. It is also inevitable that this freeman concept will change too, just like the existing legal system has evolved over time. Another truth is that the ego defends change to protect against uncertainty. Why would a person on this site who offers to help others and create change in the process be so keen to defend a concept against genuine enquiry? Is this about change or an individual? It's going to evolve come what may and we could do with helping each other in the process.

I am not defending against genuine inquiry. Again, those are your words and your opinion and I see it far differently. I do believe your are genuine, I do not believe that ALL ARE. But according to you, all inquiries are genuine and I should treat them that way, right? See more illogical strawman argument tactics. I am however using them for demonstrative purposes,only.

I've been a monkey before. Looks like I'm now an Eddie Haskell Judas Goat Troll for agreeing with cacadores today. So be it. The questions still stand when the insults have faded.

The Eddie Haskel reference was not directed at you at all. Sorry if you took offense. That does not mean however that because you are not such a character, that they do not exist.

I do not ask questions because I dislike you, Rob. I don't even know you, so how could I dislike you? What would be the point of hating anyone anyway? I ask questions because I have an open and constantly enquiring mind. I have been interested in this concept and have asked questions to try and make sense of it in my mind. I have never received an answer to anything, only insults or rhetoric. That is frustrating and I apologise to you and others who I have occasionally been sarcastic towards in consequence. However, any comments and positions that I have taken have been supported with reason and and I have disclosed the grounds for my reasoning. Anyone who cares to look can see where I'm coming from.

Again, you are taking as personal and directed at yourself that which was not intended to refer to you. If I say "I hate idiots" will you then claim that by my saying that, I am calling you an idiot? Of course not. If you are not an Eddie Haskel, why would the reference strike such a nerve, unless you believe that everything I post here is specifically and only for you.

I ask the same in return, to you or indeed anyone who seeks to lead others. I don't want to lead anyone but I damn well will make it my business to check those who intentionally or by their conduct seek to lead me. Whether that puts me in a minority of 1 or not.

I do not seek to lead. No one who knows me would make that claim. I refuse to follow. If others think that I am trying to lead them, and that I have a duty to answer their endless questions because of that, they are free to find or create another path. I am not stopping them, nor do I pose to them endless questions as to why they are ignorant sheep happy being fleeced.


Believe it or not, I applaud you for questioning the world you live in and trying to find new direction. The fact that my footsteps are not 100% in line with yours does not invalidate either one of us and nor does it prevent me from trying to understand you.

Agreed fully.

However, you have made your position clear as to further enquiry and I'm not going to waste my time trying to open a padlocked door. So going back to the car analogy, I guess I shall have to keep mine for me, allow you to do likewise and trust that you won't fiddle with the mechanics of anyone elses.

I apparently have not made my position clear if you think I am closed to honest genuine inquiry. You however have made obvious the glasses with which you view the world. If you think that I am not all for HONEST GENUINE communication, please wipe your glasses. Also, if you think that ALL inquiries are HONEST AND GENUINE merely because they exist, you need bifocals.



Likewise - and believe it or not - much respect to you too.

Peace to you as well.

Rob

[cacadores]

Thank you. Cheeky man!:)

At the end of the day, most of us here can see that personal comments and aspersions on questioners' motivations are........an avoidance technique. Rob - wake up: it's a discussion forum, not a place for guru-ism or personal insults :)

At the end of the day, after we've all settled down, put our feet up, had a laugh at how defensive people can be and had a cup of cocoa.......let's get the information out: the question's still here:

Originally Posted by cacadores
You're expressing the theory that statutes do not apply to Freemen. Do you have any examples of this procedure being used successfully in a High or Crown court (i.e. not a magistrates court)?


(fingers tapping on table........):rolleyes:

[rob menard]

Thank you. Cheeky man!:)

At the end of the day, most of us here can see that personal comments and aspersions on questioners' motivations are........an avoidance technique. Rob - wake up: it's a discussion forum, not a place for guru-ism or personal insults :)

At the end of the day, after we've all settled down, put our feet up, had a laugh at how defensive people can be and had a cup of cocoa.......let's get the information out: the question's still here:




(fingers tapping on table........):rolleyes:
You want evidence from The Easter Bunny that Santa does not exist.

Instead of seeking proof by way of some magistrate agreeing, and making a record of that, how about evidence that the magistrate refused to hear someone and make a record, because they were dealing with a Freeman?

A Freeman avoids court, and you want evidence that a Freeman who did not avoid court, avoided the court? The problem is as a Freeman, we claim that we are not bound by statutes or the governments tribunals, and you say show me proof a court agreed, however, the court can only hear 'persons' and if they hear you, then you are a 'person' and thus bound. If you even show up to argue your point, then you are at that point establishing a person, and as such cannot secure that which you claim is proof. The idea of having some other party ie a magistrate implies that their opinion is better then mine or yours and also, byy seeking their opinion, you abandon your claim of Freeman.

As a Freeman, I avoid those things you call a benefit, and to try to satisfy you, I would have to abandon my status. If you spent more time developing a Freeman perspective, you would see how ludicrous it is to expect a magistrate of their courts to agree with a person that they are not a person.

Rob

[cacadores]

Instead of seeking proof by way of some magistrate agreeing, and making a record of that, how about evidence that the magistrate refused to hear someone and make a record, because they were dealing with a Freeman?
Come on Rob, read the question: we understand this can fool non-professional magistrates.

The question was if it's EVER succeeded against a professional judge.

In a High or Crown court.

I mean, with real lawyers and real judges?

[rob menard]

Come on Rob, read the question: we understand this can fool non-professional magistrates.

The question was if it's EVER succeeded against a professional judge.

In a High or Crown court.

I mean, with real lawyers and real judges?

Yeap. In Quebec recently a Freeman was acknowledged as existing rightfully and without duty to the Crown to have ID, Dl, etc.

I have had success as well when a Judge tried to jail me for contempt over Xmas weekend. When informed that I was a non consenting Freeman-on-the-Land and he was committing abduction under the color of law he turned white ran off the bench and I was out in less then 45 min. No charges were ever brought, and no record of the event can be found. There were however witnesses.
Also, many have been informed while in court that they could not be heard. The only difference between one day and the next was the service of a NUI and COR. If a judge says he can't hear you, is he not saying he can't provide adjudication services, for one must be heard to receive that right?

Rob

[wasp]

Yeap. In Quebec recently a Freeman was acknowledged as existing rightfully and without duty to the Crown to have ID, Dl, etc.

I have had success as well when a Judge tried to jail me for contempt over Xmas weekend. When informed that I was a non consenting Freeman-on-the-Land and he was committing abduction under the color of law he turned white ran off the bench and I was out in less then 45 min. No charges were ever brought, and no record of the event can be found. There were however witnesses.
Also, many have been informed while in court that they could not be heard. The only difference between one day and the next was the service of a NUI and COR. If a judge says he can't hear you, is he not saying he can't provide adjudication services, for one must be heard to receive that right?

Rob

this is why i record all my interactions with the PTB and of course court
it seems following you here(this site) that it doesn't matter the venue you
choose to converse in ...THEY are afraid of you ram ...you must be ruffling
thier feathers otherwise why bother with you?
anyways keep the info coming brother

[pleasuredome]

Also, many have been informed while in court that they could not be heard. The only difference between one day and the next was the service of a NUI and COR. If a judge says he can't hear you, is he not saying he can't provide adjudication services, for one must be heard to receive that right?

Rob

"can you hear me now, oh, this is planet earth"

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

[number_6]

I have had success as well when a Judge tried to jail me for contempt over Xmas weekend. When informed that I was a non consenting Freeman-on-the-Land and he was committing abduction under the color of law he turned white ran off the bench and I was out in less then 45 min. No charges were ever brought, and no record of the event can be found. There were however witnesses.


May I respectfully ask was this in the UK and if so exactly which court this happened in?

[yozhik]

Good grief, here we go again. "You're not in our club so fuck off".

Why such defensive answers to genuine, open questions? I have a whole load that haven't been answered as well, yet I thought one of the common threads between us was that we're supposed to be 'truth seekers'. Ha!

Come on people, just because there are areas of disagreement doesn't mean you need to behave like playground bullies. Cacadores has asked some searching questions, ones which should be capable of answer without insult or sheltering behind rhetoric. Lets try and have a free flow of information here and then who knows, maybe all the sheep will leave the field. Wouldn't that be something?!

:)

[Time to put my stopwatch on for the first one to dodge and reply to the effect of "who's being insulting, with the ref to sheep"....]

If I could see an ounce of constructive criticism in cacadores questions; I would respect them infinitely more. However, I see absolutely zero intent to "share information". I see no evidence of cacadores placing himself in a position of "devil's advocate, to progress the community spirit". None. Zilch. Fuck all.

Whilst your appeal is both noble and to be applauded, IMHO it also comes across as naive.

Asking questions to collectively move forward is one thing; asking questions to hold up, side-track, obfuscate, blur and detour is another.

[rob menard]

May I respectfully ask was this in the UK and if so exactly which court this happened in?

Happened in Canada.

[miked]

Hi to you all

I remember seeing the man who set up this website answering a heckler at a conference as follows

" We should unite on the things we do agree on so we can nwork on those things that which we do not!"

Just a thought.

Expect nothing, Accept everything!

Peace yall

Mike D

[girlgye]

Hi
I read this with amusement. However, it seems UK Law has bound up this loophole. My document has come with a womans name, the traffic control ticket enforcer, who says she is the plaintiff.

[yozhik]

Hi
I read this with amusement. However, it seems UK Law has bound up this loophole. My document has come with a womans name, the traffic control ticket enforcer, who says she is the plaintiff.

How can SHE be the plaintiff?
What harm or injury did you commit upon her? :confused:

What is her first hand knowledge of the alleged crime?

Sounds like BS to me ...


.

[miked]

Hi
I read this with amusement. However, it seems UK Law has bound up this loophole. My document has come with a womans name, the traffic control ticket enforcer, who says she is the plaintiff.


Hi there

If you accept she is the plaintif then she is. I believe the plaintif is a court word given to the PERSON/CORPORATION who is making a complaint against you. If they are demanding payment simply agree to pay but ONLY on certain conditions, such as

1: She has a two party contract with your name on it saying you owe her money

2: That she can distinguisj between a PERSON and a living soul

Give 10 days to respond and if she doesn't file your own affidavit claiming she is trying to commit fraud!

Ive got loads like this on the go at the mo! CSA, Council Tax, utilitybills,etc,etc! Very could oppourtunity to test your theories!

Peace and prosperity to all

Mike

[whizzer]

If I may offer my humble opinion on the questions that are being asked, I'm sure Rob is right about people trying to infultrate the forum in order to cause confusion and doubt..but...we should all keep an open mind as I have said before on this forum, in as much as maybe the person asking these questions is genuinely interested in the movement but are afraid to readily abandon what they thought was reality.
I gave this analogy before but I'll use it again..imagine a human has lived in a cell since the day he/she was born totally blocked of from the rest of the world then one day the cell door swings open, does that human rush out of that cell?...No, because instinct tells them that they know what is in the cell, but they don't know what is outside. Slowly but surely, bit by bit they edge their way oot until they finally realize that they are safe to walk about ..as a Free Man On The Land.
So i see both sides of the debate but lets not make people fearful of asking questions, remember some people have family relying on them so they don't want to provoke the PTB unless they are sure where they stand.
And If I may finally add a word for those of you who doubt the movement, if you are as pissed off at the government as I am, and if you are feel that the way your country is being run then put a NOU & COR together and send to the appropriate body, then when you go to court..ANY COURT.. tell them you are a free man on the land who has filed your NOU etc. and if they don't accept it then we keep fighting until they do, because we are free and we didn't agree to their stupid statute laws which we all know are unjust.
We are the ones that tell them what to do! NOT visa versa. F*ck TPTB.

Peace n' Luv to ya all.:o

[ghostdogg]

the way l feel it is simple ... l'm about to take the step becoming a free man but l won't do it in a hurry !!! taking each step when l FEEL when l'm ready for this step ... l' will follow my heart in this process and in the meanwhile l'll be turning the law upside down !!! and learning from all the wizzes here ( got still a lot of reading to do )
Peace and long life ... :):):)

[girlgye]

I've read this thread before.

I think the thread is useful for de-registering my vehicle and when I inevitably get pulled up by automatic number plate recognition systems. To which they just lift your car up off the road and impound it immediately in the UK I might add.

This thread has been pawed over and now they send a wet signature testimony by the camera officer to state that they believe the camera is accurate. So the argument that the speed camera can't be a witness does not stand up. How do you get around the fact that you failed to notify them of who was the driver which is punishable by 6 points on your licence 12 points on your licence and game over. I have three of these.

[girlgye]

Mike I'm going to call you btw.

[godspeed]

john harris once told me the law is simple....statutes make it complicated...at the time i did'nt know what a statute was....i do now....i think what rob and others are clearly trying to say is...dont consent in the first place and keep out of courts....:D

[cacadores]

Just to clarify:

Rob Menard claims to be able to dismiss legislative acts.

Despite having many months to come up with some proof of this happening in front of a real judge, he has failed to come up with one single example.

The best he could come up with, is a story about a judge who threatened him with contempt (not a crime) and then decided it wasn't worth it. And there is no record of this. Surprise surprise.:rolleyes:

It's pretty clear that the supposed ability of 'Freeman' gurus to render you immune from statute is nothing but a hoax.

[yozhik]

Just to clarify:

Rob Menard claims to be able to dismiss legislative acts.

Despite having many months to come up with some proof of this happening in front of a real judge, he has failed to come up with one single example.

The best he could come up with, is a story about a judge who threatened him with contempt (not a crime) and then decided it wasn't worth it. And there is no record of this. Surprise surprise.:rolleyes:

It's pretty clear that the supposed ability of 'Freeman' gurus to render you immune from statute is nothing but a hoax.

Kaka-dores ... we have missed you; honestly.
Always need a good laugh to pass the time. :rolleyes:

[rob menard]

Just to clarify:

Rob Menard claims to be able to dismiss legislative acts.

Despite having many months to come up with some proof of this happening in front of a real judge, he has failed to come up with one single example.

The best he could come up with, is a story about a judge who threatened him with contempt (not a crime) and then decided it wasn't worth it. And there is no record of this. Surprise surprise.:rolleyes:

It's pretty clear that the supposed ability of 'Freeman' gurus to render you immune from statute is nothing but a hoax.

I'M A GURU!:cool:
I'M A GURU!:cool:

My daddy will be so proud!:D

[boots]

Just to clarify:

Rob Menard claims to be able to dismiss legislative acts.

Despite having many months to come up with some proof of this happening in front of a real judge, he has failed to come up with one single example.

The best he could come up with, is a story about a judge who threatened him with contempt (not a crime) and then decided it wasn't worth it. And there is no record of this. Surprise surprise.:rolleyes:

It's pretty clear that the supposed ability of 'Freeman' gurus to render you immune from statute is nothing but a hoax.

:rolleyes:

Here's one for you slave,

I had cops come to my door wanting to contract with me. I asked him are we contracting I got a feeble soft answer, no. So then 2 months later another cop comes to the door. I said to them (politely) I am not boots I am of the family of boots. etc, etc, Well they went away in a bit of a huff, we will be sending you a summons to appear,. nice I said. I deal with the same way I dealt with you.

Now if these guys were serious I would have had a summons 4 month's ago. They know that I have too agree to a contract and they are trying all sorts of tricks to get me to contract. All is contract law, you see.

.

[number_6]

Now if these guys were serious I would have had a summons 4 month's ago.


If you're in the UK they have six months to lay a summons.

[bsmurph83]

WOW.

cacadores, what are you doing in this thread and how did you even find www.icke.com?!?! at the risk of boring most people here, I think david icke has summed people like you (keep in mind i'm basing this only on the 2 or 3 juvenile posts I've seen of yours) up by describing the way that we have been conditioned en masse to think and behave like sheep, only that we took it one step further than the sheep by ALSO playing the role of sheepdog, thus keeping ourselves controlled and in line, lessening the stresses of the "elite" while they sought to maintain our blinkered perception of reality.

we have done most of the job for them, and it seems you are currently still in their 'employ', else why on earth would you spout such glib and predictable dismissals of the work of others? yours is exactly the kind of attitude that forums like this have been set up to help remedy (or just avoid). what trick are you going to perform for us next? wave a wand and turn us all into paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists? i must apologise for missing the start of the show, where you apparently magically caused your head to disappear up your backside! bravo!

[friendsinthesky]

:rolleyes:

Here's one for you slave,

I had cops come to my door wanting to contract with me. I asked him are we contracting I got a feeble soft answer, no. So then 2 months later another cop comes to the door. I said to them (politely) I am not boots I am of the family of boots. etc, etc, Well they went away in a bit of a huff, we will be sending you a summons to appear,. nice I said. I deal with the same way I dealt with you.

Now if these guys were serious I would have had a summons 4 month's ago. They know that I have too agree to a contract and they are trying all sorts of tricks to get me to contract. All is contract law, you see.

.

Well f.u.c.k me! They didn't knock when they came to my house. Just kicked in the front door and pointed guns at our head. A minties moment.:)

Just 2 days ago the monkeys pulled me over. "just a routine check sir, have you got your drivers license?" I laughed, looked at him and said "yeah"..then a few seconds passed and I grabbed my license and gave it to him..he came back and said "no worries, have a nice day sir"..meanwhile, the whole time I was eye balling the driver in cop car and giving him a nice smile.

JUST FUCKING LEAVE ME ALONE!!!

[number_6]

WOW.

cacadores, what are you doing in this thread and how did you even find www.icke.com?!?! at the risk of boring most people here, I think david icke has summed people like you (keep in mind i'm basing this only on the 2 or 3 juvenile posts I've seen of yours) up by describing the way that we have been conditioned en masse to think and behave like sheep, only that we took it one step further than the sheep by ALSO playing the role of sheepdog, thus keeping ourselves controlled and in line, lessening the stresses of the "elite" while they sought to maintain our blinkered perception of reality.

we have done most of the job for them, and it seems you are currently still in their 'employ', else why on earth would you spout such glib and predictable dismissals of the work of others? yours is exactly the kind of attitude that forums like this have been set up to help remedy (or just avoid). what trick are you going to perform for us next? wave a wand and turn us all into paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists? i must apologise for missing the start of the show, where you apparently magically caused your head to disappear up your backside! bravo!

Perhaps cacadores is questioning everything he reads here. Isn't that allowed here? Must we all follow the leader blindly?

[yozhik]

Perhaps cacadores is questioning everything he reads here. Isn't that allowed here? Must we all follow the leader blindly?

No ... but contributing would be nice, don't you think?

number_6 ... you may question everything (which I applaud), but you, at least, offer some form of rationale or alternative. EVERY debate or discussion needs a "devil's advocate" for there to be balance.

Kakadores, on the other hand, does not question or rebut or reason.
He simply condemns any alternative thinking and then whitewashes it with baseless, status quo, propaganda.

Huge difference ... so PLEASE, don't climb aboard your high horse and start crying (again) about dissenting voices being yelled down.

[bsmurph83]

Perhaps cacadores is questioning everything he reads here. Isn't that allowed here? Must we all follow the leader blindly?

see yozhik's post.

cuckoodores is not questioning anything, but dismissing outright with nothing to back his assertions. questioning welcome, dogmatic dismissal not so much.

:cool:

[rosix]

I think the reason yo's posts could maybe be misconstrued by some is the fact that cuckoodores :P is an old troll with whom yo has had the misfortune of discussing with before, whereas newbies such as myself haven't :)

[yozhik]

As number_6 quite rightly comments; dissenting views aren't always given enough respect.

I actually agrere with him on this.
It's dangerous to dismiss views solely on the basis of them being different or opposing.

HOWEVER ... kaka-dores doesn't offer any rationale.
Just trolling criticism, with nothing constructive being offered.

I can't respect that, don't respect that and will not respect that.

[esse]

Political correctness can be a great time waster...

sometimes ya just gotta call a spade a spade :p

[esse]

know it's not a poetry thread... but found this one & thought it applied:

Don’t You Tell Me


You got nothing to be proud about
When all that you do is stand around
Crying about everyone else
So Don’t you tell me

You got nothing to say
Nothing to add
All you can do
Is complain
No way forward
And no way back
So don’t you tell me

Blaming the world
Caring for only yourself
You never ask what you can do
Just sit back,
Rest on your laurels
Mostly consisting of apathy

So don’t you tell me
You got nothing to say
Nothing to add
Nothing to do
I’m busy myself
Trying to find a solution
Did you hear me
No one is listening

Grow up – life is short
Do something with it
I didn’t make the world
But my people made this mess of it
And I am one of them
So please don’t you tell me

[girlgye]

I'M A GURU!:cool:
I'M A GURU!:cool:

My daddy will be so proud!:D

hehehhehehe

[girlgye]

:rolleyes:

Here's one for you slave,

I had cops come to my door wanting to contract with me. I asked him are we contracting I got a feeble soft answer, no. So then 2 months later another cop comes to the door. I said to them (politely) I am not boots I am of the family of boots. etc, etc, Well they went away in a bit of a huff, we will be sending you a summons to appear,. nice I said. I deal with the same way I dealt with you.

Now if these guys were serious I would have had a summons 4 month's ago. They know that I have too agree to a contract and they are trying all sorts of tricks to get me to contract. All is contract law, you see.

.


What do you say when they shudder (coz they don't have a clue what you are on about) and then just threaten to arrest you.
Shrouty says: 'I waive the privilage to go to jail'
'I waive the privilage to be arrested'.
What would you have said if he said 'yes I contract with you' or in the case of a very sweet bailiff at my door two months ago 'er I have my id badge' ah bless him. My response was: 'do you have a contract signed by me and yourself in blue ink under penalty of perjury.' That seemed to get rid of him.