Freeman on the land and critical thought.

[cacadores]

Freeman on the land and critical thought.

Is it fair to say that on this forum, threads discussing possible flaws in the 'Freeman' concept are discouraged?

[lesactive]

As often happens with this kind of divisive material, some threads devolve into bitch fests, even amongst those along similar paths. There is simply so much at stake.

I'm sure you're more than welcome to initiate threads that are critical of the movement, as 1694 has graciously begun doing. I count only two threads that you've started, yet you've already posted quite a bit of material to vividly illustrate your position.

Whose threads are being discouraged here?

[1694]

My recent sperate threads were wrapped into one thread and moved the rant room, I think I am supposed to restrict counter points to that thread alone from now on.

[intellection]

i think this thread should stay and people encouraged not to turn it into a rant. i think the concept of extracting yourself from a society you don't agree with is a great one but whether it can be done; i'm not sure.

i will not accept other peoples say so because i may as well listen to the government in that case. i'd much prefer to evidence myself or be directed to evidence to analyze. everyone has their own agenda.

to date i have not found any conclusive evidence to support this freeman concept. i wish i had but as yet i haven't.

let's hope this thread can be used as critical thought as stated. i find this is the best way to prove a theory.

[intellection]

point one: i have been advised by registrars that there is no form to complete when registering a birth. has anyone got documentation from or a transcript of said interview. i would like to know what is agreed to at registration.



From: Wagner, Robin (robin.wagner@islington.gov.uk) on behalf of registrars (registrars@islington.gov.uk)
Medium riskYou may not know this sender.Mark as safe|Mark as unsafe
Sent: 02 December 2008 16:01:09
To: *******@hotmail.com

Good day ********,

Thank you for contacting us. To register a birth in the UK, parents don’t actually fill out a form, they actually come in and give the information to a registrar at an interview. Due to this we do not have any forms to forward on to you.

Regards,

Robin Wagner

Islington Register Office
Tel: 020 7527 6350
robin.wagner@islington.gov.uk

************************************************** **************************************

This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may be legally privileged; please note however the information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be guaranteed.

If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately and then delete this e-mail.

Any part of this e-mail which is purely personal in nature is not authorised by London Borough of Islington.

If you wish to re-use the information, perhaps for commercial purposes, in a way which, without permission, might breach our copyright, please first read our policy on Re-use of Public Sector Information which can be found on our website http://www.islington.gov.uk/freedomofinformation or alternatively e-mail foia@islington.gov.uk

Contact Islington switchboard: +44 20 7527 2000 www.islington.gov.uk

[intellection]

Definition of child from Black's Law Dictionary Eighth Edition:

child. 1. A person under the age of majority. 2. Hist. At common law, a person who has not reached the age of 14. 3. A boy or girl; a young person. 4. A son or daughter.

"The world 'children' is normally used to denote issue of the first generation only." Restatement of Property (section) 267 cmt. c (1940).

5. A baby or fetus. See JUVENILE; MINOR. Pl. children

end.

I do not see how the word 'child' can be linked to a corporate entity through the use of the word 'person' in this definition. Unless a corporation has an age of majority?

[rob menard]

Research the definition of the word 'person' in Blacks and in the 3rd and I think 4th you find that a 'person' and a human being are not synonymous.
"A human being is not a person because he is a human being, but because rights and duties have been ascribed to him. Specifically, the person is that legal subject or substance of which the rights and duties are attributes. But not all human beings are persons, as was the case in Olde England, when there were slaves."

Now read the definition of child and do not forget or ignore the definition of the word 'person'.

Rob

[intellection]

Rob, I understand that definition but unfortunately i have Black's Eighth edition which does not offer this definition. I am happy to accept this as fact though.

if only the word 'are' (But not all human beings are persons) was replaced with 'have' the statement would read more in favour of this concept.

[rob menard]

That is because from a certain perspective, you are a person and from another, you have a person.

Ever acted on stage? I have it was fun, and when in the theatre, I was 'Fred' to all in the play and when outside the theatre, I was Rob, the guy playing 'Fred'. From the stage they play upon, you are the person. In reality however, yoou have one.

Just like an actor in a play on a stage.

Rob

[intellection]

agreed but i suspect the courts will rule from the perspective of 'i am a person'. i have been in court and recieved a custodial sentence for breaking a statute; i know how hard these 'crown' court judges are. they don't take any shit.

[rob menard]

If you are in their court, you are on the stage and in their theater. They will treat you as a cast member and enjoy limited liability, as you are only playing a role, just like them. And like them, this is a benefit to you, at least you are acting like it is and since you are collecting so called benefits, the burden will fall on you.

I know we are dealing with people who are ignorant or power hungry. That does not make them right.

Rob

[cacadores]

As often happens with this kind of divisive material, some threads devolve into bitch fests, even amongst those along similar paths. There is simply so much at stake.

I'm sure you're more than welcome to initiate threads that are critical of the movement, as 1694 has graciously begun doing. I count only two threads that you've started, yet you've already posted quite a bit of material to vividly illustrate your position.

Whose threads are being discouraged here?
Thank you. My thread, 'The Freeman money-making Scam' was moved to 'rant', even though it wasn't. Originally a 'shadow' title was left in the Freeman-On-The-Land section, but today I found that reference to this topic has been deleted too. If there were 'objectional' posts on that thread, then one would expect that those responsible would be dealt with, not the person who took the trouble to initiate the topic.


My personal opinion is that it might be a little more adult if the moderator were to follow his or her own guidelines. Broad access to critical thought and uncensored access to information that could affect us, is kinda what we're all here for, isn't it?

Be nice to have an explanation.

[rob menard]

Your idea of critical thought was to make an emotional statement and label a concept as false.
Here is what you considered critical thought:

The attempt to prove that statute doesn't apply to them...... is foolish bunkum.

There was not one shred of evidence of you thinking critically in that thread. It was pure emotional attack backed by nothing but a lack of critical thinking.

Stating "A = Nonsense" is not a rational or logical argument. Your position seems to be, "'A' cannot exist, because thinking otherwise is stupid. Since I am not stupid, I do not think 'A' exists, and since I am not stupid and you are, I win."

Rob

[cacadores]

.......There was not one shred of evidence of you thinking critically in that thread. It was pure emotional attack backed by nothing but a lack of critical thinking.
I don't think you can know that I wrote under the grip of 'emotion', unless you're clairvoyant, so the critisism is redundant.
You'll notice, that the critisism is directed to the theory, not individual people and I would ask you to do the same.

It put an alternative view, and I am prepared to back the points up in the interests of an informative debate. Perhaps you would like to start by showing me evidence that I've made a mistake on any point.


http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45802

[cacadores]

point one: i have been advised by registrars that there is no form to complete when registering a birth. has anyone got documentation from or a transcript of said interview. i would like to know what is agreed to at registration.My understanding, is that the registration of birth is done by the registrar, and anything given to us (like a Birth Certificate ) is a copy of that registration. The registrar has the duty to make sure that the information entered is correct, and will ask the hospital or mother etc. But I haven't seen any legislation that presumes an 'agreement' or a contract
.

[cacadores]

My recent sperate threads were wrapped into one thread and moved the rant room, I think I am supposed to restrict counter points to that thread alone from now on.
Have you any idea why your views are being restricted?

[cacadores]

That is because from a certain perspective, you are a person and from another, you have a person.
Ever acted on stage? I have it was fun, and when in the theatre, I was 'Fred' to all in the play and when outside the theatre, I was Rob, the guy playing 'Fred'. From the stage they play upon, you are the person. In reality however, yoou have one.
Just like an actor in a play on a stage.
Rob
I think most of us understand the theory. But if you care to read the legislation and statutes directly, you'll find that in the context in which the word 'person' is used, that it's used descriptively: that it's legitimacy derives from the ability of people to understand it. As I pointed out, humans appear under many other terms in statute, so the word 'person' has no special status.

Really, until you can find specific legislation which defines a 'person' as a company, or something in the statute which says that its use provides a prima facae case of acceptance to authority, I think this theory has to remain very much unproven.

[1694]

Have you any idea why your views are being restricted?

What I presented conflicted with the believers and the conlfict swamped the ideas.

The fact that there was an issue, became more of an issue than the issue itself :eek:

The mods faced pressure from those who believed to allow them space to believe without question/challange. So it was agreed to start new threads for counter arguments, but then that got messy as there were lots of counter threads taking up space in the sub forum, (which I guess is a believers sub forum.)

Then those threads got moved into one thread, then that thead became so FUBAR it was dumped and a clean sheet created. I am allowed to post counter threads, but with the caveat of being sensative to the believers.

I hope the irony of this microcosm isn't wasted.
(For anyone who posted in the "1694 takes on....." thread and had your post deleted i did ask that you be allowed to post whatever you wanted, but the mods used their discretion as per the forum rules.)

[rob menard]

If you bother to examine the meaning of the word 'statute' before reading them, and thus not act on a presumption, you will find statute is defined as a rule fo a corporation. If I am not in contract with that corporation, then nothing in their statutes will have anything to do with me, regardless of the meanings of the words in their statute, agreed?

Or can a corporation with whom I am not in contract, bind me merely by using a specific word in their statutes?

Their wrds mean absolutely nothing, if the statute they are found in do not apply to you.

Rob

[dondaz]

We know all the tricks the trolls pull, we've seen it all on here over the past few years, attacking information to discredit it under the guise of critical thinking and when they are caught out they go into denial and play the victim.

Start the shite on here expect to get exposed and dealt with over it. If you don't like this forum, start your own.

[cacadores]

:DWhat I presented conflicted with the believers and the conlfict swamped the ideas.
The fact that there was an issue, became more of an issue than the issue itself :eek:.....................
I hope the irony of this microcosm isn't wasted.

It isn't.

Re: Holding ideas up to the light of critical throught, verses censorship

The mods faced pressure from those who believed to allow them space to believe without question/challange. Diddums! Although, to be fair it's only your characterisation of the Mods, it is consistant with what happened yesterday. In this micro-habitat, Mods have developed a situation whereby some posters can claim offence to their sensitivities on the one hand, and then aggressively hijack a thread and have it 'moved' on the other.

There is also the belief that David Icke's ideas are best served by uncritical devotion, not recognising that ideas are hardly going to get accepted widely until they've been shown to stand up against alternative viewpoints.

And the fact is, that for the 'Freeman' concept (or something like it) to work in an adversarial court system, it's going to have to stand up against slightly more critisism than we see here. Fighting the courts means being focused, true and robust, not shying away at the slightest contrary breeze. The hidden truth is seldom handed to us on a plate: it's generally found by sifting.
Then those threads got moved into one thread, then that thead became so FUBAR it was dumped and a clean sheet created. I am allowed to post counter threads, but with the caveat of being sensative to the believers.In the interests of Equity, believers should be sensitive to the needs of thinkng beings for evidence :D

I think the forum moderators would benefit from pondering Voltaire, a man oft-quoted after the Holocaust in WW2 for utterring a phrase that summed up the moral ideal of two generations: Our fathers and grandfathers who laid down their lives that we could be free:

''I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.''
(originated in "The Friends of Voltaire", published 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre)

[intellection]

We know all the tricks the trolls pull, we've seen it all on here over the past few years, attacking information to discredit it under the guise of critical thinking and when they are caught out they go into denial and play the victim.

Start the shite on here expect to get exposed and dealt with over it. If you don't like this forum, start your own.

wrong approach in my opinion. since when has asking reasonable questions been considered trolling? ok, you may feel some questions below your level of understanding but that is not a fault. no such thing as a silly question, only a silly answer.

some of you guys speak so matter of fact about certain points but i have yet to categorically verify many key components of this concept. i want it to be true but this does not mean i will blindly accept.

anyway you are trolling this 'critical thinking thread' ;)

[cacadores]

If you bother to examine the meaning of the word 'statute' before reading them, and thus not act on a presumption, you will find statute is defined as a rule fo a corporation. If I am not in contract with that corporation, then nothing in their statutes will have anything to do with me, regardless of the meanings of the words in their statute, agreed?
Or can a corporation with whom I am not in contract, bind me merely by using a specific word in their statutes?
Their wrds mean absolutely nothing, if the statute they are found in do not apply to you.Rob

Thank you, Rob.

When I read a definition of a word, thus:

statute n. A law enacted by a legislature. A decree or edict, as of a ruler. An established law or rule, as of a corporation.

I see alternative definitions, each referring to different, and often mutually exclusive things. If you read the appended notes to the introduction in most dictionaries, you'll find that where the definitions refer to the same thing, they are spaced by commas, not full stops. Thus ''A law enacted by a legislature'' is one thing. ''An established law or rule, as of a corporation'' is another, mutually exclusive thing. Ipso facto, a 'statute' does not necessarily mean a corporation] Can I suggest you've made an error?


Do you think our disagreement is linguistic?

[dondaz]

''I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.''

Yeah, we know about Voltair, trolls use that quote all the time to justify what they do. It's a classic manipulation technique, only effective on those not aware of the scam. Been used on here dozens of times by trolls. You obviously know this though.;)

wrong approach in my opinion. since when has asking reasonable questions been considered trolling?

Who said anything about asking reasonable questions was trolling? Where did that come from?

ok, you may feel some questions below your level of understanding but that is not a fault.

A weak attempt to belittle.

i want it to be true but this does not mean i will blindly accept.


Seems you are in cahoots with the other trolls, a version of good cop bad cop, only we are not supposed to know you are one of 'them'. The baron and his merry men perform these circus tricks all the time. This scam is only good against the naive and people who havent studied the tricks of the troll trade. The people who are truthers on here know exactly what I mean.

I await the condemnation, manipulation, lies and ridicule for my truths!;)

[rob menard]

Thank you, Rob.

When I read a definition of a word, thus:

statute n. A law enacted by a legislature. A decree or edict, as of a ruler. An established law or rule, as of a corporation.

I see alternative definitions, each referring to different, and often mutually exclusive things. If you read the appended notes to the introduction in most dictionaries, you'll find that where the definitions refer to the same thing, they are spaced by commas, not full stops. Thus ''A law enacted by a legislature'' is one thing. ''An established law or rule, as of a corporation'' is another, mutually exclusive thing. Ipso facto, a 'statute' does not necessarily mean a corporation] Can I suggest you've made an error?


Do you think our disagreement is linguistic?

First off, I do not agree that we are in disagreement. Was it not written "Can two walk one path if they are not of the same mind?"

I agree that definitions have suggest various meanings, however a definition does not in itself give the full meaning of a word. I was taught to know what a word truly means, one must look at the assumptions, definitions and implications of a word to know its meaning. That is why dictionaries only give definitions, and not meanings. Many however will look at a definition and assume that it is the words meaning.

I agree that a statute can be either the rule of a corporation or of the legislature. Does this raise up corporations to the status of legislature, or lower the latter to the status of corporation?

The presumption you are clearly operating on is that a legislature and a corporation are two different things, instead of the same things using different words to define themselves.

Now in Canada, every legislature is listed as a corporation. See your presumption fall apart?


So the question still stands. If I am not in contract with a corporation, regardless of whether they call themselves a legislature, am I bound by their rules?

I say no.

What say you?

I answered your question fairly. Will you honour me in return?

A simple yes or no please.

Rob

[1694]

First off, I do not agree that we are in disagreement. Was it not written "Can two walk one path if they are not of the same mind?"

I agree that definitions have suggest various meanings, however a definition does not in itself give the full meaning of a word. I was taught to know what a word truly means, one must look at the assumptions, definitions and implications of a word to know its meaning. That is why dictionaries only give definitions, and not meanings. Many however will look at a definition and assume that it is the words meaning.

I agree that a statute can be either the rule of a corporation or of the legislature. Does this raise up corporations to the status of legislature, or lower the latter to the status of corporation?

The presumption you are clearly operating on is that a legislature and a corporation are two different things, instead of the same things using different words to define themselves.

Now in Canada, every legislature is listed as a corporation. See your presumption fall apart?


So the question still stands. If I am not in contract with a corporation, regardless of whether they call themselves a legislature, am I bound by their rules?

I say no.

What say you?

I answered your question fairly. Will you honour me in return?

A simple yes or no please.

Rob

If a court was not a corporation it would not be able to administer any law, common or statute, it needs a legal personality as a whole, not as individual humans, it becomes an artificial person. This way the court acts as one person, as well as everyone having seperate individual persons for their private human activities.

The UN, artificial person, or a corporation with a legal personality, european court of human rights has a person.

This is not to say that these corporations make a profit (this is a seperate issue I have yet to see the accounts, a listing on Dun an Bradstreet doesn't mean the entity makes a profit, it just means duna and brad street will charge you for a credit analysis if you ask them, like your personal credit score.)

[cacadores]

Yeah, we know about Voltair, trolls use that quote all the time to justify what they do. It's a classic manipulation technique, only effective on those not aware of the scam. Been used on here dozens of times by trolls. You obviously know this though.;)
Not quite sure why you're defending trolling. But just to show you aren't now, can you tell us why you disapprove of free speech?

[cacadores]

I agree that definitions have suggest various meanings, however a definition does not in itself give the full meaning of a word. I was taught to know what a word truly means, one must look at the assumptions, definitions and implications of a word to know its meaning. That is why dictionaries only give definitions, and not meanings. Many however will look at a definition and assume that it is the words meaning.
Well, this is what you did, by quoting a selective definition. I then showed that 'statute' refers to three separate things

I agree that a statute can be either the rule of a corporation or of the legislature. Does this raise up corporations to the status of legislature, or lower the latter to the status of corporation?
Neither term refers to height. Come on, focus.:rolleyes:

The presumption you are clearly operating on is that a legislature and a corporation are two different things, instead of the same things using different words to define themselves. If they were the same thing, the definitions would be separated by commas, not full stops. We've just been through this.

Now in Canada, every legislature is listed as a corporation. See your presumption fall apart? The only presumption I made, was that 5 dictionary definitions, come up with the same result: corporate statutes and legal statutes are separate terms. See your presumption fall apart, somewhat!


So the question still stands. If I am not in contract with a corporation, regardless of whether they call themselves a legislature, am I bound by their rules?If the corporation is a sweet shop in Mongolia, then, er, probably no. If the corporation is a court the Queen or 'Crown' has appointed to administer the law in her name, & you have been properly indited then yes, of course. How could you think otherwise?

I say no. What say you? I answered your question fairly. Will you honour me in return? A simple yes or no please. Rob
You can't answer 'yes' or 'no' to a generalisation which omits the deciding facts. And 'honour' the form if you wish (which is not honouring me, but that's OK:)), but I think you'd aid clarity by honouring the language more!

As I think you know, you cheeky man ;)

[dondaz]

Not quite sure why you're defending trolling. But just to show you aren't now, can you tell us why you disapprove of free speech?

I don't need to prove myself mate, I have no lies to constantly maintain.

Not speaking up for Rob, he can definately do that for himself, but it's disgusting you are trolling everything he has shared with us here.

[boots]

If the corporation is a sweet shop in Mongolia, then, er, probably no. If the corporation is a court the Queen or 'Crown' has appointed to administer the law in her name, & you have been properly indited then yes, of course. How could you think otherwise?

As I think you know, you cheeky man ;)

First off, don't be a condescending xxxx.

Showing your monarchist colors again.

A corporation is a corporation. It's irrelevant whether it has a sexed up name like the government the police or the crown. They are still corporations.

Only slaves abide by corporation rule's.

[intellection]

I wonder how the freeman concept would stand up in court to dismiss accountability under the Drugs Act 2005, 2005 CHAPTER 17. It may well have had success in summons for parking fines with magistrates but maybe this is purely a distraction value.

I suggest it needs to be tested against stronger opposition.

I served a 4 year custodial sentence for supply and intent to supply a class 'a' controlled substance and just can't see this concept holding up against a crown court judge. maybe someone would like to try it? Nothing to lose if it really works, in fact you could even make some money with reference to your fee schedule and i'm sure you'd be able to sell your story if you so desired.

send me a VO and i'll come visit you when it goes tits up.

[micklemus]

Blast, I wish I'd found this thread 30 mins ago, I'd have posted here. Apologies if I'm seen as having "trolled" another thread as that wasn't my intention.

I keep seeing these ridiculous circular arguments and thank you intellection for making the simple, clean point that I keep making too - whatever your view is on the law (which varies depending on the country you're in - so forum members shouldn't generalise anyway) it really doesn't matter two hoots. If, say, like me, you're a UK resident and you decide you're a Freeman, if 65 million people (including the legislature and legal system) decide you're not and it's bollocks then all you have is a meaningless label.

I probably need to move on from this as I've expressed my truth and anyone constantly parrotting the same messages on any subject gets exceedingly tiresome over time. However, nice one cacadores for remaining the voice of reason here. Just because the likes of us disagree with the majority doesn't mean that we're wrong. Declaring oneself a Freeman is a lovely wish but it's meaningless.

For me it's time to cut the crap.

If people want to learn how to be barrack room lawyers then be my guest. I can assure you that you won't find what you're looking for (although I note with regret than many here believe otherwise) and you might want to step back and take a look at yourself in the process too - becoming part of "the system" to beat "the system," how utterly belly-achingly ironic!

For those who value freedom, how about just living your values come what may? Stop the name-calling here, stop the labelling, the wish lists, the conferences (fucking conferences, ha ha, incredible! There'll be a Freeman Party going for government next!), stop the searching for loopholes and finding ways of leading others to the promised land. Just finally start understanding who you are. You don't need to search for freedom, you just need to be your true essence.

O dear now I'll be seen as a ranting trolling thingamy.

[cacadores]

A corporation is a corporation
I like your logic, but please try to refrain from the ad homina attacks: they hardly show the perpetrator in a good light:)
__________________________________________________

Let's get the information out there :)

[boots]

I like your logic, but please try to refrain from the ad homina attacks: they hardly show the perpetrator in a good light:)
__________________________________________________

Let's get the information out there :)

Quote:
Rob Menards qoute So the question still stands. If I am not in contract with a corporation, regardless of whether they call themselves a legislature, am I bound by their rules?
cacadores quote If the corporation is a sweet shop in Mongolia, then, er, probably no. If the corporation is a court the Queen or 'Crown' has appointed to administer the law in her name, & you have been properly indited then yes, of course. How could you think otherwise?Showing your monarchist colors again.

A corporation is a corporation. It's irrelevant whether it has a sexed up name like the government the police or the crown. They are still corporations.

Only slaves abide by corporation rule's.

Your logic is flawed.

The Crown is a corporation and a freeman does not answer to a corporation, only slaves abide by corporate rules .

It makes me laugh that people who are members of this forum have such closed minds.

.

[cacadores]

I wonder how the freeman concept would stand up in court to dismiss accountability under the Drugs Act 2005, 2005 CHAPTER 17. It may well have had success in summons for parking fines with magistrates but maybe this is purely a distraction value
Not to say that the 'Freeman' scam can't be useful, and not to say that it doesn't conveniently bundle up a number of workable legal techniques, but the 'Freeman' is best understood as a metaphor.

Metaphor verses concept:

'Freeman' means, in realty, equality before the law and the presumption of innocence.

The denial of being a 'person - stawman' in law, is no more than the tried and tested legal technique of nit-picking definitions that can throw the naive legal trainees found in magistrates courts. As Rob Meynard tried on here.:)

The obsessive claim of 'freedoms' in the Magna Carta or Common Law, is a form of obstupification designed to wrong-foot policemen and council clerks. Only in America, might something like the Magna Carta still be used as a tool for interpreting paragraphs in their original constitution because the justification for their law ceased to flow from the crown.

The ''refusal to accept a court's contract'' is actually a clever technique by which the prosecution has to prove everything from first principles. It's also an irritating one because a lot of time is wasted wondering why law courts are corporations, or why we have birth certs, which is neither here nor there.

The 'threats' to sue minor officials for refusing to offer 'benifit' from their 'offer of contract' (blimy!) is a technique for, well, threatening minor officials by pretending to know more than them.

Finally, the fact that some people get out of paying fines and then, post action assert 'freeman' status on a chat site kind of disguises the actually very agressive techniques being used at the time.


It is intreguing to think there's a guru with the key to unlock secrets within an opaque law. However, if there really was a case in law for making 'freeman' immune from statute, then I'd expect it to be stated clearly without ambiguity. Instead we're asked to 'feel it'. So I dunno: I search for justification for it, I'm left justification free but interested enough to see what I can find.

__________________________________________________ _______

Information. Out there :)

[goldman]

I call this: how this fucking mess started in the first place.

Good thread, finally someone smart enough to open such thread.

Yes, I am highly critical about all of this. Please don't patronize me that I don't understand it or something, I do. I understand it on a great degree, but that doesn't mean I cannot be critical, you don't know me so don't push me in that corner.

I think that it's fundamentals are basically flawed for a multitude of reasons. Here are some:


1. If freemanery works, show me your success, show me your stock certificate and that +/-15 million dollar Robert Menard claims that you own.

2. Don't bother me with stories about speeding tickets, speeding is wrong and you might kill someone. Be social, at a bare minimum.

3. Freemanery means that you will renounce the legal system, but how can you operate in it if you renounce it. There is no way to enforce your freemanism without using the law they set up. AKA: a catch 22.

4. So now your free. What are you going to do. Spend that 15 million dollars right? ever heard that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolute? If you are against the monetary system, why collect that 15 million, it's blood money anyway.

5. The time has come that everyone is a freemen. What will happen? some folks with a greedy mind will raid you or rape your wife, you are in anger and you rebel against them. So some folks come together and form a gang called: "the government" and shackle the rest.

And so all this fucking mess starts from the begin again, ad infinitum.

[boots]

I call this: how this fucking mess started in the first place.
:rolleyes:

It basically started when the private banking cartels (Rothchilds) made governments go into bankruptcy and they had to pay by setting up birth certificates, which are registrations for a bond to pay back the banking cartels.


Yes, I am highly critical about all of this. Please don't patronize me that I don't understand it or something, I do. I understand it on a great degree, but that doesn't mean I cannot be critical, you don't know me so don't push me in that corner.

What understanding do you have??



1. If freemanery works, show me your success, show me your stock certificate and that +/-15 million dollar Robert Menard claims that you own.

This is the first thing you dont understand. There is NO money put into your bank account nor do you get a stock certificate.

The trust account is held by the corporation for the people to access once they wise up to it.

2. Don't bother me with stories about speeding tickets, speeding is wrong and you might kill someone. Be social, at a bare minimum.

I'll answer that in the Freeman success thread, as you have asked the same question there.


3. Freemanery means that you will renounce the legal system, but how can you operate in it if you renounce it. There is no way to enforce your freemanism without using the law they set up. AKA: a catch 22.

NO you do not. You renounce statues, but not common sense. A freeman operates in both worlds but does not align with statues which the corporation has set up for slaves.

4. So now your free. What are you going to do. Spend that 15 million dollars right? ever heard that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolute? If you are against the monetary system, why collect that 15 million, it's blood money anyway.

Dear oh, dear. How old are you?

Again, you DO NOT collect money as a freeman you still work and earn a living, you pay the men and women who you call up to do work for you. Everything else that the governments/corporations use to make you poor and under their thumb is paid for, by them accessing your bond.

5. The time has come that everyone is a freemen. What will happen? some folks with a greedy mind will raid you or rape your wife, you are in anger and you rebel against them. So some folks come together and form a gang called: "the government" and shackle the rest.

Freemanism does not mean going back to the dark ages. There will always have to be a government to administer things, but the government for the people by the people. Not one set up as a corporation to suck your lively hood away to pay the private banking corporations.

[friendsinthesky]

So now your free. What are you going to do. Spend that 15 million dollars right? ever heard that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolute? If you are against the monetary system, why collect that 15 million, it's blood money anyway.


I'm sure and have no doubt that some people are using the 'freeman on the land' to extort money. But for those who do want to free will only take what they feel belongs to them. You know, why kill a cow if there's only 2 of you eating. So a freeman will kill a rabbit instead. (<--just an analogy)

Mary croft writes in her PDF that when we go into a store to purchase "something" that the goods are already there - paid for and waiting for us to pick the goods up. When we pick them up, we exchange "paper money" for a receipt.

So, I started to think about mortgages/loans. When you obtain a mortgage/loan what happens next? You make re payments. So, basically, you are re paying something that is already paid for as soon as your signature hits the contract.

[intellection]

i do wish people would stop being rude to each other - there really is no need and it just strengthens the bars of our prision. everyone is entitled to an opinion and this thread has been created for that purpose; critical thinking. it appears that this side of the coin is not accepted on other threads.

the perfect sheep is the sheep that thinks he's a free thinker.

the numbers behind this concept are growing by the day and as the same with any movement; the truth will show. which is what we are all looking for right?

i just see that some people are going to get themselves in an awful lot of trouble. we know the system is corrupt. this concept is a marvellous idea, almost the perfect platform. but...... i am yet to be convinced it will work when it comes to the crunch.

if i thought it did work then i'd submit my paperwork and then spend my time breaking statutes and acts. happily collecting the sums as stated in my fee schedule to build a fund to put this concept out to the world. no-one seems to be doing this - i wonder why?

[rob menard]

if i thought it did work then i'd submit my paperwork and then spend my time breaking statutes and acts. happily collecting the sums as stated in my fee schedule to build a fund to put this concept out to the world. no-one seems to be doing this - i wonder why?

First, you do not 'submit' your paper work. That is a word that tptb have conditioned you to use and think it is normal. Who you going to 'submit' to? Have you even watched any of the videos I have produced?

Second, a Freeman does not break statutes and again a certain mindset is displayed. You can't seem to grasp that in order to break a statutes, you must be subject to it first. If you are not subject to them, your actions won't be breaking them.

Thirdly, your final point really identifies you as a child. Or at least having the mindset of one. The purpose of a fee schedule is not to get paid as you seem to believe. It is so you can get paid if they continue in a course of action demanding performance without a contract. The purpose is to avoid the performance, not get paid. Can you see a difference? I have used them and they work like a charm, and no I did not have to collect. Imagine a parent with an unruly child. The parent has a belt they can take off for spanking the child. The child however knows what it is like to get spanked, and as soon as they see the parent unbuckling, they respond. See the belt works and often without even removing it. Some however will demand proof it works, not by seeing the child respond to the threat of beating, but by an actual beating when there is no need for one. Prove you have control of your child, by beating her senseless and without cause or reason, then I will believe you have control. That is what some people think, but because it is maybe some government employees instead of your child, they think that we should beat on them.

As for concern it will work when it comes to the crunch, you really don't have to worry about that do you? There will be no crunch when the machine is dealing with soft and doughy people who refuse to stand when it is clearly time to do so.

Peace eh?
Rob

[boots]

I'm sure and have no doubt that some people are using the 'freeman on the land' to extort money. But for those who do want to free will only take what they feel belongs to them. You know, why kill a cow if there's only 2 of you eating. So a freeman will kill a rabbit instead. (<--just an analogy) Good analogy. Thats the way to think
Mary croft writes in her PDF that when we go into a store to purchase "something" that the goods are already there - paid for and waiting for us to pick the goods up. When we pick them up, we exchange "paper money" for a receipt.

So, I started to think about mortgages/loans. When you obtain a mortgage/loan what happens next? You make re payments. So, basically, you are re paying something that is already paid for as soon as your signature hits the contract.

I think it comes under the bills of exchange act.


I know there are people working on this to refine it.;)

So in affect we are contributing to the debt, by financing a bankruptcy.

When you sign a mortgage, the bank, then through it's brilliant scheme:rolleyes: called fractional reserve banking, turns your signature into ten times the amount, that you borrowed. What a scam.


.

[the worm that turned]

Much like a lot of members on the Freeman-On-The-Land forum, I am soaking up a lot of information to assess the pros and cons of being a FOTL. Very much like I am for deciding on whether to have my child vaccinated when born.

Like with everything in life we have a choice, but to choose we need to see both sides clearly. This is why I started the thread "Why become a Freeman?"

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45317

If it is true that we are being enslaved into a bond (bonded), whereby a separate corporate entity is using our bond to pay back debts to a banking cartel, then this is fundamentally wrong, chiefly due to the fact that:
a - I did not create, did not insist upon, or in fact do not want this debt
b - I was not consciously aware that by accepting a birth certificate, National Insurance number etc. I was consenting to this system of debt repayment

So, rather than argue the toss about whether being a Freeman is to make you rich or free, or to further humanities enlightenment, I PERSONALLY think it is more important to determine if the above is true. If it is and it can be shown to be an immoral system that breaches our human rights i.e. making us a slave to a system we did not subscribe to, then we will all become Free men and women over night.

So - Rob of the family Menard and Boots, plus others much more in the know than me, is it possible to achieve this mass free man/woman movement, or should we (who choose to) continue to free ourselves one at a time?

[friendsinthesky]

If it is true that we are being enslaved into a bond (bonded), whereby a separate corporate entity is using our bond to pay back debts to a banking cartel, then this is fundamentally wrong, chiefly due to the fact that:



We are being enslaved through their written language. You can choose to de-slave yourself through poverty and living on the streets, but they can still arrest you with interpretation of their language, simply because you have not educated yourself on their system.

[the worm that turned]

We are being enslaved through their written language. You can choose to de-slave yourself through poverty and living on the streets, but they can still arrest you with interpretation of their language, simply because you have not educated yourself on their system.

The point I am trying to make is that their language and system can (I hope) be used AGAINST them. By talking about "you" and "yourself", WE will never achieve anything. WE must find a way to act together to beat a system that is corrupt.

If the system is corrupt then lets beat it, but the question is, can we prove it to be corrupt with regards to the bond system?

[boots]

Much like a lot of members on the Freeman-On-The-Land forum, I am soaking up a lot of information to assess the pros and cons of being a FOTL. Very much like I am for deciding on whether to have my child vaccinated when born.

Like with everything in life we have a choice, but to choose we need to see both sides clearly. This is why I started the thread "Why become a Freeman?"

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=45317

If it is true that we are being enslaved into a bond (bonded), whereby a separate corporate entity is using our bond to pay back debts to a banking cartel, then this is fundamentally wrong, chiefly due to the fact that:
a - I did not create, did not insist upon, or in fact do not want this debt
b - I was not consciously aware that by accepting a birth certificate, National Insurance number etc. I was consenting to this system of debt repayment

So, rather than argue the toss about whether being a Freeman is to make you rich or free, or to further humanities enlightenment, I PERSONALLY think it is more important to determine if the above is true. If it is and it can be shown to be an immoral system that breaches our human rights i.e. making us a slave to a system we did not subscribe to, then we will all become Free men and women over night.

So - Rob of the family Menard and Boots, plus others much more in the know than me, is it possible to achieve this mass free man/woman movement, or should we (who choose to) continue to free ourselves one at a time?

Sorry that your thread got lost in all the other's. Important question like yours do get let behind in the BS that some create.

Well mate I'm just learning so Rob and dondaz know a lot more then me.


Yes a & b are definitely true. We have been hoodwinked without even knowing it.:mad: Just like they TPTB have done to us for a very long time.

Personally I would like to see it happen slowly but surely, a bit like chipping away at the base of the pyramid so that the corrupt systems suddenly find they have no base. I also feel that it will be like a hundredth money affect, suddenly we all wake up and the whole concept will change, it might not be the same as it is now when everyone get's in on the act. It will evolve to something new that will suit the whole of the globe. I just dont know about that aspect.

As it is, people are learning more and we are all benefiting form other's experiences and successes and learning as they try and change their corrupt system to trap us. We can come up with more way's to hold them accountable in a respectable way.


.

[the worm that turned]

Sorry that your thread got lost in all the other's. Important question like yours do get let behind in the BS that some create.

Well mate I'm just learning so Rob and dondaz know a lot more then me.


Yes a & b are definitely true. We have been hoodwinked without even knowing it.:mad: Just like they TPTB have done to us for a very long time.

Personally I would like to see it happen slowly but surely, a bit like chipping away at the base of the pyramid so that the corrupt systems suddenly find they have no base. I also feel that it will be like a hundredth money affect, suddenly we all wake up and the whole concept will change, it might not be the same as it is now when everyone get's in on the act. It will evolve to something new that will suit the whole of the globe. I just dont know about that aspect.

As it is, people are learning more and we are all benefiting form other's experiences and successes and learning as they try and change their corrupt system to trap us. We can come up with more way's to hold them accountable in a respectable way.


.

Thanks for that. It will be interesting to hear what the others say, because regardless of any Freeman movement (which in any movement there will be people out there trying to scam others) if a and b are true as you say then it will be a separate movement for all called the We are ALL Free men and women movement - hallelujah :D

[boots]

Thanks for that. It will be interesting to hear what the others say, because regardless of any Freeman movement (which in any movement there will be people out there trying to scam others) if a and b are true as you say then it will be a separate movement for all called the We are ALL Free men and women movement - hallelujah :D

No worries:)

I'd like to here others views on this too that being point A & B.

.

[friendsinthesky]

The point I am trying to make is that their language and system can (I hope) be used AGAINST them. By talking about "you" and "yourself", WE will never achieve anything. WE must find a way to act together to beat a system that is corrupt.

If the system is corrupt then lets beat it, but the question is, can we prove it to be corrupt with regards to the bond system?

I hear you. Talking about it on this forum is helping us to evolve and a better understanding of how their operating. Whether we start with the basic's or jump in the deep end - good questions are being asked / answered and delved upon. It can only gets us to the core.

Hopefully sooner we'll find something wherethesystem admits they put a monetry figure on our head at birth, without consent.

[cacadores]

You can't seem to grasp that in order to break a statutes, you must be subject to it first. If you are not subject to them, your actions won't be breaking them.

Something you have failed to prove again.


Thirdly, your final point really identifies you as a child. Or at least having the mindset of one.

Ad Homina attack. It has not gone unnoticed that you didn't answer his point. You are surely aware that the resort to insult is the mark of someone who has lost the argument?

Imagine a parent with an unruly child. The parent has a belt ......

Using wooly metaphor rather than providing evidence. Again, it has not gone unnoticed that you failed (again) to respond to his point.


As for concern it will work when it comes to the crunch, you really don't have to worry about that do you? There will be no crunch when the machine is dealing with soft and doughy people who refuse to stand when it is clearly time to do so.

This avoids his point by making a prediction which cannot be evidenced.

Rob, while many of us here respect you for the interest you have engendered in our relationship to the law, it has not gone unnoticed that, time and time again, your replies avoid the questions put to you and make use of rhetorical devices like metaphor to divert attention when you're losing a point.

If you want to contribute something positive, Rob, then please consider how your views are going to be recieved if you stoop to ad homina attacks.

It has not gone unnoticed that you have not replied to my post where I questioned your technique. Might that not lead people to imagine your ideas have no basis? :)

I look forward to your reply.

Happy New Year

[cacadores]

Your logic is flawed. The Crown is a corporation and a freeman does not answer to a corporation, only slaves abide by corporate rules

While we agree that the Crown is a corporation.....

it is difficult to sustain the idea that ''a freeman does not answer to a corporation''. You do so any time you buy something in the shop i.e. from a corporation. You would have to be a subsistance farmer and aquire goods by barter.

only slaves abide by corporate rules

Again, difficult to sustain: you exert your free choice when you shop or chose to break the law.

[yozhik]

Thirdly, your final point really identifies you as a child. Or at least having the mindset of one.
Ad Homina attack. It has not gone unnoticed that you didn't answer his point. You are surely aware that the resort to insult is the mark of someone who has lost the argument?

Sorry, but you have taken this out of context and distorted the meaning.

It is not argumentum ad hominem.

The "child" Rob refers to (obviously) is the status you hold in the eyes of the statute makers; as opposed to an adult or one who is capable of making decisions. As in a "child of the state", which is also reinforced by Rob's use of "the mindset of one" which is referring to how a man (or woman) is viewed and treated.

Splitting hairs is OK; but distorting posts isn't :rolleyes:

[grenadene]

What a mad bunch of angry distractors the Freeman concept has attracted, I'm almost transported back to the Salem witch hunts! For those who think its all a scam, just sod off, as simple as and don't assume you're protecting anyone with your smart arse hair splitting comments. You are not pointing out anything we haven't all considered and deliberated. If it isn't for you fair enough, but we aren't likely to throw you out of your living rooms so we can hold meetings whilst speeding up and down the streets naked and running over your children. So perhaps a little backing off and formulating your own course of navigation through this crazy life is in order.

All in my humble opinion of course, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who is finding this childish nonsense a little boring now.

Sorry mods but I feel at the point of spontaneous human combustion, just when you see a glimmer of humanity out there.....in come the antisex league ;)

[yozhik]

What a mad bunch of angry distractors the Freeman concept has attracted, I'm almost transported back to the Salem witch hunts! For those who think its all a scam, just sod off, as simple as and don't assume you're protecting anyone with your smart arse hair splitting comments.

No points for guessing you are referring to cacadores.

Just let him do his thing.
His modus operandi is well known and simply ignored; or at least, best ignored.
Just your typical, garden variety disinfo agent. His attempts at appearing "super intelligent" would almost be plausible, if not for his total lack of subtlety. :)
... but I guess it makes him smile and giggle, so good luck to him. No harm done - just a little self indulgent, forum masturbation, I suspect.

One thing I can never work out though ... if someone is so obviously NOT interested in a very specific subject; why would a person waste so much time crafting and posting in a dedicated sub-section?

I mean, if I have no interest in cooking, I'm not likely to write a recipe book, am I.


:rolleyes:

[cacadores]

One thing I can never work out though ... if someone is so obviously NOT interested in a very specific subject; why would a person waste so much time crafting and posting in a dedicated sub-section?

I mean, if I have no interest in cooking, I'm not likely to write a recipe book, am I.
:rolleyes:

Thank you. It really dosn't take much 'crafting' - it's enough to be honest and focussed: you soon find the truth comes out.

The thread title is 'critical thought'.

If you don't open yourself to alternative viewpoints, and adhere only to what's acceptable to the most frequent posters, then you're simply closing yourself off to a lot of information. Which includes that fact that some of the leading lights of this movement developed their skills in order to make money, and that it's been used a ploy by criminals.

Let's get all the information out, and let people judge with their own minds. Some of us actually believe that a better understanding of how to defend yourself against government encroaching into our lives, does not necessarily predicate cult-like unquestioning zombiism.

Let's see what we can find out, keep an open mind and cut out the personal and offensive comments.

What you reckon?
:cool: