John Harris - Just An Illusion - Do NOT miss this!

[dondaz]

John Harris, founder of TPUC, filmed at the "Lawful Rebellion" Conference, The British Constiution Group, Stoke-on-Trent, 24th january 2009 by BBC5.tv.live.

I have posted it in general because it's very important info here. John covers how the uk government and its affiliates are all just private corporations. He does a fantastic job of explaining how the uk police really work and some of the methods used to 'police' us, what their duties really are and how they are being subverted. Legalese and the person. Parents, child stealing and the BC and how it really works works. What regisration is, very important this. There's a lot of great areas he covers and does it very well. Very important info folks, do not miss this!

John has a great way of getting his message across. This is serious, funny and emotional. This is his best work I have seen so far. 50 minutes of awesomeness!

10 out of 10. Very well filmed and edited too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b0n3W0B6E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7jtxpp4rQo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mExeq5Yyg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIUMOyp-Pj4

A great job by the BBC5tv team. Fantastic effort!

http://www.youtube.com/BBC5tv (http://www.youtube.com/BBC5tv)

Comments welcome:)

[atticus_finch]

Thank you for the links (re: corporatocracy), I have downloaded them and will watch later. Sensible idea posting in 'General' otherwise this would be submerged beneath 'Racist Prince Harry' threads in Today's 'News' [sic]....

[monkfish]

Tanks Dondaz,was
looking forward to watching that again

[godspeed]

thanks dondaz.....good to watch again ....still with high emotions at part 5....tears of joy........maybe....:D

[dondaz]

I have downloaded them and will watch later.

Don't forget, it really is good!

good to watch again ....still with high emotions at part 5....tears of joy........maybe....:D

I know, very emotional. He's had me at it twice now!

[alternative_answer]

Nice 1 looking forward to the next one.

[comma berenices]

I saw John speak at stoke.
My daughter and myself were reduced to tears,we have never seen a speaker more passionate and meaningful as we did that day.
It's one we will never forget,we spread the word at every opportunity.
Thanks for posting the great vids we have been looking forward to them.

[arten]

Well what can I say he had me in tears at the end; and John I am with you Man every step of the way. We have to do something to change this world, just like Gandhi said:

WE MUST BE THE CHANGE WE WISH TO SEE IN THE WORLD.

Today I told my Employer I want to rip up our Contract because I am about to declare myself a FREEMAN. And I am no longer prepeared to pay taxes to a corporation which then uses my money to bomb and murder children in Iraq and elsewhere. I am not prepared to do that any more, in fact I never gave my consent to any of this they duped my parents.

Evil controls this world just like David Icke asked on Wogan back in 1990 where is the Love. Well I saw Love in clip 5 when John said he does care about those who are suffering. I can imagine Christ standing there smiling at that :D

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke

[helloperator]

...i WILL find a way to get out of this and i WILL succeed because what I'M doing is right.....hefty words delivered with some kind of emotive volume technique...cue trained seal audience who suddenly clap all at the same time...

What are we witnessing here? What does the volume of the words mean? Why is everybody clapping?

[arten]

...i WILL find a way to get out of this and i WILL succeed because what I'M doing is right.....hefty words delivered with some kind of emotive volume technique...cue trained seal audience who suddenly clap all at the same time...

What are we witnessing here? What does the volume of the words mean? Why is everybody clapping?

What we wittnesed was a Man a Human Being who wants to break free from the very chains you rever.:(

[darryl84]

I've only seen the first part so far, but it looks good!

Im having a problem finding a definition that states a person is not a human being though, and is only a character if the man or woman chooses to accept it. Or a definition along those lines! :)

[arten]

I've only seen the first part so far, but it looks good!

Im having a problem finding a definition that states a person is not a humna being though, and is only a character if the man or woman chooses to accept it. Or a definition along those lines! :)

Why would you have a problem with that this goes back to the etymology of the word person it comes from the Latin word Persona. Which means Actors Mask and that is what we are all doing we are all playing different parts just like Shakesepear said.

[darryl84]

Why would you have a problem with that this goes back to the etymology of the word person it comes from the Latin word Persona. Which means Actors Mask and that is what we are all doing we are all playing different parts just like Shakesepear said.

Yeh you misread what i wrote, i have no problem with the concept, as i said, i had a problm finding the definition that states person means character and not human being, or something along those lines!

[arten]

Yeh you misread what i wrote, i have no problem with the concept, as i said, i had a problm finding the definition that states person means character and not human being, or something along those lines!

No I never misread what you wrote you just do not understand the etymology of the word person. I explained it to you and still you don't understand it.

[dondaz]

Yeh you misread what i wrote, i have no problem with the concept, as i said, i had a problm finding the definition that states person means character and not human being, or something along those lines!

'you are not a person because you are a human being, but because rights and duties have been ascribed to you.' - Blacks Law, 4th Edition.

Those rights and duties are statute and act obligations. Your birth certificate is a person.:)

[alternative_answer]

'you are not a person because you are a human being, but because rights and duties have been ascribed to you.' - Blacks Law, 4th Edition.

Those rights and duties are statute and act obligations. Your birth certificate is a person.:)

Keep it coming for all the detractors who come on this forum and stamp on anything that offers the truth.

[ex sheep]

Amazing!
Truly wonderful, simply laid out, even I understood it.;)

Thanks to every body involved.

[cookie_dude]

Great set of videos. Very easy to understand.
All I need now is the balls to do something about it.:(

[darryl84]

No I never misread what you wrote you just do not understand the etymology of the word person. I explained it to you and still you don't understand it.

Again you misread what i wrote, you missed the past tense part of my wording in the last message. I had problems finding a definition, now after reading your post i dont. I did not say have, which would indicate i still did.

[whatistruth]

Sounds like more patriot mythology to me.

[icecoldmeltz]

...i WILL find a way to get out of this and i WILL succeed because what I'M doing is right.....hefty words delivered with some kind of emotive volume technique...cue trained seal audience who suddenly clap all at the same time...

What are we witnessing here? What does the volume of the words mean? Why is everybody clapping? He's a English man who has took the time' to dig deep and find out THE WAY WE ARE ALL BEING CONNED. and has the balls to get-up on stage and tell people about it... and that' in my book deserves admiration. We aint as Stiff' as you lot in Hong Kong. SSTFU

[jimmi]

Thanks to John Harris (and Dondaz) I now realise that I am the change that I believe in.

I think we still need our heroes , someone to focus on so that we can unite as we make our stand for what is right and good.

John Harris is my kind of hero

I vote for this to be a prominent sticky , please give this brilliant info the exposure it deserves!

[resistance]

Yeh..excellent stuff, they're trying to cram us all into a box (a false paradigm) but they will never be able to put the lid on it!! because they have underestimated by a long shot how many people will wake up to the NWO/corporate takeover of our liberties.

A few pics here just for a giggle..:D

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q97/timtu/PIGGY_BANK.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q97/timtu/Poster_warning_police_brutality.jpg

[adzboarder]

Cool something to watch tonight - cheers Dondaz! :)

[dondaz]

Sounds like more patriot mythology to me.

Some people where just made to keep taking the blue pill.

[resistance]

So anyway the million dollar question is..how are we going to un-register ourselfs or nullify the corporate powers seemingly given to them by us through being registered? Sacrifice the 'person' as John puts it.

[yozhik]

Sounds like more patriot mythology to me.

... and how's that working for you?

Your post sounds like more disinfo bullshit to me ... and if you ask, thats working great for me :D


.

[whatistruth]

... and how's that working for you?

Your post sounds like more disinfo bullshit to me ... and if you ask, thats working great for me :D


.

Im sorry but its just like the IRS stuff in america and people claiming you can declare yourself sovereign.
You cant, you just go to jail.

I just want to save people the trouble of believing this stuff because it will do them no good and possibly even get them into legal trouble.

[dondaz]

Im sorry but its just like the IRS stuff in america and people claiming you can declare yourself sovereign.
You cant, you just go to jail.

I just want to save people the trouble of believing this stuff because it will do them no good and possibly even get them into legal trouble.

mate, you are clearly not informed enough on these things to form an opinion. What stuff is it you want people not to believe? State what isn't true, put forward your case and it will be open for debate, then you may have a point. What is it that you don't believe about 'this stuff' as you put it?

Don't take this as a put down, it's not. I'm confident 'this stuff' is real and true and willing to debate on the issues. Bring them forth!:)

Thanks!

So anyway the million dollar question is..how are we going to un-register ourselfs or nullify the corporate powers seemingly given to them by us through being registered? Sacrifice the 'person' as John puts it.

Winston Shrout talks about 'not' burying/destroying your bond in one of his vids. I can't find the link right now, but I would suggest this is how to de-value that bond and thus making the BC of no value. I've not looked into this much but I'll dig out the details and start a thread on it in the Freeman section. Lest someone knows how to do this already and posts it here!

[yozhik]

Im sorry but its just like the IRS stuff in america and people claiming you can declare yourself sovereign.
You cant, you just go to jail.

I just want to save people the trouble of believing this stuff because it will do them no good and possibly even get them into legal trouble.

HUGE difference between "legal trouble" and "lawful trouble".
Please, do some research to comprehend the significant difference.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question;
If a company, registered with the SEC, operating and trading for profit, publishes it's copyrighted, commercially available, company policy; are you obligated to follow and obey the rules, regulations and penalties laid out in the policy documents of that company?

The truth lies in your answer. :)

Peace and respect.


.

[yozhik]

Winston Shrout talks about 'not' burying/destroying your bond in one of his vids. I can't find the link right now, but I would suggest this is how to de-value that bond and thus making the BC of no value. I've not looked into this much but I'll dig out the details and start a thread on it in the Freeman section. Lest someone knows how to do this already and posts it here!

I've also read of the option to "collapse the trust".
More research is required on this ...


.

[resistance]

Im sorry but its just like the IRS stuff in america and people claiming you can declare yourself sovereign.
You cant, you just go to jail.

I just want to save people the trouble of believing this stuff because it will do them no good and possibly even get them into legal trouble.

And you think we are not in a lot of trouble allready! we are all in a lot of trouble whether you believe in the freeman philosophy or not..soon it will be impossible to not break the ''law'' just by simply existing..so unless you intend to be boxed and chipped so to speak you are also going to be 'legally' in a lot of trouble!

[mushroombot]

Absolute dynamite - well worth watching, it explains things very clearly.

Many thanks for posting.

[dondaz]

I've also read of the option to "collapse the trust".
More research is required on this ...

That's what it is, 'collapsing the trust'. Cheers Yoz. Apparently, there's a fews ways it can be done!

Absolute dynamite - well worth watching, it explains things very clearly.

Doesn't it just. Tptb are not going to like this, but it's tough because it's out now and I'm going to burn it to dvd and get them passed around! A good idea if everyone did this too!

[elysiumfire]

Darryl84:Im having a problem finding a definition that states a person is not a human being though, and is only a character if the man or woman chooses to accept it.

Darryl, when you were born, you were not born a 'person', but as a 'human being'...that is your natural condition and sovereignty. Your parents may have decided prior to your birth what they were going to name you. So, Darryl (surname) applies to the human being. What does not apply to you as a human being is 'mister', 'master', or 'esquire', as these are titles of status. Human being is not a status, but a condition of existence.

When your parents named you, a common law (I believe) stated that you had to be registered, and so you are given a birth certificate, on which relevant details are applied that record details applicable to you as a human being. However, what the birth certificate does is to add 'status' to your condition as a human being, thus you then enter society as a 'person', where not only natural and common law prevail upon you, but also, societal statutes...which are quite distinct from natural and common law, because societal statutes are contractual agreements. For societal statutes to apply to you, you must first consent to subject yourself to them, and you can only do this as a 'person', not as a human being...certainly not just after birth, because you haven't learned to talk and reason things out yet. How do you know (just after birth) what is agreeable in the statements of a statute, and thus make a 'informed' consent to them? Obviously, you don't, can't know.

You cannot live in any form of society as a human being, you must be a 'person' to do that, and equally you must consent to the statutes of that society. Your parents, from your birth to an age when you begin to reason and understand, guide you on your behalf in the basic understandings of natural and common law, with sprinklings of societal statutes thrown in. Even they did (or do) not fully appreciate the distinctions between natural and common law and societal statutes, that the former are applicable to you as a human being, but that the latter is only applicable to you as a person.

I remember, just prior to leaving school, receiving my 'National Insurance Number' (NIN), perhaps it was the same for you? This meant that society deemed that I was of an age where I could represent myself as a 'person', and be reviewed by my peers on my actions, without any recourse to criticism of my parents. They could not be blamed for anything I did against society from thereon, but only be considered as a 'past' influence.

Why is there a distinction between 'human being' and 'person'? Simply because a human being exists in natural reality, whereas a person only exists as a concept in society, because society is itself a concept...an 'idea' of abiding (consenting) to certain principles. Society cannot act against a human being without breaking natural and common law, but it can act through statutes against the 'person', but it must fulfill common law to do this, because of the way it affixes the personage (ie, status) of 'person' to human being, otherwise it is illegal. This opens up many cans of worms of implications. This is my understanding of the situation. Members are free to correct me in my errors.

Best wishes

[freedom_thoughts]

Tptb are not going to like this, but it's tough because it's out now and I'm going to burn it to dvd and get them passed around! A good idea if everyone did this too!

FANTASTIC idea .... just been given 25 cdr's by a friend who didn't need them, and didn't think I would need them either .... but this is a great idea for them!!

Burning this onto each of them as I type .... into the post to some friends in the morning .... I'm also going to pop down to my local friends work office and strategically leave some in some pigeon holes! :)

[helloperator]

What we wittnesed was a Man a Human Being who wants to break free from the very chains you rever.:(


What I witnessed was a guy with a one dimensional message delivered in almost a 'rah rah' style....complete with emotive call to arms type tones and the usual jokey jokes that any moron could understand...stupid jokes like (not that this was one of the jokes) stuff about 'the missus'...I mean this kind of 'lets all sit in a room and listen to someone blow off our steam and clap like monkeys when we hear a certain tone in his voice or when we hear the volume go up or when we hear stuff like "we're not gonna take it no more"...that kind of crap. He's obviously preaching to the converted...so it's like a big group grope love in let's allput our hands in each other's pockets and wakl down the street together united! It's rah rah stuff...it's kids stuff. Is he helping people to learn? I don't think so.

[darryl84]

Darryl84:

Darryl, when you were born, you were not born a 'person', but as a 'human being'...that is your natural condition and sovereignty. Your parents may have decided prior to your birth what they were going to name you. So, Darryl (surname) applies to the human being. What does not apply to you as a human being is 'mister', 'master', or 'esquire', as these are titles of status. Human being is not a status, but a condition of existence.

When your parents named you, a common law (I believe) stated that you had to be registered, and so you are given a birth certificate, on which relevant details are applied that record details applicable to you as a human being. However, what the birth certificate does is to add 'status' to your condition as a human being, thus you then enter society as a 'person', where not only natural and common law prevail upon you, but also, societal statutes...which are quite distinct from natural and common law, because societal statutes are contractual agreements. For societal statutes to apply to you, you must first consent to subject yourself to them, and you can only do this as a 'person', not as a human being...certainly not just after birth, because you haven't learned to talk and reason things out yet. How do you know (just after birth) what is agreeable in the statements of a statute, and thus make a 'informed' consent to them? Obviously, you don't, can't know.

You cannot live in any form of society as a human being, you must be a 'person' to do that, and equally you must consent to the statutes of that society. Your parents, from your birth to an age when you begin to reason and understand, guide you on your behalf in the basic understandings of natural and common law, with sprinklings of societal statutes thrown in. Even they did (or do) not fully appreciate the distinctions between natural and common law and societal statutes, that the former are applicable to you as a human being, but that the latter is only applicable to you as a person.

I remember, just prior to leaving school, receiving my 'National Insurance Number' (NIN), perhaps it was the same for you? This meant that society deemed that I was of an age where I could represent myself as a 'person', and be reviewed by my peers on my actions, without any recourse to criticism of my parents. They could not be blamed for anything I did against society from thereon, but only be considered as a 'past' influence.

Why is there a distinction between 'human being' and 'person'? Simply because a human being exists in natural reality, whereas a person only exists as a concept in society, because society is itself a concept...an 'idea' of abiding (consenting) to certain principles. Society cannot act against a human being without breaking natural and common law, but it can act through statutes against the 'person', but it must fulfill common law to do this, because of the way it affixes the personage (ie, status) of 'person' to human being, otherwise it is illegal. This opens up many cans of worms of implications. This is my understanding of the situation. Members are free to correct me in my errors.

Best wishes


Thank you for taking time to present information. I understand the concepts of freeman-on-the-land, however, i am trying to find all the official sources that support those concepts. I.e, the specific laws in common and natural law that highlight the supra lawfully, because, as i understand the terminologies, a human being is still subject to common and natural law.

[norfolk boy]

Thanks to John and Dondaz this is great stuff!
I like John Harris' infectious and passionate speeches however I feel that he is not a naturally gifted communicator and the emotion behind his words clouds the issue a little. Thats not a knock John - we need you and I admire you for doing this.:)

Basically there is one central fact in what he is saying that is all powerful:
We are humans - men or women - not persons. We only assume the persona by consenting to do so.

He presents some other interesting facts about legalese and the corporate nature of the country and government too which is interesting, however these make the subject appear more complicated than needs be.

The issue that needs to be more clearly explained, developed and focused on here is the 'adoption' of the persona, and how it may or may not be enforced upon us. I bleieve that in theory - even though we have been given a statutory personality at birth - we can differentiate between ourselves as men or women and that persona at any given time, e.g......

Police officer: 'what is your name?'
Man or woman: 'The name of the person is blah blah, but that is not me I am a man/woman'

We can further disassociate ourselves with the person by not declaring our residence at a registered address - thereby not giving them a cross reference (this point is touched on by John).

I believe that this central tennet of his talk needs to be made easier for people to relate to day to day situations e.g. If I say to the tax man 'no I wont pay tax because I'm a man and not the person whom you are giving notice to pay' will I be locked up? Can they not touch me if I make this declaration? What beneficial rights in society could I possibly be rescinding?

I first heard about this through a brilliant post where man got off of paying a speeding fine here is the link to the actual correspondence:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=17457187#post17457187 I think this may be on tpuc website also.

Would this work if my house was being repossesed?
What wording should I use to refuse paying my council tax, make baliffs go away etc etc?

We need to hear some scenarios, read the legalese that we can fight them back with. I hear what you are saying Yohzik in your signature - we need to study the law in order to free ourselves from it, but the reality is (and how tptb mean't it to be) few of us have time to study it. We need people like John to disseminate - he does a great job - but we need more, facts, ammo, we need to be sure of how to conduct ourselves at the moment of enforcement/submission. Cos fo sho they trying to screw us!;)

[mondo23]

What I witnessed was a guy with a one dimensional message delivered in almost a 'rah rah' style....complete with emotive call to arms type tones and the usual jokey jokes that any moron could understand...stupid jokes like (not that this was one of the jokes) stuff about 'the missus'...I mean this kind of 'lets all sit in a room and listen to someone blow off our steam and clap like monkeys when we hear a certain tone in his voice or when we hear the volume go up or when we hear stuff like "we're not gonna take it no more"...that kind of crap. He's obviously preaching to the converted...so it's like a big group grope love in let's allput our hands in each other's pockets and wakl down the street together united! It's rah rah stuff...it's kids stuff. Is he helping people to learn? I don't think so.

Would you have taken him more seriously if he was wearing a tie?

[flip side]

Thank you Dondaz for this, interesting information. Quick question, if the police ask for your name and you do not give it to them can they arrest you? If so and you still do not give your name at any point what are their procedures?

Cheers :)

[resistance]

Would you have taken him more seriously if he was wearing a tie?

Lol..or maybe if his name was Obama.

[ex sheep]

What I witnessed was a guy with a one dimensional message delivered in almost a 'rah rah' style....complete with emotive call to arms type tones and the usual jokey jokes that any moron could understand...stupid jokes like (not that this was one of the jokes) stuff about 'the missus'...I mean this kind of 'lets all sit in a room and listen to someone blow off our steam and clap like monkeys when we hear a certain tone in his voice or when we hear the volume go up or when we hear stuff like "we're not gonna take it no more"...that kind of crap. He's obviously preaching to the converted...so it's like a big group grope love in let's allput our hands in each other's pockets and wakl down the street together united! It's rah rah stuff...it's kids stuff. Is he helping people to learn? I don't think so.

No, what you see is a guy, who knew something was not right early on in his life and began to question everything, he fell out of the "education system" and chose his own path. Just because he say's it like it is and he has not been "educated with a lot of crap as we all have been since birth" you seem to think that you could do better.
You are trying to ridicule a down to earth human being, and yet he is doing something that you could not. Yeh right.
and your name calling people monkeys and morons, I think you need to look in the mirror.(cause you watched it too)

[freedom_thoughts]

It's rah rah stuff...it's kids stuff. Is he helping people to learn? I don't think so.

You must know everything there is to know about Common Law, Commercial Law etc then if you think it is all kids stuff and is not helping people learn?

If you also think he is not helping people to learn, then how come since coming across the information he has pointed me towards I now realise that I don't have to pay various fines or for various licenses to do anything.

I've always felt it was wrong to apply for licenses to do or use 'things' that I have worked sweat and blood to create or own... 'things' that I should be allowed to do/use as a human being without licenses, and now that I have watched this documentary from John I now 'know' that I don't 'have' to apply for these licenses.

I also now know what various fines/penalty charges really are and why that most of them if not all of them are not really upholding the law when they are issued, they are only being issued to make profit for a corporation.

I could go on and on, but I 'know' that I have learned from John Harris and the information he has offered on Common Law etc.

[freedom_thoughts]

Thank you Dondaz for this, interesting information. Quick question, if the police ask for your name and you do not give it to them can they arrest you? If so and you still do not give your name at any point what are their procedures?

Cheers :)

As far as I know, they can't arrest you for just not giving your name. If they approached you and you didn't co-operate with them by given them any of your 'persons' details, then they will probably make something up and arrest you for that instead.

Then, as far as I know, they can keep you for anything up to 72hrs in detention (a cell) and then barring being held under the suspicion of being a terrorist they cannot hold you for any longer.

As long as you keep quiet, and just keep your head down during the time you are arrested and in a cell then they cannot do anything to you and will let you go after a short amount of time.

Which for me is much better than bending over to them and letting them 'shaft' you in every possible way.

Being banged up in a cell for a couple of days is nothing (and yes it's happened to me a couple of times) ... it's nothing compared to co-operating with the bullshit that they try to pin on you.

[devanshoom]

What I witnessed was a guy with a one dimensional message delivered in almost a 'rah rah' style....complete with emotive call to arms type tones and the usual jokey jokes that any moron could understand...stupid jokes like (not that this was one of the jokes) stuff about 'the missus'...I mean this kind of 'lets all sit in a room and listen to someone blow off our steam and clap like monkeys when we hear a certain tone in his voice or when we hear the volume go up or when we hear stuff like "we're not gonna take it no more"...that kind of crap. He's obviously preaching to the converted...so it's like a big group grope love in let's allput our hands in each other's pockets and wakl down the street together united! It's rah rah stuff...it's kids stuff. Is he helping people to learn? I don't think so.

I thought the same thing...he comes across as a bit of a "alwight guvner" type with a strong cockney accent....and for this reason maybe some people would not take him seriously...but fuck it....that is him and he makes no attempt to put on airs or pretend to be something he isnt... he seems very genuine and has some excellent information and thats enough for me.

people clap during icke's brixton seminars also...never heard anyone complain about that

[steevo]

Thanks Dondaz, I will download this and keep it.

[flip side]

As far as I know, they can't arrest you for just not giving your name. If they approached you and you didn't co-operate with them by given them any of your 'persons' details, then they will probably make something up and arrest you for that instead.

Then, as far as I know, they can keep you for anything up to 72hrs in detention (a cell) and then barring being held under the suspicion of being a terrorist they cannot hold you for any longer.

As long as you keep quiet, and just keep your head down during the time you are arrested and in a cell then they cannot do anything to you and will let you go after a short amount of time.

Which for me is much better than bending over to them and letting them 'shaft' you in every possible way.



Being banged up in a cell for a couple of days is nothing (and yes it's happened to me a couple of times) ... it's nothing compared to co-operating with the bullshit that they try to pin on you.

Cheers FT...I'm with you on that...much better to say nothing and sit it out than getting swabbed and fingerprinted for their big brother database!

[uncleknobhead]

What I witnessed was a guy with a one dimensional message delivered in almost a 'rah rah' style....complete with emotive call to arms type tones and the usual jokey jokes that any moron could understand...stupid jokes like (not that this was one of the jokes) stuff about 'the missus'...I mean this kind of 'lets all sit in a room and listen to someone blow off our steam and clap like monkeys when we hear a certain tone in his voice or when we hear the volume go up or when we hear stuff like "we're not gonna take it no more"...that kind of crap. He's obviously preaching to the converted...so it's like a big group grope love in let's allput our hands in each other's pockets and wakl down the street together united! It's rah rah stuff...it's kids stuff. Is he helping people to learn? I don't think so.


My information here is what i saw and what i intuitively felt.
I spoke to John outside before his talk and saw a man passionate about what he had learnt and what he felt.
I listened to his talk and after went for a fag outside and saw John again.
Iv'e not watched the video but saw John in tears unable to answer questions after his talk because of his emotions that day and again saw him outside for a fag. John was clearly emotional and i witnessed several people hug him and thank him for his info. This to me was very real and for me emotional.
John may not be Oxford or Cambridge ecucated but he spoke very conscicenly
about a subject that to me is one of the most important within the fringe movement so far.
What he spoke about concerns our own self empowerment once we educate ourselves and he deserves enourmous respect for that.
Enormous respect for John and what he has help create.

[miked]

Thank you Dondaz for this, interesting information. Quick question, if the police ask for your name and you do not give it to them can they arrest you? If so and you still do not give your name at any point what are their procedures?

Cheers :)

I have been engaging my local police over this very issue and I am preparing to instigate proceedings against various officers for commiting fraud in regards to this issue.

I have, on record, two fficers, one a sergeant, at my local PACT meeting refusing to answer my question about wether anyone is obliged to furnish any details to them when asked.

You just have to open your eyes a little and use your own mind. Before you are arrested you are informed of your lawful position - " You have the RIGHT to remain silent..."

I have since recorded a telephone conversation I had with my local duty sergent. In this conversation he very clearly TELLS THE TRUTH!!

He stated that the police can ONLY police by consent! Another duty sergeant I spoke to said that they have to get a name when someone is being detained otherwise they can't bring ant charges.

I suggest you find your local PACT meeting and start engaging your local police. Remember, they are just human beings! They don't know the law and it is our job to educate them!


Check this link for more info and watch all three vids before they disappears!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGHQDquNkro&feature=PlayList&p=C3DF69DFF5EA9CF8&index=0&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE8rfefPQ24&feature=PlayList&p=C3DF69DFF5EA9CF8&index=12

Aslo watch the following recorded by Dondaz and note that after the first initial contact the male police officer has with his duty oficer on his radio, he , and the women PO, keeping asking for a name (also note how the WPO walks around with her hands in her pockets- arogant little?'?**)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas

Still loving this one Dondaz!!!

Mike

[miked]

What I witnessed was a guy with a one dimensional message delivered in almost a 'rah rah' style....complete with emotive call to arms type tones and the usual jokey jokes that any moron could understand...stupid jokes like (not that this was one of the jokes) stuff about 'the missus'...I mean this kind of 'lets all sit in a room and listen to someone blow off our steam and clap like monkeys when we hear a certain tone in his voice or when we hear the volume go up or when we hear stuff like "we're not gonna take it no more"...that kind of crap. He's obviously preaching to the converted...so it's like a big group grope love in let's allput our hands in each other's pockets and wakl down the street together united! It's rah rah stuff...it's kids stuff. Is he helping people to learn? I don't think so.

All you see when you have your head firmly lodge up yours arse is nothing, its very dark up there! The other FACT is that when frequenting this place on a regular basis everything smells of shit!

It is only when you choose to remove said cerebral vessel from ones rectum that you begin to see a bigger, multi-dimensional picture and soon you will start to smell the roses of creation!

Talking generally of course:)

Mike

[nirvana]

Is there anywhere i can buy these dvds dondas?


peace:)

[informationx]

I was a bit suspect of Harris when I first watched him. I thought "Your having a laugh son!"

But really its not about the personality of the speaker. Ive been finding out for myself whether what he says is true, or bullshit.

The main principles seem ok, although im not convinced about the birth certificates. To that end ive just purchased a book about the history of the general register office - so I can find out more.

He seems like a decent man who is trying his best to get a message accross. Although differences of opinion must be allowed to surface without people on this forum saying "OOhh you must be a dis-info agent" if you dont agree. LOL

Cheers.

[miked]

I was a bit suspect of Harris when I first watched him. I thought "Your having a laugh son!"

But really its not about the personality of the speaker. Ive been finding out for myself whether what he says is true, or bullshit.

The main principles seem ok, although im not convinced about the birth certificates. To that end ive just purchased a book about the history of the general register office - so I can find out more.

He seems like a decent man who is trying his best to get a message accross. Although differences of opinion must be allowed to surface without people on this forum saying "OOhh you must be a dis-info agent" if you dont agree. LOL

Cheers.

Remember this

If you are in court and you ask a question that is then not answered you have the RIGHT to answer it for them. Don't bother reading a book on what someone else thinks about the GRO, start doing what I am doing and ring round, ask questions and use your own mind to decide. We all want to sit back whilst someone else mows the lawn! Well, some at least!

I have my own PROOF regarding this birth certificate issue and if you wish I can share it with you.

Ask yourself this

If I have phoned the GRO and asked them to explain the certifictes I have in my possession and they say they can't, what does that tell you!

When I first heard about the birth certificate I just thought 'no way!', it was having sat up until 4am watching Rob Menards videos. Since then I have found NO ONE WHO ARGUES THAT THIS IS NOT TRUE BUT LOTS THAT ARGUE THAT IT IS!

Don't let someone else cut your grass, they will never get the stripes right;)!?! (don't ask what this means, it just sounded funny at the time)

Another area I wanted to research was the claim of right. When I first heard of this I thought ' OK, lets have a look at a claim of right for something else and see how the doccument works, if its even real!

If you want to see what a real claim of right looks like I suggest you go to the National Museum of Scotland and have a look at the Scottish Claim of Right. I am currently in discussions with the Scottish Parliament about this doccument as the article that is on display in the museum is only the first page. The Scottish Parliament have confirmed that the full doccement is contained in 4 very large books which they have for safe keeping. I am in the propcess of arranging a viewing as they are Public records.

I suggest you give the Scottish Parliament a ring on 0131 348 5300 and ask for a viewing. It will be interesting to see who has signed it, when and by whom it was notarised by and who it was originally served upon!

All goods stuff!

Information does not enpower you, it is the desire to know the truth that gives you the ultimate power!


Peace and best wishes to you all!

Mike

[miked]

Common Law, Civil Law, Admiralty law, Commercial Law, Roman Law and UCC

They are all the same thing! Why? Because they are ALL LAWS! Where does the word Law come from?

We need to start taking this one to the next level I think!

Peace allways, because there is no other way!

Mike

[gremlin]

i looked at my birth certificate and it didn't have anything what harris is saying should have on it, why?

Am i free from the co-orporation:D

[miked]

i looked at my birth certificate and it didn't have anything what harris is saying should have on it, why?

Am i free from the co-orporation:D

I don't remember John saying it should have anything on it! Does anyone else?

Cheers

Mike

[who elsie]

Yes, a great presentation, with some important factual info. Icke has touched on this sort of thing in his books/newsletters, but not in as much depth. It just goes to show that we are being screwed in even more ways than we thought, but what can we do about it?

Mr Harris seemed to be suggesting that we all burn our birth certificates, as if this will make a difference. It won't make any difference - your birth will still be registered - and as far as I'm aware, you can't de-register your birth. Besides, having no birth certificate just makes you more of a prisoner, not less. I admire his passion, but we need more workable solutions to this problem.

[baron von lotsov]

I saw John speak at stoke.
My daughter and myself were reduced to tears,we have never seen a speaker more passionate and meaningful as we did that day.
It's one we will never forget,we spread the word at every opportunity.
Thanks for posting the great vids we have been looking forward to them.

So the facts won't stand on their own two feet. Oh well, if school teaches you to judge the validity of something by assessing the amount of passion then you are well on your way to being screwed! You have been warned.

[baron von lotsov]

Amazing!
Truly wonderful, simply laid out, even I understood it.;)

Thanks to every body involved.

But would a judge understand it?

[freedom_thoughts]

Yes, a great presentation, with some important factual info. Icke has touched on this sort of thing in his books/newsletters, but not in as much depth. It just goes to show that we are being screwed in even more ways than we thought, but what can we do about it?

Mr Harris seemed to be suggesting that we all burn our birth certificates, as if this will make a difference. It won't make any difference - your birth will still be registered - and as far as I'm aware, you can't de-register your birth. Besides, having no birth certificate just makes you more of a prisoner, not less. I admire his passion, but we need more workable solutions to this problem.

From what I know so far the BC we can obtain from the GRO is only a certified copies.

I think John and others are looking into actually getting the original.

I do agree destroying it will not achieve anything, but I think that John and others intend to use the BC for other purposes.

I think by having the orginal you can ensure you have all the correct numbers on it that have been supposedly used to create your bond. And by only having a certified copy you cannot be 100% sure.

But then I don't see how we can be 100% sure that what we have in our hands would be the original BC once we think we have it either.

[gremlin]

I don't remember John saying it should have anything on it! Does anyone else?

Cheers

Mike

anyone else????????????????????????????????

maybe you should watch it again:D

[baron von lotsov]

I was a bit suspect of Harris when I first watched him. I thought "Your having a laugh son!"

But really its not about the personality of the speaker. Ive been finding out for myself whether what he says is true, or bullshit.

The main principles seem ok, although im not convinced about the birth certificates. To that end ive just purchased a book about the history of the general register office - so I can find out more.

He seems like a decent man who is trying his best to get a message accross. Although differences of opinion must be allowed to surface without people on this forum saying "OOhh you must be a dis-info agent" if you dont agree. LOL

Cheers.


People on this board have gone one step further. I presented some evidence that the Freeman stuff is rubbish, but I am being ignored completely.

You people are strange. I'd even go as far as to say cult material, because that is how a cultist behaves when shown the ways of the cult are unsound. They blank it out.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49768&page=6

None of this stuff, to my knowledge, has ever succeeded in a court of law. You wonder how the few can control the many, well wonder no more. Dumbing down is making it a pushover.

[freedom_thoughts]

People on this board have gone one step further. I presented some evidence that the Freeman stuff is rubbish, but I am being ignored completely.

You people are strange. I'd even go as far as to say cult material, because that is how a cultist behaves when shown the ways of the cult are unsound. They blank it out.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49768&page=6

None of this stuff, to my knowledge, has ever succeeded in a court of law. You wonder how the few can control the many, well wonder no more. Dumbing down is making it a pushover.

As I see it baron you have not presented any evidence that the Freeman stuff is rubbish to me, simply because you cannot.

Freeman stuff to me is based on universal, unchallengable rights, not laws, but rights.

These rights are that I can do what I want, when I want where ever I want aslong as I do no harm or cause no loss to another human being.

These are not laws, these are rights, given to me by myself, not some fictious government nor anyone else.

And no one, not you, nor any government can take these away from me because I will not let you as I have a choice and I do not choose to allow you take anything away from me.

Therefore, if I want to travel around this earth I am free to do so when I want when ever I want to do so, using whatever transporting method I see fit, for as long as I see fit, and as long as I cause no harm or loss to another human being, I will continue on my merry little way.

Unfortunately this government that thinks it is in charge or me and can tell me what to do will challenge me whenever it can, and it will challenge me in a language I do not understand.

The language is my language, this being english, but it is a perverted and distorted version of my english. One that I do not recognise nor acknowledge and therefore choose to not obey.

It will try and force me to do things it wants me to do, and the only reason it wants me to do these things is to make itself money. Something that it itself created and also something that I recognise as having no value to me, therefore I have no need for it.

I will never consent to allow this government to force me to agree to anything, I will never unwittingly give my consent to this government to do anything to me or for me.

It does not have to succeed in one of their courts of law, because I do not recognise their courts of law, and will never willing enter one of their courts of law, because their law means nothing to me.

The people in control of this country and world will never be able to force me to do anything regardless of what laws they pass, the only thing they can do to me is physically put me into a jail.

If that day comes, then so be it, but I will enter that jail knowing that I am more of a freeman than you will ever be. Because I choose to not allow someone else to control me and tell me what I can and cannot do.

I do not need to provide proof of this to you, nor do I wish to, I live my life the way I choose to. You obviously prefer to be told what to do when you are told to do it, and that is the way you choose to live you life ... to me that makes you a slave, and I pity you for that.

If you are seeking freedom, the only way you can find that freedom is by walking down that path yourself.

From all of your responses you appear to not want to walk down this path yourself because you are afraid. You are afraid of having to think for yourself, you are afraid of being responsible for yourself.

If you were not afraid you would not be questioning your right to freedom to do what you want, when you want.

[hew1]

John Harris, founder of TPUC, filmed at the "Lawful Rebellion" Conference, The British Constiution Group, Stoke-on-Trent, 24th january 2009 by BBC5.tv.live.

I have posted it in general because it's very important info here. John covers how the uk government and its affiliates are all just private corporations. He does a fantastic job of explaining how the uk police really work and some of the methods used to 'police' us, what their duties really are and how they are being subverted. Legalese and the person. Parents, child stealing and the BC and how it really works works. What regisration is, very important this. There's a lot of great areas he covers and does it very well. Very important info folks, do not miss this!

John has a great way of getting his message across. This is serious, funny and emotional. This is his best work I have seen so far. 50 minutes of awesomeness!

10 out of 10. Very well filmed and edited too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b0n3W0B6E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7jtxpp4rQo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mExeq5Yyg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIUMOyp-Pj4

A great job by the BBC5tv team. Fantastic effort!

http://www.youtube.com/BBC5tv (http://www.youtube.com/BBC5tv)

Comments welcome:)
hate computers as i do not know how to work them.have been a member here for a couple of years now;I only browse .anyway , mr harris i salute you.This is our ticket to Freedom.Lets all get educated ,unite and start to be free andlove eachother

[yozhik]

People on this board have gone one step further. I presented some evidence that the Freeman stuff is rubbish, but I am being ignored completely.

Is it any wonder ???

When you then state opinions like this ...


None of this stuff, to my knowledge, has ever succeeded in a court of law.

Never succeeded in a court of law?
Oh my God !! Never succeeded in a court of law????
Wow ... that's really, really, REALLY, really ... ummm ... pathetic of you.
Baron, if you actually studied the Freeman information, you would understand that the court system is "rubbish" ... it's all just a deception, which you appear to have swallowed - hook, line and sinker.

You have dismissed the Freeman movement because it doesn't "stand up" to your yardstick; the decisions of a fraudulent, corrupt, self serving private corporation.

Well, Freemen around the world dismiss your court system and call it what it is.

I do agree with your final statement though ...

You wonder how the few can control the many, well wonder no more. Dumbing down is making it a pushover.

The few is the social elite.
The many is people like you; who ignorantly hold onto the status quo - unquestioning, slaves who prefer the comfort of their benefits and privileges given to them instead of taking responsibility.
The dumbing down is illustrated perfectly with your "repeater" rhetoric.
Your public confession is duly noted.


.

[baron von lotsov]

As I see it baron you have not presented any evidence that the Freeman stuff is rubbish to me, simply because you cannot.

Freeman stuff to me is based on universal, unchallengable rights, not laws, but rights.

These rights are that I can do what I want, when I want where ever I want aslong as I do no harm or cause no loss to another human being.



That sounds like anarchy to me. Anyway, who defines what you mean by no harm/loss?

[baron von lotsov]

Is it any wonder ???

When you then state opinions like this ...



Never succeeded in a court of law?
Oh my God !! Never succeeded in a court of law????
Wow ... that's really, really, REALLY, really ... ummm ... pathetic of you.
Baron, if you actually studied the Freeman information, you would understand that the court system is "rubbish" ... it's all just a deception, which you appear to have swallowed - hook, line and sinker.

You have dismissed the Freeman movement because it doesn't "stand up" to your yardstick; the decisions of a fraudulent, corrupt, self serving private corporation.

Well, Freemen around the world dismiss your court system and call it what it is.

I do agree with your final statement though ...



The few is the social elite.
The many is people like you; who ignorantly hold onto the status quo - unquestioning, slaves who prefer the comfort of their benefits and privileges given to them instead of taking responsibility.
The dumbing down is illustrated perfectly with your "repeater" rhetoric.
Your public confession is duly noted.


.

What makes you think you are wiser than the majority?

[yozhik]

What makes you think you are wiser than the majority?

Using that logic; do you still subscribe to the official version of 9/11 and 7/7 ?
The "majority" do.

I'm surprised you ask this question, given your earlier assertion that "the many" are, according to you, dumbed down.

Do you believe in the current system Baron?
Do you believe that a human being has the right to bestow rights upon you and remove liberties from you Baron?
Are you a supporter of a justice system that is designed for profit and conducted in a foreign language by a small, elitist society Baron?
Do you understand the difference between a living soul and a person Baron?
Do you know what your unalienable rights are Baron?



.

[baron von lotsov]

The majority of what? The many that according to you have been dumbed down?
Do you believe in the current system Baron?
Do you believe that a human being has the right to bestow rights upon you and remove liberties from you Baron?
Are you a supporter of a justice system that is designed for profit and conducted in a foreign language by a small, elitist society Baron?
Do you understand the difference between a living soul and a person Baron?
Do you know what your unalienable rights are Baron?



.


Yes, I think that an organised society is more productive than complete chaos, and by accepting some rules I benefit more than if I had to completely fend for myself. I base this on my knowledge of history, and such a society that you recommend would mean I would be dead by now. Go and check the life expectancy of the population in pre-industrial times, and then look at pre-civilisation times. People used to starve on a regular basis. Life was extremely hard and that is why we chose a long time ago to become civilised. Some nations managed better than others and Britain was top of the pecking order. Hungary wasn't.

[freedom_thoughts]

That sounds like anarchy to me. Anyway, who defines what you mean by no harm/loss?

Call it what 'you' want to call it, I call it freedom.

Freedom to live as I should be allowed to live, to roam where I should be allowed to roam. Borders and boundaries have been erected to control my movements to enslave me, I say that is not freedom.

Who defines what I mean by no harm and loss, well of course I do, as only I have control over my own life and no one else does.

I define what it means to 'me' to mean by no harm and no loss, no one else can tell me what it means.

To me no harm means to not take another human beings life, to not injure another human being, to not cause them pain physically, mentally or emotionally.

To me no loss means to not take another humans beings possessions, to not take something that they have obtained honestly. To not cause them loss of something that they value that they have obtained honestly.

The list goes on, but hopefully you get the idea.

I do believe that you will find a number of other freemen in this world that will also take what I have said to mean the same things when it comes to harm and loss.

Not exactly but they will be along the same lines.

At the end of the day no harm and no loss are basic rights that every single living human being has from the day they are created or born into this world, no one and nothing can take them away.

Any other rules that are put on top of these basic rights must be agreed to and given consent to by the human being they are being put on.

Therefore any rules that the human being does not give consent or agree to be put on them are not valid and the human being does not have to abide by them.

[freedom_thoughts]

Yes, I think that an organised society is more productive than complete chaos, and by accepting some rules I benefit more than if I had to completely fend for myself. I base this on my knowledge of history, and such a society that you recommend would mean I would be dead by now. Go and check the life expectancy of the population in pre-industrial times, and then look at pre-civilisation times. People used to starve on a regular basis. Life was extremely hard and that is why we chose a long time ago to become civilised. Some nations managed better than others and Britain was top of the pecking order. Hungary wasn't.

There you go my friend baron, you have said it loud and clear .... Britain was top of the pecking order.

Therefore giving the impression that you believe in status.

Status meaning that someone is better than some else and therefore is above them.

How can that be in a fair and free world?

It wasn't why 'we' chose to become civilised because we would starve. It was because we were forced to become civilised by people who saught to enforce their power and will over us.

You have obviously chosen to believe in the writing of a number of history books that have been written in a way that does not convey the complete and utter truth of our history, that is unfortunate, but that is of course up to you.

If you honestly believe that people could not live on a piece of land, have their own shelter, grow their own food all on their own without starving, and 'had' to become civilised or they would die, then really you are lost as a human being my friend, there really is no hope for you, I feel sorry you my friend, I really do.

[informationx]

From what I know so far the BC we can obtain from the GRO is only a certified copies.

I think John and others are looking into actually getting the original.

I do agree destroying it will not achieve anything, but I think that John and others intend to use the BC for other purposes.

I think by having the orginal you can ensure you have all the correct numbers on it that have been supposedly used to create your bond. And by only having a certified copy you cannot be 100% sure.

But then I don't see how we can be 100% sure that what we have in our hands would be the original BC once we think we have it either.

Ive spoken to the GRO, and they say the copy is exactly the same as the original they keep. Ive found no evidence so far of a BOND. You can get your original from the local register where you were born.

Cheers.

[baron von lotsov]

There you go my friend baron, you have said it loud and clear .... Britain was top of the pecking order.

Therefore giving the impression that you believe in status.

Status meaning that someone is better than some else and therefore is above them.

How can that be in a fair and free world?

It wasn't why 'we' chose to become civilised because we would starve. It was because we were forced to become civilised by people who saught to enforce their power and will over us.

You have obviously chosen to believe in the writing of a number of history books that have been written in a way that does not convey the complete and utter truth of our history, that is unfortunate, but that is of course up to you.

If you honestly believe that people could not live on a piece of land, have their own shelter, grow their own food all on their own without starving, and 'had' to become civilised or they would die, then really you are lost as a human being my friend, there really is no hope for you, I feel sorry you my friend, I really do.

Yes I do think what you outline in the last paragraph. Take the tractor for example. It can plough 40 times the amount of land that a horse drawn plough could do. You work it out and explain how your system would have managed to invent the tractor. I mean you need an oil refinery for one thing!

[hey_jude]

Ive spoken to the GRO, and they say the copy is exactly the same as the original they keep. Ive found no evidence so far of a BOND. You can get your original from the local register where you were born.

Cheers.

And what was their explanation for using the Government BOND paper to print the copy B.C. on?
Afterall it's just a certified copy?

[yozhik]

Some nations managed better than others and Britain was top of the pecking order. Hungary wasn't.

Baron, this is a rather juvenile attempt to assert some ridiculous notion of superiority. The only reason you have singled Hungary out is because you have seen it in my profile.

Apart from a pathetic and unnecessary attempt at argumentum ad hominem, it is also bigotry.

For your information I choose to live with my family in Hungary; we are not Hungarian. Not that it is any of your business; but obviously from your introducing of the matter, you have decided to make it your business.

Life expectancy has more to do with the advancement of medicine than it has the retracement of freedoms, rights and liberties ... as you would try and have us believe. Having a structured society does not have to mean a master/slave structure - as you appear to covet so passionately.

May I suggest a little less blustering and a little more substance?


Peace and respect.


.

[norfolk boy]

Hey everybody - this thread started with some interesting and radical info, please do not let it descend into personal bickering. It's been made a sticky and we must keep the flow of discussion around the original original topic, and do justice to the source material. If someone comes onto the thread and challenges what John has said we must examine their case.

To that end Baron would you mind going through the evidence that you have provided here on this thread that the freeman laws do not stand up. Please give us an idea of how you come to have an understanding of the 'law' in order to make this statement. I had a look at the links that you posted where you siad you were being ignored but could not see reference to freeman subject of Johns talk. Let us not confuse this issue with the greater issue of our memebership of the EU. If the EU legislation affects directly our universal 'god given' rights as humans and not 'persons' would you mind explaining this. This is not a dig at you or sarcasm - it seems from your posts that you feel you have an understanding of this issue, please share them in detail and relate them directly to the freeman laws as I mentioned above.

[freedom_thoughts]

Yes I do think what you outline in the last paragraph. Take the tractor for example. It can plough 40 times the amount of land that a horse drawn plough could do. You work it out and explain how your system would have managed to invent the tractor. I mean you need an oil refinery for one thing!

My system is not 'my' system at all my friend. It is the normal natural system that has existed for millenia and will continue to do so forever for all beings, human and animal, to be able eat off of the land.

I think that it is the only system that is truly sustainable for the planet we live on.

It is regardless that a machine can plough 40 times the amount of land that a horse can ... the tractor should not exist and should definately not be ploughing up 40 times of anything.

The tractor only exists because of humans desire to take more than what is sustainable, to dominate its surroundings all because most humans think they are superior to the natural world.

The tractor only exists by the destruction of the land, by taking from the land much more than we should have.

I do not disagree that we should be able to take anything that we want from the earth, but only aslong as it is done in a sustainable manner, and what we take does not effect any other beings on the planet adversly.

You seem to want to hold onto the destructive civilization that you have created, why is this?

Is it because you think you are superior to animals and the earth that you live on?

It seems that way.

[number_6]

To that end Baron would you mind going through the evidence that you have provided here on this thread that the freeman laws do not stand up.


I may be wrong, but I think the baron was asking for proof that the freeman concept has been used successfully in a Court in the UK. I myself have asked this question here, and had no answers. Can you, norfolk boy, show me any cases quoting Court name, date and case number of an instance where the freeman idea has been used with a positive outcome. Obviously, when I say Court I am referring to a Crown Court where you appear in front of a Judge.

[yozhik]

I may be wrong, but I think the baron was asking for proof that the freeman concept has been used successfully in a Court in the UK. I myself have asked this question here, and had no answers. Can you, norfolk boy, show me any cases quoting Court name, date and case number of an instance where the freeman idea has been used with a positive outcome. Obviously, when I say Court I am referring to a Crown Court where you appear in front of a Judge.

This assumes that the court system is just.
You are inferring that the Crown Court and its rulings are an absolute truth.
The decisions of a private, profit making corporation.

Oh yeah ... great logic.

While you're at it, why don't we list medieval case history of witches being burnt at the stake. Afterall, they were the adjudicators in a developing society, were they not?

Court justice has nothing to do with arguing what is right ... court argument and practise is about assessing probabilities based on historical judgement. Court judgements, at best, do little more than disprove the maxim; two wrongs do not make a right ... for it is only in the corrupt, trading-for-profit, corporate court system where, if two wrong decisions create precedent, (for which you will have your hallowed Court name, date and case number,) that the compounding "wrongs" become the future "right".

This blind faith in a corrupt system is mind numbing.


.

[norfolk boy]

No.6 - his words were 'I presented some evidence on here that the freeman stuff was all rubbish'. So yes you were wrong.

What stuff, where?

Like you no.6 I'm looking for more substance to do with this, and the reason I'm asking Baron is that I'd like to find out, like yourself. There are a couple of examples where the stating of human rights and refusing to be dealt with as a person has actually worked. I've read on the tpuc site about a guy let off a speeding ticket and a woman who walked free out of a court after they dropped the case after she refused to enter a plea. You can read about all these on the tpuc site. I know what a court is and I'm sure you didn't really expect to be given case numbers or any of the other details you ask for in your slightly insulting tone. I suggest you go and look into these 2 cases for yourself on the tpuc site and if you want verification you could probably get it by correspondece with the site and I think the woman may have offered to correspond with those wisshing to learn more.

Yozhik - I don't think the discussion about the court system being just or fit to judge anyone is what we are debating here. For the record I agree with you - they are all a bunch of corrupt fuckheads not fit pass pass judgement on my arse - but that is not the issue....what we want to know is WILL THIS REALLY WORK, WHAT IS THE WORDING NEEDED IN CERTAIN SCENARIOS.

[yozhik]

Yozhik - I don't think the discussion about the court system being just or fit to judge anyone is what we are debating here. For the record I agree with you - they are all a bunch of corrupt fuckheads not fit pass pass judgement on my arse - but that is not the issue....what we want to know is WILL THIS REALLY WORK, WHAT IS THE WORDING NEEDED IN CERTAIN SCENARIOS.

It is when the yardstick of whether something has credibility is itself incredible. The court scam is being held up as the litmus test as to whether the beliefs of Freemen; so whether or not the court system is "fit" is very relevant and at the very core of the issue.


.

[oiram]

Today I told my Employer I want to rip up our Contract because I am about to declare myself a FREEMAN. And I am no longer prepeared to pay taxes to a corporation which then uses my money to bomb and murder children in Iraq and elsewhere. I am not prepared to do that any more, in fact I never gave my consent to any of this they duped my parents.
I am not a freeman in the term but I am ........... I stopped working 5 years ago now I just help here & there & will never work for these criminals again until I die!
I am waiting for all to follow ..... if they can.

Yes we are the change & once there are many of us we will create the paradise we wish to have. But only together we will do it.

[norfolk boy]

It is when the yardstick of whether something has credibility is itself incredible. The court scam is being held up as the litmus test as to whether the beliefs of Freemen; so whether or not the court system is "fit" is very relevant and at the very core of the issue.


.

Of ourse the court system is not fit. That is a given. The relevant point here is how does one enact freeman principles when dealing with any official body - police, baliffs, tax office, banks ANY official body. What language will work, what examples are there, what specific phrases should be used in certain scenarios.

No one is 'holding up a litmus' to any beliefs, we are trying to thrash out some very practical down to earth situations so we all know what to do to enact our rights as freemen.

Are you a law student, have you made your own studies of the law?

[yozhik]

Are you a law student

No.
I prefer a more reputable vocation ... like the pursuit of under-age prodigies to satisfy my lolita porno fetish, particularly those with a penchants for water sports and scat.

I like to be able to look at myself in the mirror each morning with a clear conscience.


.

[number_6]

I've read on the tpuc site about a guy let off a speeding ticket and a woman who walked free out of a court after they dropped the case after she refused to enter a plea. You can read about all these on the tpuc site.

But both of those cases were heard in a magistrates court, which is irrelevant. Untrained locals dishing out sentences. I am asking about Crown Court where a Judge sits.

[yozhik]

But both of those cases were heard in a magistrates court, which is irrelevant. Untrained locals dishing out sentences. I am asking about Crown Court where a Judge sits.

What is it with this obsession with the crown court?
You're given an example, but then dismiss it as not up to your standards.

:D

Untrained locals

By this, do you mean unprogrammed, honest peers?
"untrained" = not "with the programme" ?

Do you have no shame?


.

[hagbard_celine]

Thanks for posting that, Dondaz.:) It sounds like a good conference and I wish I could have gone.

[baron von lotsov]

I think that it is the only system that is truly sustainable for the planet we live on.



Well you are in luck then. Indeed a neo-feudal system is just what they have in mind, c.f. the green propaganda initiative.

[number_6]

What is it with this obsession with the crown court?


If you understood the Magistrate system, you would not need to ask that question. Unlike a Magistrates Court a Crown Court is presided over by a Judge and deals with common law. A decision in a Crown Court sets a precedent (caselaw) and is used to set the law in future cases, as it is binding. Any dispute in future similar cases must follow the decision that was set before. This does not apply in a Magistrates Court.

[yozhik]

If you understood the Magistrate system, you would not need to ask that question. Unlike a Magistrates Court a Crown Court is presided over by a Judge and deals with common law. A decision in a Crown Court sets a precedent (caselaw) and is used to set the law in future cases, as it is binding. Any dispute in future similar cases must follow the decision that was set before. This does not apply in a Magistrates Court.

... and as I pointed out earlier to this ridiculous cyclic argument ...

Court justice has nothing to do with arguing what is right ... court argument and practise is about assessing probabilities based on historical judgement. Court judgements, at best, do little more than disprove the maxim; two wrongs do not make a right ... for it is only in the corrupt, trading-for-profit, corporate court system where, if two wrong decisions create precedent, (for which you will have your hallowed Court name, date and case number,) that the compounding "wrongs" become the future "right".

This blind faith in a corrupt system is mind numbing.

[number_6]

... and as I pointed out earlier to this ridiculous cyclic argument ...

Hmmm, so, I take it, there are no instances in the Crown Court?
As I have said before a decision in the magistrates has no meaning and does not set precedent.

[yozhik]

Hmmm, so, I take it, there are no instances in the Crown Court?


:D ... number 6 ... let it go.

Freeman belief in morality and the Crown Court's belief in revenue generation for ... ummmm, the Crown Court ... put them on diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum.

For the crown court to provide "instances" would be for the crown court to admit its a farce.

Noone is holding their breath.


.

[baron von lotsov]

If you understood the Magistrate system, you would not need to ask that question. Unlike a Magistrates Court a Crown Court is presided over by a Judge and deals with common law. A decision in a Crown Court sets a precedent (caselaw) and is used to set the law in future cases, as it is binding. Any dispute in future similar cases must follow the decision that was set before. This does not apply in a Magistrates Court.

No it doesn't. It has to be the High Court, Court of Appeal or the Law Lords.

[baron von lotsov]

Hey everybody - this thread started with some interesting and radical info, please do not let it descend into personal bickering. It's been made a sticky and we must keep the flow of discussion around the original original topic, and do justice to the source material. If someone comes onto the thread and challenges what John has said we must examine their case.

To that end Baron would you mind going through the evidence that you have provided here on this thread that the freeman laws do not stand up. Please give us an idea of how you come to have an understanding of the 'law' in order to make this statement. I had a look at the links that you posted where you siad you were being ignored but could not see reference to freeman subject of Johns talk. Let us not confuse this issue with the greater issue of our memebership of the EU. If the EU legislation affects directly our universal 'god given' rights as humans and not 'persons' would you mind explaining this. This is not a dig at you or sarcasm - it seems from your posts that you feel you have an understanding of this issue, please share them in detail and relate them directly to the freeman laws as I mentioned above.

I provided a link to a mainly ignored thread I have been running, which in turn links to a proper legal argument on another forum.

I can lead the horse to water but I can't make it drink it. there are serious errors in this Freeman stuff, the question is why.

[number_6]

:D ... number 6 ... let it go.


Is that the stock reply when somebody asks a question that cannot be answered?

No it doesn't. It has to be the High Court, Court of Appeal or the Law Lords.

Not true. Precedent is set when a High Court Judge is sitting in a Crown Court.

[pedsi]

I can lead the horse to water but I can't make it drink it. there are serious errors in this Freeman stuff, the question is why.

Could it possibly a way of creating a visible enemy within sort of scenario,where the government target the freemen in society as being a threat to the establishment and bestow their anti-terrorism legislation upon them....just a thought!

[number_6]

No it doesn't. It has to be the High Court, Court of Appeal or the Law Lords.

But, the High Court is only used for appeals from the magistrates court in criminal cases on a point of law. Otherwise the High Court is used in civil cases.

[yozhik]

Is that the stock reply when somebody asks a question that cannot be answered?


Your question has been answered ... many times ... you simply refuse to see it.
You're judging oranges by measuring apples.
You're blind to the simplicity of it.


.

[number_6]

Your question has been answered ... many times ... you simply refuse to see it.
[/COLOR]

Then I bow to your superior knowledge.
I just consider that it may be dangerous that some reading this forum may take advice from "internet lawyers" posting here, when faced with a Courtroom are mis-informed and suffer consequences that may be worse than they may have been. I will bow out now. Be seeing you.

[yozhik]

I just consider that it may be dangerous that some reading this forum may take advice from "internet lawyers" posting here, when faced with a Courtroom are mis-informed and suffer consequences that may be worse than they may have been.

I totally agree with you on this point.
You will get zero argument or debate from me regarding the very serious issue you have raised.


.

[baron von lotsov]

Could it possibly a way of creating a visible enemy within sort of scenario,where the government target the freemen in society as being a threat to the establishment and bestow their anti-terrorism legislation upon them....just a thought!


Yes, more than likely but there other scenarios as well. For example Freeman are anti-EU -> Freemen are wrong-> the EU is right. It's a bit of an intelligence agency kind of set-up and one of the main functions of disinfo. I wonder who told John Harris and who told that person.

[baron von lotsov]

Is that the stock reply when somebody asks a question that cannot be answered?



Not true. Precedent is set when a High Court Judge is sitting in a Crown Court.


I have never heard of that. Please would you quote the rule that makes that possible?

Here is something I found that gives the situation for civil law.

http://legal-directory.net/english-law/rules-of-precedent-civil-courts.htm

I thought that was what the Freeman business is about. Crown courts are normally for criminal law and to hear appeals from magistrates. A magistrates appeal has one Crown Court judge and normally three magistrates sitting with no jury. I did one of these and so I'm well aware of what it works like. I would have had to appeal to the High Court to overrule that decision if it had gone against me. Fortunately though I won, but it did not, and could not, set a precedent.

[norfolk boy]

Hi Baron -

A freemans law is much more fundamental than any statute, than the ruling of any court. It refutes the right of any court to pass judgement on a man or a woman as long as they are not causing harm or loss. You can argue about the definition of harm and loss but the relevant issue is that we as humans reject the authority of 'courts'. If we refuse to be summoned (invited) or to submit, or to understand (stand under) any order or instruction from a court they have no reply, no redress or procedure with which to deal with you.

This is very simple, the fundamental nature of this matter is exactly what cuts through all the bullshit. I had a look on your link and read through all the bitching between aggressive people, arguing complex law issues. Thanks for suggesting that link but I think you are missing the point with this freeman stuff. You are not being ignored and the other site does not readily explain why you think this freeman stuff is all rubbish. I asked for this thread to made a sticky so that it is not ignored, so if you think that freeman is rubbish here is the place to explain why - I'm really interested to learn and not being sarcastic at all - this needs to be challenged, so please tell me why, here in this thread that you think it is rubbish, share this information please we need to hear this.:)

[baron von lotsov]

It's the way it is being sold. I'll give you an analogy so that you can see how the same trick is being employed. Did you ever get to see the film 'What the Bleep do we know'? Well I can't say I have, but it has been on here enough times. That film was produced by a brainwashing cult, and they cherry picked issues from quantum physics and then they distorted it so that it was scientifically wrong, in their case the scale was out by millions of times, as I recall.

Now to a normal member of Joe Public such intricacies were nearly always overlooked, because none were physicists on here, (except me of course!) Anyway, the point being that it was using a complex discipline and using it as a cloak to mask the utter bullshit this cult was trying to convince people of. The reason was that the belief they were pushing was only for the purpose of brainwashing that person, in making them believe something that was utterly false. By using science (or abusing it to be more exact) they managed it with nearly everyone.

So the Freeman business, in my mind, has an ulterior motive embedded into it, and I think that is a political one. I think it is closest to anarchy but might be said to be an extreme form of liberalism. These political systems have been discussed for centuries, but they don't want direct discussion, they cloak it with a pseudo-legal bullshit so it is absolute and indisputable.

You might have noticed Aardvark on the other forum has a lot of experience in UKIP politics, he has stood for election, worked hard and is totally committed to getting out of the EU. The main point he was trying to make is you do what is practical; you don't set yourself up to be knocked down (strawman tactic!). Now that is where I have got so far, and I’m in the process of investigating. I strongly suspect this Freeman business has been manufactured by the enemy. I base that partly on the 'signature' it has, in that it seems to be following other similar elite bullshit theories such as peak oil. They have their spreaders of disinfo on the web, as I'm sure you are already aware. It seems like the method is very similar.

[adzboarder]

EXCELLENT SERIES!

Thank you Dondaz :)

[tien an]

No.
I prefer a more reputable vocation ... like the pursuit of under-age prodigies to satisfy my lolita porno fetish, particularly those with a penchants for water sports and scat.

I like to be able to look at myself in the mirror each morning with a clear conscience.


.

Where is the smiley crying with laughter, banging his fists on the floor when you need one!

[baron von lotsov]

Is that the stock reply when somebody asks a question that cannot be answered?



Not true. Precedent is set when a High Court Judge is sitting in a Crown Court.

So you have not provided the proof I asked for. Absolutely typical of a disinfo agent. You tell me my reply is a stock reply but you have no reply what so ever!

[arten]

Then I bow to your superior knowledge.
I just consider that it may be dangerous that some reading this forum may take advice from "internet lawyers" posting here, when faced with a Courtroom are mis-informed and suffer consequences that may be worse than they may have been. I will bow out now. Be seeing you.

Where are these internet lawyers m8? I don't see any and in all the clips I have watched with Harris, Menard et al they tell people you must do the search yourself and book up on Statues, Maritime Law, Common Law etc.
You are right about How Criminal Law is built on Case Law whereby High Court Judges issue Judgments that set a Precedent.
However, I don't think you and posters like the Baron have quite grasped what the Freeman philosophy is all about. There is a clip on Youtube of a woman who is claiming Free Status taking the oath in an American Court.
That is where the majority of people will full down. Harris and Menard have clearly shown that once you engage the legal system you have submitted to their will and your no more than chattel in their eyes.
If however, like Freemen you refuse to acknowledge that anyone has authority over you, then, they cannot act on you because You are a Human Being with Indelible Rights that are God Given.
The person they want to act on is a FICTION it does not really exist and if you refuse to co-operate then if it is not checkmate to you, it is Stalemate and the game ends in a draw.

[baron von lotsov]

I don't think you and posters like the Baron have quite grasped what the Freeman philosophy is all about.

I'm beginning to suspect it is a red herring deliberately constructed to throw us into disrepute. If some of those Freemen could address some of my points once in a while, rather than running for cover, I would probably be a little less inclined to think this.

[arten]

I'm beginning to suspect it is a red herring deliberately constructed to throw us into disrepute. If some of those Freemen could address some of my points once in a while, rather than running for cover, I would probably be a little less inclined to think this.

Can you list your points because these people are putting themselves on the line and doing something to combat the NWO. I support them and will join them once I have taken their advice and aquainted myself with everything I need to know.

[ex sheep]

Very interesting point about the government having to pay every child a living allowance, because you are the property of the state.
Come to think about it even when you are an adult they have to give you some sort of allowance, if you don't work.

[baron von lotsov]

Can you list your points because these people are putting themselves on the line and doing something to combat the NWO. I support them and will join them once I have taken their advice and aquainted myself with everything I need to know.


You have to bear in mind I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall on this subject, and have no patience for repeating myself a million times. For this reason I will refer you to what I have already said:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49768

And there are some other comments I have made on this thread, some I have taken a fair bit of time to put down. You can read surely.

Also why take the advice only of the people pushing this Freeman stuff; why not consult a lawyer or two of your own choosing. It's called independent verification, indeed one of the main tenets of science itself!

[number_6]

So you have not provided the proof I asked for. Absolutely typical of a disinfo agent. You tell me my reply is a stock reply but you have no reply what so ever!

Please re-read exactly what I posted. The "stock reply" I mentioned was posted by yozhik, not yourself, so don't take offence.
As for the question to the Crown Court system, just google it and you will find all you need. High Court Judges as well as Circuit Judges sit in the Crown Court. This is the problem I have with the freeman ideas posted here. It does seem that none posting have a clue how the judiciary system works in the UK and are giving advice how to act in Court, without any experience of appearing themselves. They have no proof that their ideas work. You may have a success in the magistrates, but try it in the Crown Court, and the outcome could be severe.
I did say in that reply you quote that I am bowing out of this thread because I feel I am getting nowhere with my questions. I am only making this last post so that I may tell you I am not a disinfo agent, but, I do question the ideas put forward, and worry that some may take the advice and dig a deeper hole for themselves.
I really am bowing out of this thread now and will not be returning.
Be seeing you.

[yozhik]

Also why take the advice only of the people pushing this Freeman stuff; why not consult a lawyer or two of your own choosing. It's called independent verification, indeed one of the main tenets of science itself!

Baron ... do you not see the absurdity of this suggestion?
The members of an elite society are unlikely to reveal the secrets and flaws in it. How can it be an independent verification when the lawyers are totally dependent on it?

However, if you read the Freeman section, tien an has already posted an "off the record" discussion he has had with a lawyer, which is revealing.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=796234&postcount=10

I doubt whether there will be a multitude willing to be so honest.
It is possible I am too cynical and thus, wrong.
I have been many times before and will be again.

.

[superdertie]

You have to bear in mind I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall on this subject, and have no patience for repeating myself a million times. For this reason I will refer you to what I have already said:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49768

And there are some other comments I have made on this thread, some I have taken a fair bit of time to put down. You can read surely.

Also why take the advice only of the people pushing this Freeman stuff; why not consult a lawyer or two of your own choosing. It's called independent verification, indeed one of the main tenets of science itself!

Personally... when i'm getting my knowledge, I try not not to get too caught up in context.

I don't care who it is, as long as I get my knowledge.

When i saw how his friend dealt with the police in part 2 of that video, it was pretty encouraging.

As a young male living in London I get HARASSED by police all the time. There are about 3 in my area who know me by first name and I have absolutely no previous convictions.

Police are being trained to roll off sentences which they have no clue about. They are like mond-controlled robots who are HUNGRY FOR COMMISION.

The more knowledge of REAL UK LAW I have, the less I can be harassed.

By the way, I do agree with you when you say get verification lol. Very true, it's just that this Harris guy seems pretty genuine. I mean, he's no Alex Jones or Barack Obama.

[yozhik]

Please re-read exactly what I posted. The "stock reply" I mentioned was posted by yozhik, not yourself, so don't take offence.
As for the question to the Crown Court system, just google it and you will find all you need. High Court Judges as well as Circuit Judges sit in the Crown Court. This is the problem I have with the freeman ideas posted here. It does seem that none posting have a clue how the judiciary system works in the UK and are giving advice how to act in Court, without any experience of appearing themselves. They have no proof that their ideas work. You may have a success in the magistrates, but try it in the Crown Court, and the outcome could be severe.
I did say in that reply you quote that I am bowing out of this thread because I feel I am getting nowhere with my questions. I am only making this last post so that I may tell you I am not a disinfo agent, but, I do question the ideas put forward, and worry that some may take the advice and dig a deeper hole for themselves.
I really am bowing out of this thread now and will not be returning.
Be seeing you.

FFS ... this would have to be the best example I have seen of, and the epitome of, ad nuaseum

The ONLY yardstick you use is the Crown Court.
You completely ignore the concept of the Freeman which rejects the entire court system, as it exists.
Again - I repeat - you are measuring oranges against apples.

Yes - you're correct; it is not "perfected."
Most Freemen or Freeman aspirants will concur that it is "a work in progress".

There is no legal advice being given.
Everyone is extremely particular about NOT giving legal advice.
The keywords are "do your own research."
Most are also in agreeance with you re: "some may take the advice and dig a deeper hole for themselves".


.

[Ian2day]

The Freeman concept is really only for Adults. This is not meant as a put down. Far from it. What I am saying is that the corporation known as the state has seen fit to ensure that its society is populated with children who have not recieved a full and proper introduction to being an Adult.

I would say that you have to be a mature human being to be free and sovereign. So therefore if you lack the maturity needed to be an Adult. Either due to the lack of a complete introduction to rights and responsibilities of a sovereign human being, or as a consequence of being a slave of a corporation who was born into servitude as a consequence of taxes being levied on your strawman for debts obtained by the corporation known as the state prior to your natural birth. Then you surely can not be held accountable for your own actions through no deed or fault of your own. Your strawman is the one that should be in a court when ever a contract is disputed or challeneged by the corporations policy enforcers.

Hence why 'people' for the most part use solicitors adn lawyers etc. As 'people' lack the knowledge or maturity required to offer any reasonable form of defense etc. Perhaps the Freeman concept would be served best by all those engaged in its advancement attempting to bring the message to those who stand to gain and benefit the most be being declared a free and sovereign spiritual human being.

Declaring yourself as a Freeman does tie you to the land in this 3d five sense reality though. So if you are attempting to Ascend perhaps declaring yourself a Freeman is not for you! Maybe the term Freebeing is more apt here considering the viewpoints of many of the Forum visitors.

[baron von lotsov]

As for the question to the Crown Court system, just google it and you will find all you need.

No- I'm asking you because you made the claim!!!!!

[arten]

No- I'm asking you because you made the claim!!!!!

Baron you asked no 6 and he gave you the answer, you then refused to accept what his answer was he then quite correctly told you to google for it yourself, thus verifying it for yourself. May i kindly suggest that before you dole out unsolicited advice you take your own advice, because if you don't liesten to yourself no one else is going to listen to you.
As for consulting lawyers are you really that obtuse, lawyers have to take the oath just like soldiers and policemen and women have to take the oath. They swear allegience to the Crown and the Security forces includin Mi5 and Mi6 are there to protect the crown come hell or high water.
If you are a Physicist then I am Albert Einstein.

[norfolk boy]

Hi Baron,
Just went to the other thread where you say you posted lots about the freeman stuff. There is an awful lot to look at there WOW - great stuff have saved the UK Column paper and will read, have been hearing about common purpose for a while now so well interested in that. I'm self employed and get very little time to look into endless pages of info, if you know something and want to help others on here, please post info here.

I know you say that you have spent time posting info before - but this thread is now a sticky - can you cut and paste? can you summarise? c'mon hit us with the facts, a synopsis, soundbite anything! cos I aint heard any specific challenges to the core tennets of freeman, so lets have it Baron.

[baron von lotsov]

Hi Baron,
Just went to the other thread where you say you posted lots about the freeman stuff. There is an awful lot to look at there WOW - great stuff have saved the UK Column paper and will read, have been hearing about common purpose for a while now so well interested in that. I'm self employed and get very little time to look into endless pages of info, if you know something and want to help others on here, please post info here.

I know you say that you have spent time posting info before - but this thread is now a sticky - can you cut and paste? can you summarise? c'mon hit us with the facts, a synopsis, soundbite anything! cos I aint heard any specific challenges to the core tennets of freeman, so lets have it Baron.

Aardvark on the democracy forum gives the case against it, and that is already in a cut down form. Legal issues like that are extremely complex and you need many years of legal training to fully understand constitutional law.

Since these Freemen are clocking up completely obvious errors I'd say they have not a hope in hell really. The more I think about it the more of a scam it looks, and I advise you not to believe any of this without proof. They never give me any so draw your own conclusions. The legal arguments I linked to are properly sourced and are consistent with my understanding of the law. I have only read a few law books; about first year undergraduate level and some stuff on judicial review procedures, law of tort and so on, but at least I know the basics. How many years have these Freemen studied law for?

[yozhik]

Aardvark on the democracy forum gives the case against it, and that is already in a cut down form. Legal issues like that are extremely complex and you need many years of legal training to fully understand constitutional law.

Since these Freemen are clocking up completely obvious errors I'd say they have not a hope in hell really. The more I think about it the more of a scam it looks, and I advise you not to believe any of this without proof. They never give me any so draw your own conclusions. The legal arguments I linked to are properly sourced and are consistent with my understanding of the law. I have only read a few law books; about first year undergraduate level and some stuff on judicial review procedures, law of tort and so on, but at least I know the basics. How many years have these Freemen studied law for?

Still thinking, measuring and operating from inside the box? ;)


.

[scatlond]

I watched this last night. Disturbed to learn my Father signed me up for slavery.The "Birth Certificate". It is no wonder he gets emotional.

[hugolast]

these videos are great and deal with facts. They are there to be used by us as well! amazing

[baron von lotsov]

Still thinking, measuring and operating from inside the box? ;)


.


You are an utter fraud. If this is how you reply to a legitimate concern then it makes you look like a brainwasher. I don't care really, you don't fool me.

[baron von lotsov]

these videos are great and deal with facts. They are there to be used by us as well! amazing
You will just get clobbered with legal costs. Rather you than me.

[ex sheep]

If these people have got away with driving without road tax for example, and the police can do nothing about it and let them go, does that not prove that they are doing something that the PTB can do nothing about.

[yozhik]

You are an utter fraud. If this is how you reply to a legitimate concern then it makes you look like a brainwasher. I don't care really, you don't fool me.

Keep spinning it Baron ...

You throw words like fraud and scam around with nothing to back them up.
Where is the scam in Freeman? What is the scam? Who benefits?
Where is the fraud? Who was the victim? Where is the loss?

Your "in the box" rebuttal is just the predictable fodder of an over inflated ego.

Your "legitimate concern" is riddled with programming.
Everything you have stated comes from a frozen paradigm; from one who sits in the status quo.

You obviously hold the statutes and other fruadulent doctrines of slavery dear to your heart.
How's that working for you?


.

[norfolk boy]

Baron this is a discussion forum - what have you come on here to do?
In all of your posts so far all you have done is whine about being ignored, and get into some petty slanging matches with people.

You say that you have already explained why the freeman stuff is 'rubbish' and refer vaguely to another forum which is full of political arguing and expect people to go off and plough through page after page of cliquey ukip discussion and bitching in order to read the substance of your arguement.

If you can't be arsed to make your point again the copy and paste it into this forum CTRL C is copy CTRL V is paste - this is what this forum is for - to make your point for all to read/learn from/discuss. If you wont do even this give me a link to the exact page where the 'freeman is rubbish' stuff is, and I'll copy and paste it into here for the enlightenment of all!

If your not prepared to do this I can only assume that you are a troll! I'm waiting impatiently and without much belief that you have any info at all to support your claims - just prove me wrong.

[baron von lotsov]

Baron this is a discussion forum - what have you come on here to do?
In all of your posts so far all you have done is whine about being ignored, and get into some petty slanging matches with people.

You say that you have already explained why the freeman stuff is 'rubbish' and refer vaguely to another forum which is full of political arguing and expect people to go off and plough through page after page of cliquey ukip discussion and bitching in order to read the substance of your arguement.

If you can't be arsed to make your point again the copy and paste it into this forum CTRL C is copy CTRL V is paste - this is what this forum is for - to make your point for all to read/learn from/discuss. If you wont do even this give me a link to the exact page where the 'freeman is rubbish' stuff is, and I'll copy and paste it into here for the enlightenment of all!

If your not prepared to do this I can only assume that you are a troll! I'm waiting impatiently and without much belief that you have any info at all to support your claims - just prove me wrong.

I make a claim-I substantiate it. A freeman makes a claim and expects the person he is making it too, to substantiate it!

For goodness sake, I feel like I'm in a lunatic asylum. If you actually get suckered into believing it and take it up with the courts you are going to get a nasty shock. What I have seen so far has no basis in law. How can I prove something does not exist? It's your job to prove it does exist. That method you employ is classic conman/brainwashing tactics and has been used on this forum countless times, and it won't wash with me.

[baron von lotsov]

Keep spinning it Baron ...

You throw words like fraud and scam around with nothing to back them up.
Where is the scam in Freeman? What is the scam? Who benefits?
Where is the fraud? Who was the victim? Where is the loss?

Your "in the box" rebuttal is just the predictable fodder of an over inflated ego.

Your "legitimate concern" is riddled with programming.
Everything you have stated comes from a frozen paradigm; from one who sits in the status quo.

You obviously hold the statutes and other fruadulent doctrines of slavery dear to your heart.
How's that working for you?


.


Yea, whatever you say. You have no case.

[theninja]

Baron take your pick have a look in the mirror you may find some answers. :D

http://www.lakewoodconferences.com/direct/dbimage/50317367/Mirror.jpg

[baron von lotsov]

Baron take your pick have a look in the mirror you may find some answers. :D

http://www.lakewoodconferences.com/direct/dbimage/50317367/Mirror.jpg


You have no case either!

[yozhik]

Yea, whatever you say. You have no case.

Baron - where is YOUR case?
You were the first to make accusations of "scam" and "fraud".

Where is YOUR case????

Clue: I won't be holding my breath.


.

[baron von lotsov]

Baron - where is YOUR case?
You were the first to make accusations of "scam" and "fraud".

Where is YOUR case????

Clue: I won't be holding my breath.


.



Re-read the thread and the threads I link to.

[pduffy4]

John has a great way of getting his message across. This is serious, funny and emotional. This is his best work I have seen so far. 50 minutes of awesomeness!

10 out of 10. Very well filmed and edited too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b0n3W0B6E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7jtxpp4rQo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mExeq5Yyg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIUMOyp-Pj4

A great job by the BBC5tv team. Fantastic effort!

http://www.youtube.com/BBC5tv (http://www.youtube.com/BBC5tv)

Comments welcome:)

Is there gong to be a DVD of this event? I would like to be able to pass it out to people.

[norfolk boy]

Baron I'll make it simple for you.....

Baron says: this freeman stuff is all rubbish
NB says: why is this all rubbish?
Baron says: nothing*

I've seen evidence for some of this working e.g speeding ticket, walk free after not entering plea. I don't care if you say 'those dont count' I'm basing my interest and further enquiry (not belief) on these instances, and John Harris' talk. You base your condemnation on NOTHING*

You say you have read some damning stuff that proves freeman is wrong, all I'm asking you to do is share that info - even just put a link to it up here. HOW DOES THIS COUNT AS BRAINWASHING?

[yozhik]

Re-read the thread and the threads I link to.

I have.

They do not address your allegations of "scam" and "fraud".

[stemcg1983]

With regards to John Harris's talks he is doing around the country,

Does anyone know if he is doing one in manchester ?
Do you have to pay, or can you just turn up

[arten]

The legal arguments I linked to are properly sourced and are consistent with my understanding of the law. I have only read a few law books; about first year undergraduate level and some stuff on judicial review procedures, law of tort and so on, but at least I know the basics. How many years have these Freemen studied law for?

Well you have already shown Baron that you do not even have the Basics right. No 6 told you how Common Law is made precedent in the High Courts and he is on the money. You claimed he was wrong, when in fact he was right. I personally think that you just don't know what you are talking about. And you are here not to clarify any issues, but to smudge them.
You really should take your own advice before dishing it out to others.

[hugolast]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYL4YlAqsPY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un6HP3gRI9U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5HHz_X7kkA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XPw2YZnoNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmNlpmAUuuU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXcIAwF0Q2g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6syC-lIo7M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2osUtjPrvY0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssX_PP_XD8k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqHgIviyMgs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqEwq0V1mo

[theninja]

Is there gong to be a DVD of this event? I would like to be able to pass it out to people.

Hi pduffy4,

Yes there will be a DVD available within the next couple of weeks from Tpuc.org
I will update on progress

[theninja]

With regards to John Harris's talks he is doing around the country,

Does anyone know if he is doing one in manchester ?
Do you have to pay, or can you just turn up


Hi,

Yes there is a Manchester date see her:

http://www.tpuc.org/node/471

Yes there will be a fee and yes you can just turn up.

[theninja]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYL4YlAqsPY

You can find a better version of this talk here:

http://www.tpuc.org/node/494

[baron von lotsov]

Well you have already shown Baron that you do not even have the Basics right. No 6 told you how Common Law is made precedent in the High Courts and he is on the money. You claimed he was wrong, when in fact he was right. I personally think that you just don't know what you are talking about. And you are here not to clarify any issues, but to smudge them.
You really should take your own advice before dishing it out to others.

I just asked him to cite the rule that makes it possible, because I have never heard of such a thing. I'm not saying it can't be done, I was just asking for legal justification so I could make my mind up.

If that is too much for him then what on earth am I supposed to think? If you people can't prove the simplest of claims then it's obvious to me none would ever make a lawyer. So what good is all this then, if it is that useless? I'll tell you what the purpose is, it’s the same as it always is, and that is to distract you lot from doing anything useful.

Indeed it seems now this thread has become too hot to handle and the response is, as always on here, to bury one's head in the sand. Whatever you do, you must just hide the awkward questions and pretend everything is fine. You are quite happy to see people blow a ton of money to enrich the legal system. They are having a laugh!

[pduffy4]

Hi pduffy4,

Yes there will be a DVD available within the next couple of weeks from Tpuc.org
I will update on progress

That's great, thank you

[hagbard_celine]

People have been recomending John Harris to me for ages and I've never heard him before. But I have now and I must say I was extremely impressed with him.:) I've heard his lecture at the conferences and his EMTV interview. God, he's really taught me a thing or two!:cool::eek:

[arten]

I just asked him to cite the rule that makes it possible, because I have never heard of such a thing. I'm not saying it can't be done, I was just asking for legal justification so I could make my mind up.

If that is too much for him then what on earth am I supposed to think? If you people can't prove the simplest of claims then it's obvious to me none would ever make a lawyer.


You was pointed in the right direction and what did you do you put your head in the sand and refused to VERIFY the claim for yourself. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Sigh :rolleyes:

[baron von lotsov]

You was pointed in the right direction and what did you do you put your head in the sand and refused to VERIFY the claim for yourself. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Sigh :rolleyes:

I was told to look it up on the friggin' Internet. Now that is not cricket. You make a claim you should be able to justify it, and not tell people to look it up for you. All that says is you like to believe, you don't want to know. 'Belief' means taking it on trust, 'knowing' means knowing what legal rule makes it possible and having a reference to it. I'm glad I'm not as stupid as the majority on this thread. You set an extremely bad example and deserve to be laughed at.

[arten]

I was told to look it up on the friggin' Internet. Now that is not cricket. You make a claim you should be able to justify it, and not tell people to look it up for you. All that says is you like to believe, you don't want to know. 'Belief' means taking it on trust, 'knowing' means knowing what legal rule makes it possible and having a reference to it. I'm glad I'm not as stupid as the majority on this thread. You set an extremely bad example and deserve to be laughed at.

You are now projecting your stupidity onto me, you was chastising people for not verifying claims. Someone else gave you Factual Information and you disputed that. From my knowledge of the law in the UK the information that you was given was correct. You disputed that and you was then told to go and google for the information which you have then declined to do, thus you are refusing to take your own advice. I cannot help but laugh at you, you know don't you that in googling for it No 6 will be shown to be 100% correct and you will be left with egg dripping down your face. Like I said You can lead a Horse to water..............:D

[baron von lotsov]

You are now projecting your stupidity onto me, you was chastising people for not verifying claims. Someone else gave you Factual Information and you disputed that. From my knowledge of the law in the UK the information that you was given was correct. You disputed that and you was then told to go and google for the information which you have then declined to do, thus you are refusing to take your own advice. I cannot help but laugh at you, you know don't you that in googling for it No 6 will be shown to be 100% correct and you will be left with egg dripping down your face. Like I said You can lead a Horse to water..............:D


Well then, either put up or shut up. I'm still waiting for an answer. I don't really think I’m going to get one, but surprise me. Give me the reference and I'll stop asking for it and then we can at least say we have managed to clarify one small detail. I have many more issues with Freeman law, which I might raise once we have got this one resolved.

[arten]

Well then, either put up or shut up. I'm still waiting for an answer. I don't really think I’m going to get one, but surprise me. Give me the reference and I'll stop asking for it and then we can at least say we have managed to clarify one small detail. I have many more issues with Freeman law, which I might raise once we have got this one resolved.

You go and do what no 6 suggested and thus you will be taking your own medicine, verifying the Facts for yourself. I am not going to go and do the search for you. I already Know how Law works through the Crown court system I don't need to confirm it for myself.

You can lead a Horse to Water but........................:D

[baron von lotsov]

You go and do what no 6 suggested and thus you will be taking your own medicine, verifying the Facts for yourself. I am not going to go and do the search for you. I already Know how Law works through the Crown court system I don't need to confirm it for myself.

You can lead a Horse to Water but........................:D

So you don't know because if you did you would tell us the answer.

The problem is that anyone with more than two brain cells would not take what you say on trust.

[arten]

So you don't know because if you did you would tell us the answer.

The problem is that anyone with more than two brain cells would not take what you say on trust.

You don't have two brain cells I doubt seriously that you have one. Maybe you don't have a brain at all. :eek:
Why would I want to do your search for you and then you just do what you do best and dissmiss it all. You really are obtuse, you talk about verification, someone else tells you how the Law works and you demand proof. Go and VERIFY IT FOR YOUR SELF. I know they are right and I gave you my answer. You refuse to accept that you are wrong yet again PMSL.

[baron von lotsov]

You don't have two brain cells I doubt seriously that you have one. Maybe you don't have a brain at all. :eek:
Why would I want to do your search for you and then you just do what you do best and dissmiss it all. You really are obtuse, you talk about verification, someone else tells you how the Law works and you demand proof. Go and VERIFY IT FOR YOUR SELF. I know they are right and I gave you my answer. You refuse to accept that you are wrong yet again PMSL.


If you think it is correct then surely you have verified it for yourself.

Evidently not though. You take things on trust and then insult people who question it.

[arten]

If you think it is correct then surely you have verified it for yourself.

Evidently not though. You take things on trust and then insult people who question it.

I don't think it is correct I KNOW it is correct, shame you don't because you really are the consumate plonker. You questioned it and you were told you are wrong, you then refused to take your own advice and verify the facts for yourself.

You Can Lead baron to Water but you..........cannot make him search :D

[baron von lotsov]

I don't think it is correct I KNOW it is correct

Why do you refuse to show proof?

[arten]

Why do you refuse to show proof?

Because showing you proof is like showing a Horse a pool of water.

[baron von lotsov]

Because showing you proof is like showing a Horse a pool of water.

That's not an answer.

Indeed I did spend some time myself trying to check this but could not find any verification. All I asked for was a reference to the rule that makes it possible. It's not that important but I personally think it is wrong and if it is then it shows these Freemen to be charlatans, just like you are looking like with your absurd behaviour.

[arten]

That's not an answer.



You really mean it is an answer but you don't like it. Listen you was whinging in an earlier post about people who refuse to verify facts and information for themselves. You are guilty of just that making you a Hypocrite. Of course Criminal Law/Case Law is set by legal precedent through the Crown court system. The fact that you don't know that shows me that I am dealing here with someone who is not au fait with Law in the UK.
I told you a number of times already go and search for the information and you will confirm for yourself what I and others already know. I am not going to go and do the search for you because then I would not be following your earlier advice about people VERIFYING FOR THEMSELVES.
I already know it, you don't it is you that needs the VERIFICATION!

[baron von lotsov]

I give up asking you. You can say what you like but without the goods you are a waste of space. I hope you never get a job in law.

[arten]

So you don't want to practice what you preach, which makes you a Hypocrite. If you want Verification you won't get that from me I already Know what N0 6 Stated is Factually correct. I have verified it for myself and you have not. That must mean you are like the horse that won't drink. :D

[baron von lotsov]

How do you expect me to take your word for anything?

When I claim something on here I always do my best to cite the references and/or offer as much proof as I have.

[arten]

How do you expect me to take your word for anything?

When I claim something on here I always do my best to cite the references and/or offer as much proof as I have.

Are you obtuse or what? I have not said to you take my word for it. I said to you I know that No 6 who told you how precedents are set in the High Court is right. You disputed that he or she then told you to go and check the facts out for yourself and you have refused to do just that. What is funny is that you were telling everyone to verify information for themselves. Yet, you have point blank refused to do so. You now want me to go and waste my time seraching info for you. I am not wasting my time and this is my very last response to you on this issue. If you don't want to verify the info for yourself fine, do not ask me or others to do it for you.
You are the Proverbial Horse..........You Can Lead a Horse to Water.............but............:D

[baron von lotsov]

Are you obtuse or what? I have not said to you take my word for it. I said to you I know that No 6 who told you how precedents are set in the High Court is right. You disputed that he or she then told you to go and check the facts out for yourself and you have refused to do just that. What is funny is that you were telling everyone to verify information for themselves. Yet, you have point blank refused to do so. You now want me to go and waste my time seraching info for you. I am not wasting my time and this is my very last response to you on this issue. If you don't want to verify the info for yourself fine, do not ask me or others to do it for you.
You are the Proverbial Horse..........You Can Lead a Horse to Water.............but............:D



Oh I see, well you should have simply said that you checked it but do not wish to tell me what the rule is. I can't see why myself though, since you have wasted countless pages replying to me and insulting me, so a one line comment is hardly a lot of effort.

[hatstands]

I didn't know about this talk, sad to miss as its not far from me! the man John Harris is a real human being and a credit.

[arten]

Oh I see, well you should have simply said that you checked it but do not wish to tell me what the rule is. I can't see why myself though, since you have wasted countless pages replying to me and insulting me, so a one line comment is hardly a lot of effort.

I told you what the rule is and how number 6 is right and now here is the proof taken from another thread on this forum. I never searched for it, it just came along and this is an e-mail from the deputy registrar of Birth and Deaths in England and Wales.

Dear [removed by me],

[removed by me] is not the Registrar General. He is a casework manager who has delegated responsibility in matters concerning the registration of births and deaths. However, since you specifically request that the Registrar General answers your questions, he has asked me as Deputy Registrar General to reply on his behalf.

As you are aware there is a difference between legislation and common law. Common law is developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes, and it is law created and refined by judges. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent. The body of precedent is called 'common law' and it binds future decisions. I am not aware of any common law in connection with the statutory duty to register a birth.

Now you have been shown to be wanting Baron maybe you should post less and study more. :eek:

[nofuture]

http://www.tpuc.org/node/539

You can buy it here.

[nirvana]

All i can say is John Harris is a very interesting man. Ive been passing round the its an illusion dvd .Its got alot of people thinking .



Peace:)

[call2571]

http://www.tpuc.org/

[thirdwave]

John Harris, founder of TPUC, filmed at the "Lawful Rebellion" Conference, The British Constiution Group, Stoke-on-Trent, 24th january 2009 by BBC5.tv.live.

I have posted it in general because it's very important info here. John covers how the uk government and its affiliates are all just private corporations. He does a fantastic job of explaining how the uk police really work and some of the methods used to 'police' us, what their duties really are and how they are being subverted. Legalese and the person. Parents, child stealing and the BC and how it really works works. What regisration is, very important this. There's a lot of great areas he covers and does it very well. Very important info folks, do not miss this!

John has a great way of getting his message across. This is serious, funny and emotional. This is his best work I have seen so far. 50 minutes of awesomeness!

10 out of 10. Very well filmed and edited too!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4b0n3W0B6E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7jtxpp4rQo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mExeq5Yyg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIUMOyp-Pj4

A great job by the BBC5tv team. Fantastic effort!

http://www.youtube.com/BBC5tv (http://www.youtube.com/BBC5tv)

Comments welcome:)

missed these, cheers for posting..

[gushen]

Well, in the end society is all about conformity and submission.

What you have to do is state your choices consciously and openly and live or die by them.

To "Sacrifice the person" as the video says, is actually putting all of your possessions, your status and your LIFE under risk only to protect your universal right for FREEDOM.

In my opinion and knowledge, the necessity for FREEDOM overrides even the necessity to SURVIVE.

That is why very few people are willing to do it.

[thirdwave]

the thing is, sometimes all this freeman stuff sounds such hard work that you would end up being a full time secretary anyway! ... that being said it is useful to know more about your rights...

I also heard something out him having respect for the royals, so needs to do a bit more homework there! :)

though I think it was kind of a personal thing with his dad with that....

[merlincove]

the thing is, sometimes all this freeman stuff sounds such hard work that you would end up being a full time secretary anyway! ... that being said it is useful to know more about your rights...

I also heard something out him having respect for the royals, so needs to do a bit more homework there! :)

though I think it was kind of a personal thing with his dad with that....

However much we think about the queen, she, and the other royals, do play an important part in or freedoms, believe it or not.

i am personaly not a big queen fan, but at the end of the day her place on the throne keeps the wolves of the EU at bay, without her, and her possition, then the EU would swallow us up.

Yes she has surrenderd much of her power to parliament and the house of lords, although in reality that was done long ago, but she still stands for Common law and Sovreignty of this land and without her and her familly we would be living in a very state controlled land of oppression. ie more oppression.

Yes the house of lords and parliamnet are trators to the throne and can be seen to have breached so many fundamental laws and comitted war crimes, but they still do not have sole and unequivical power - they would have if the queen and the royal familly were not resident as heads of state.

Without her, as john says, all would be near on lost, the concept of freeman on the land would be one step further away, the rights of common law would be harder to attain because the head of this land would aliege to maritime law. And the police would do likewise. Right now the police align their oath of office with the her majesties oath of coronation, of upholding the common law. Without that fundamental aspect of truism at the head of state, we would be goverened unequivically under commercial law, we would all be fu(ked.

Like her or not, her possition affords us a stance of strength. I'm not a big queen fan (fat bottemed girls aside :rolleyes:), but this i believe.

[thirdwave]

However much we think about the queen, she, and the other royals, do play an important part in or freedoms, believe it or not.

i am personaly not a big queen fan, but at the end of the day her place on the throne keeps the wolves of the EU at bay, without her, and her possition, then the EU would swallow us up.

Yes she has surrenderd much of her power to parliament and the house of lords, although in reality that was done long ago, but she still stands for Common law and Sovreignty of this land and without her and her familly we would be living in a very state controlled land of oppression. ie more oppression.

Yes the house of lords and parliamnet are trators to the throne and can be seen to have breached so many fundamental laws and comitted war crimes, but they still do not have sole and unequivical power - they would have if the queen and the royal familly were not resident as heads of state.

Without her, as john says, all would be near on lost, the concept of freeman on the land would be one step further away, the rights of common law would be harder to attain because the head of this land would aliege to maritime law. And the police would do likewise. Right now the police align their oath of office with the her majesties oath of coronation, of upholding the common law. Without that fundamental aspect of truism at the head of state, we would be goverened unequivically under commercial law, we would all be fu(ked.

Like her or not, her possition affords us a stance of strength. I'm not a big queen fan (fat bottemed girls aside :rolleyes:), but this i believe.



Well, maybe within the system they operate in they make Britain Great... but any powerful country has something keeping it that way but only because it is meant to for the benefit of a certain few..... the Royal family and not even British.. there ancestors are criminals... and they are clearly deeply connected to the societies that are raping the world at the moment.

the only reason they take care of Briton is because they need Britain..

for me personally I have not an ounce of respect for them and even if they are an obstacle for the EU... I don't think they give a flying fig about our freedom.

and yes I think they did have Lady D murdered.

[merlincove]

Well, maybe within the system they operate in they make Britain Great... but any powerful country has something keeping it that way but only because it is meant to for the benefit of a certain few..... the Royal family and not even British.. there ancestors are criminals... and they are clearly deeply connected to the societies that are raping the world at the moment.

the only reason they take care of Briton is because they need Britain..

for me personally I have not an ounce of respect for them and even if they are an obstacle for the EU... I don't think they give a flying fig about our freedom.

and yes I think they did have Lady D murdered.

i never even mentioned Lady Diana :p

but, yeah, i know where you are coming from.

For my own part i guess i see her majesty as a necersary possition, i don't think that she is evil rese, but perhaps the royals will stop at nothing when their 'authority' is threatened, but still her possition is a valued one in that it does align us with a certain leverage, without that possition, who knows. But i guess better the devil you know.

I've heard john speak about her and her role, she is very much an ace up our sleeve that we can keep on playing in this game, she affords us some benefit. And i will continue to support that benefit as long as it is a benefit to us, as right now, for the reasons above, i believe her possition benefits us.

But yeah, the regiome would no doubt snuff anyone out who they considered a threat, they showed diana naught but contempt and zero compassion, they would deal with us in the same way, without a doubt.

[deem]

You can find a better version of this talk here:

http://www.tpuc.org/node/494

Thanks for the link theninja.

[thirdwave]

I often wonder with this stuff as well that why would the "Law" play fair anyway... if so many dont know the rights... what would hurt if they just screwed you over even if you do know them...

[thirdwave]

I maybe should not say this as it will just add to the conspiracy fire... but both people I have heard talk of the freeman thing..well one was a self admitted Freemason... and the other supports the royal family :)

just thought I would throw some wood in there !

[nirvana]

However much we think about the queen, she, and the other royals, do play an important part in or freedoms, believe it or not.

i am personaly not a big queen fan, but at the end of the day her place on the throne keeps the wolves of the EU at bay, without her, and her possition, then the EU would swallow us up.

Yes she has surrenderd much of her power to parliament and the house of lords, although in reality that was done long ago, but she still stands for Common law and Sovreignty of this land and without her and her familly we would be living in a very state controlled land of oppression. ie more oppression.

Yes the house of lords and parliamnet are trators to the throne and can be seen to have breached so many fundamental laws and comitted war crimes, but they still do not have sole and unequivical power - they would have if the queen and the royal familly were not resident as heads of state.

Without her, as john says, all would be near on lost, the concept of freeman on the land would be one step further away, the rights of common law would be harder to attain because the head of this land would aliege to maritime law. And the police would do likewise. Right now the police align their oath of office with the her majesties oath of coronation, of upholding the common law. Without that fundamental aspect of truism at the head of state, we would be goverened unequivically under commercial law, we would all be fu(ked.

Like her or not, her possition affords us a stance of strength. I'm not a big queen fan (fat bottemed girls aside :rolleyes:), but this i believe.


She is just one of the slave masters in the bigger picture:(

[nirvana]

i never even mentioned Lady Diana :p

but, yeah, i know where you are coming from.

For my own part i guess i see her majesty as a necersary possition, i don't think that she is evil rese, but perhaps the royals will stop at nothing when their 'authority' is threatened, but still her possition is a valued one in that it does align us with a certain leverage, without that possition, who knows. But i guess better the devil you know.

I've heard john speak about her and her role, she is very much an ace up our sleeve that we can keep on playing in this game, she affords us some benefit. And i will continue to support that benefit as long as it is a benefit to us, as right now, for the reasons above, i believe her possition benefits us.

But yeah, the regiome would no doubt snuff anyone out who they considered a threat, they showed diana naught but contempt and zero compassion, they would deal with us in the same way, without a doubt.


This just sounds like we should be greatful because we get a few crumbs from her table.

[thirdwave]

I think the Royal Family are quite aware of the bigger picture.. I think to be a Royal in the first place takes something .... I don't think I could call my self a King or Queen in the same way... unless of course I had a huge and vital job to do which merited such a title... where the job was put before me.

They are not given these titles... they claim them.

They are perfectly aware of the history of their family. and they will certainly know what all the symbology around them means.

When this John Harris chap spoke of them.. I could not help but think, since when has the Royals ever been starved of respect? ... I think they have got it pretty good! :eek:

I Guess not swaying to much off topic though, it is useful info...

[nirvana]

John Harris is doing a wonderful job ,I have alot of respect for him.
The only thing i do not agree with him is the thing about the royal family that we should have respect for them.
Its like telling turkeys they should respect the butcher at xmas time .

[merlincove]

i think, having seen him speak about this a few times, that john is saying that:

A) as the queen is a human being, and that we are all human beings, we should respect her as we would respect each other. No more and no less, as we are all equal. John says that she is a lady, a human being, and as such she should always be treated as such. We would ask, and indeed expect that very same courtesy after all. We do judge her on what we have read and what we think of her, but at the end of the day who here knows her and what she is all about? So perhaps he is saying respect her as a person, whatever else she is because she is no more equal than the rest of us.

B) Her possition, whether we like it or not, is one that keeps the wolves of the EU at the door, and if we can not be respectful to her possition, then we could be respectful for what that possitiona affords us.

i think that is what he is saying.

i guess it is easy to judge her without knowing her, and we do have a tendancy to judge those in the public eye without being aware of the truth of the matter.

John did say that he dissliked the propaganda that is perpoted as fact across the internet in respect of the royal family. And John has withdrawn his support for her majesty within his afivadit, but he still respects her as a 'lady' as he puts it, and i guess that such respect is levelled to all and not just the queen?

And no, i am not a monarchist / royalist, but i can see and hear what John is saying, and even though i'm not a big fan of the royals i can undrstand the important role they do play and their role, particularly the queen's role as the ambassador and a bastion for lawful right to common law and a gaurd to the upholding of our country against the herald of controling forces that would otherwise swamp us with ever more tighter legislative rule from brussels.