I am a Freeman-on-the-Land. How May I help? [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : I am a Freeman-on-the-Land. How May I help?

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

pdcdp

30-11-2008, 11:26 PM

Does that contradict with using your bond? What is the true value of your bond? Is is the debt that you were supposed to repay in the future?

A bond is essentially the purchse of a revenue stream.... or debt.

this is where it gets tricky... i think there are a few ways to go about acceptance for value, issuing promissary notes etc and each has its grey areas.

do note that i am not a money-minded soul and am not fully confident on this subject... but who is?

according to shrout, you need to get your SIN and birth certificate number together, use these as reference numbers to apply value to a true copy of your BC, send this to the treasury with an instruction notice telling them to set off requests for payment from the trust associated with your AFV BC.

when accepting for value you would put your stamp on their bill and return it to them with a notice of instruction, telling them how to take the bill to treasury for set off, otherwise it's no surprise that your creditor would not accept it as payment.

when a bill is presented to treasury for payment, if your payment instructions are correct then they should be able to access your associated trust for set off. big grey area on logistics there but i guess if you have got them to contract with you, maybe with an NUI, then the treasury would be liable if they didn't carry out your instruction. the same applies for issuing your own notes with all of this information included on them.

i don't think we have individual accounts in any way, more like our bond tracking numbers link to group trusts, which would be the trusts accessed by govt to pay for public roads, parks, buildings etc

you would also AFV another BC in order to become bonded in court. once you have that 'insurance' against any damage you may cause in a courtroom, you can walk into any court and immediately take all control away from the judge and prosecution, since their bond will be substantially smaller than yours. theirs usually covers them for under half a million, winston wrote his out for 300 million i think. you may not enter into a courtroom if you are not bonded, and if you can't enter the court then you have no power or influence.

imagine appointing the prosecution lawyer as your fiduciary, making him liable for any costs that you incur... hehe:D

there was a clever use of a commercial lien in there too but i'll have to revise that one...

so, pick out the weak spots and maybe we can make some sense of it all?

tien an

30-11-2008, 11:30 PM

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=641095&postcount=170

Hi again Rob.
I posted a question, but it seems to have been lost among everything else that is going on here...

What say you?

tom bombadil

30-11-2008, 11:36 PM

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=641095&postcount=170

Hi again Rob.
I posted a question, but it seems to have been lost among everything else that is going on here...

What say you?

Those two questions are helpfull to me too.

yozhik

30-11-2008, 11:41 PM

Those two questions are helpfull to me too.

me three :)

pdcdp

30-11-2008, 11:57 PM

yozhik

01-12-2008, 12:04 AM

common law allows the right to travel unimpeded, foreign travel shouldn't be a problem...

In theory, this sounds great ... and simple.
However, I suspect reality is somewhat different :(

... a bit like "good customer service" ... sounds very simple in theory, but reality somewhat different.

I seem to recall that Rob's recollection of possible remedies on this matter, included something along the lines of writing to each country involved (entry/exit) and notifying them of your Notice of Understanding and Intent - to prepare them for the arrival of a Freeman.

... but I don't want to get it wrong, nor paraphrase Rob; no need to, when we can get it directly from the keyboard of Thor the Masked Punisher himself!!

1694

01-12-2008, 12:06 AM

duckingdafta

01-12-2008, 12:08 AM

Imagine a scenario of a man and a woman who haven't just separated and divorced but actually grown to physically hate each other. One of them becomes a freeman of the land and decides they also want their children to follow in their path, but so does the other career minded person. Both want the best they see for their children so it is easier not to get into rights and wrongs over the possibility of fighting for custody of....rather develop a medium of understanding and allow the children to decide themselves once old enough to know the truths (and lies) and all sides.

To give advice or even ideas on how to be a freeman and use it as a power to such a length when children involved is IMO wrong and goes against my view of being a free man. On this basis I feel it is unfair to ask awkward questions that would be personal to lives other than the one person asking.

saying that, I have been common law married for 20 years now and if we did ever split up the kids know more than you actually hide from them in many cases..which means I couldn't have 'Claim of Right' over any other man (as in human)..be it my child or not

yozhik

01-12-2008, 12:11 AM

Says who? ... Contest it in court, see how a judge rules.

:D :D :D :D

Classic ... just a classic 1694 response.

... and of course, whatever a judge rules in court is correct, yes?

:D :D :D :D

It might be LEGAL ... that doesn't mean its right, nor does it mean its lawful.

1694

01-12-2008, 12:12 AM

:D :D :D :D

Classic ... just a classic 1694 response.

... and of course, whatever a judge rules in court is correct, yes?

:D :D :D :D

It might be LEGAL ... that doesn't mean its right, nor does it mean its lawful.

No it doesnt mean its "right", but it is how common law is decided.

pdcdp

01-12-2008, 12:16 AM

Says who? It hasn't been like that in common practice for a long time? Contest it in court, see how a judge rules.
it hasn't been like that because we've been duped into thinking we need passports and driving licenses... if you know your rights it will never get to court, even if it does, refuse to enter into contract with the court and they can't do squat anyway.

e.g you drive around in a registered car, with a license, but no tax or insurance. you are at fault and liable.
you travel in an unregistered automobile, with no license, tax or insurance. you are exercising your right to travel and are not at fault, since you did not enter into a contract with dvla, calling yourself the 'driver' of a 'car' or 'vehicle'.

same with passports, if youre not contracted with the authority they can't lawfully stop you from traveling anywhere.

tom bombadil

01-12-2008, 12:18 AM

i don't get it, why would you have to involve your family? or is this a question of protecting your kids? that would be a good question - can a minor serve an nui? could their parent act as their agent to do so?

common law allows the right to travel unimpeded, foreign travel shouldn't be a problem...

i'm sure rob will detail these for you, am just trying to help and enjoying what i've learned so far...;)

The traveling thing is dear to my heart, so I want to get it right.

As for the involving the family, as a dad and a husband, anything I do will have a knock-on effect for my other halves. My stopping the National insurance payments effect the wife when I 'retire' from my present employ. We would have a joint pension coming our way either way, but would it be reduced? When I pop me clogs, will her now single pension be undercut by my reduced payments? Can I top up gov. pensions when I am out of it all?

I know that I will have to study, but when a niggling quizzer pops its ugly head up, I want to know NOW!!! :D

Tom

pdcdp

01-12-2008, 12:21 AM

In theory, this sounds great ... and simple.
However, I suspect reality is somewhat different :(

... a bit like "good customer service" ... sounds very simple in theory, but reality somewhat different.

I seem to recall that Rob's recollection of possible remedies on this matter, included something along the lines of writing to each country involved (entry/exit) and notifying them of your Notice of Understanding and Intent - to prepare them for the arrival of a Freeman.

... but I don't want to get it wrong, nor paraphrase Rob; no need to, when we can get it directly from the keyboard of Thor the Masked Punisher himself!!

yeah, you may have to make your own passport and deal with the authorities in advance, and i haven't heard any negative experiences about it so far, but i'm not so well informed!

TOM...
i'm in a particularly good situation to go through with this so i haven't researched any family issues, though i know my sister isn't looking into it on account of having a kid, so these are definitely points which need to be addressed.

it's the learning process which empowers you, not a document downloaded from an internet forum. very fulfilling experience indeed!

tien an

01-12-2008, 12:28 AM

To give advice or even ideas on how to be a freeman and use it as a power to such a length when children involved is IMO wrong and goes against my view of being a free man. On this basis I feel it is unfair to ask awkward questions that would be personal to lives other than the one person asking.

saying that, I have been common law married for 20 years now and if we did ever split up the kids know more than you actually hide from them in many cases..which means I couldn't have 'Claim of Right' over any other man (as in human)..be it my child or not

I see your point. I don't want to impose anything on my child, but I would like to be able to protect her if the authorities suddenly decide that they can look after her better than her mother and father...if you see what I mean?

As much as I find the idea distasteful, if my child has to be 'mine' (owned by me) to be protected, then so be it. I'm sure (as you've pointed out) that she will have her own mind and can decide what she would like to 'be' when she reaches the age that requires a NINO.
Specifically: I'd like to know if I have to 'take control of' her birth certificate as well.

Afterthought:
At the moment, my child 'belongs to' the state. I think if she could fully comprehend what this means (she's only four), she would have a very different view of who / what Mummy and Daddy are...and would perhaps like to know why we didn't undertake anything to rectify the situation.

pdcdp

01-12-2008, 12:33 AM

As for the involving the family, as a dad and a husband, anything I do will have a knock-on effect for my other halves. My stopping the National insurance payments effect the wife when I 'retire' from my present employ. We would have a joint pension coming our way either way, but would it be reduced? When I pop me clogs, will her now single pension be undercut by my reduced payments? Can I top up gov. pensions when I am out of it all?

Tom

i look at it like this: how much tax would you have paid before retiring, from the date of becoming a freeman? is it enough to invest and grow into a reasonable private pension?

i haven't touched 30 yet, so for me it's worthwhile. i'm not convinced there'll be much of a trustworthy government pension to rely on in 2044...

or i could retire about 15 years sooner!

1694

01-12-2008, 12:34 AM

it hasn't been like that because we've been duped into thinking we need passports and driving licenses... if you know your rights it will never get to court, even if it does, refuse to enter into contract with the court and they can't do squat anyway.

e.g you drive around in a registered car, with a license, but no tax or insurance. you are at fault and liable.
you travel in an unregistered automobile, with no license, tax or insurance. you are exercising your right to travel and are not at fault, since you did not enter into a contract with dvla, calling yourself the 'driver' of a 'car' or 'vehicle'.

same with passports, if youre not contracted with the authority they can't lawfully stop you from traveling anywhere.

So lets find:
A) the common law in writing that gives a right to tavel
B) the common practice of people traveling without license and going unchallanged
C) A judge making a ruling in your favour on your specific case that sets a precedent

C is what you are gunna need for a common law ruling in your favour.

tien an

01-12-2008, 12:38 AM

pdcdp

01-12-2008, 12:44 AM

So lets find:
A) the common law in writing that gives a right to tavel
B) the common practice of people traveling without license and going unchallanged
C) A judge making a ruling in your favour on your specific case that sets a precedent

C is what you are gunna need for a common law ruling in your favour.

there would be no ruling! there would be no court case!

but i take your point, i've definitely seen evidence of the first two. as for c... if the case made it into court it would be because the defendant entered into contract with the police or court, in which case they are liable, so c would be a rare find.

my nui covers the common law right to travel so my number plates will read 'RENEGADE' by christmas.:D

have you been on tpuc? it's uk specific, not the classiest site, but useful on these issues.

1694

01-12-2008, 12:46 AM

Well chalk it up to law of averages.

That is not to state that your precident will be upheld in the next ruling. It can just be used by the defendant in an effort to persuade the next judge/jury. If you don't convince them you get a common law ruling against you and that sets a new precedent.

Breaking statutory laws will not go down well unless you can convince you have a damn good reason. Stating you have a common law right is a bit pre emptive, as the outcome of the case will be your common law rights.

1694

01-12-2008, 12:47 AM

there would be no ruling! there would be no court case!

but i take your point, i've definitely seen evidence of the first two. as for c... if the case made it into court it would be because the defendant entered into contract with the police or court, in which case they are liable, so c would be a rare find.

my nui covers the common law right to travel so my number plates will read 'RENEGADE' by christmas.:D

have you been on tpuc? it's uk specific, not the classiest site, but useful on these issues.

Where have you seen evidence of A, that's an impossiblilty.

B, well it depends, in good old Somalia yes, in the UK not so much.

Yeah I have seen tpuc.

Good luck RENEGADE. If you can let us know how it goes down.

pdcdp

01-12-2008, 01:01 AM

Where have you seen evidence of A, that's an impossiblilty.

B, well it depends, in good old Somalia yes, in the UK not so much.

Yeah I have seen tpuc.

Good luck RENEGADE. If you can let us know how it goes down.

fair play, i should have said i've read several sources which show how common law is used to secure this right. anybody who stops you from going about your lawful activities without consent is causing you injury.

indeed, i'm going ahead with all this partially because i have very few responsibilities in the commercial system and am better placed than most to deal with any difficulties, worst comes to worst i could do a jack bauer and disappear! point is if this doesn't work out then i will report it here, and then people will have some relevant uk experience to draw upon.

maybe 'I AM A SPY'?

pdcdp

01-12-2008, 01:06 AM

that moody looking john harris geezer from tpuc has been summones to court for vehicle stuff - here http://www.tpuc.org/node/466

let's see how that pans out, though i take tpuc with a heavy dose of irony...

grenadene

01-12-2008, 01:13 AM

pdcdp

01-12-2008, 01:17 AM

Put on some Curtis Mayfield or something ;)

:D

1694

01-12-2008, 01:33 AM

1694

I think the Freeman concept is a lifestyle...a philosophy if you like, a way of looking at the world. Chase it through the courts all you like, but a Freeman will always be that, even if you lock him (or her :)) up. Maybe not from your perspective but from theirs, which is all that matters in their lifetime. You are merely viewing their situation from your standpoint.
I don't know why you're so serious about 'they way things are', because as you've so frustratingly noticed, not everyone sees the world they same way as you. You are only bound by another 'man's' laws if you give them that authority. Once you are comfortable in your own skin and with your own belief/value system you are comfortable with whatever situation you find yourself in.

You are obviously an intelligent and dedicated kind of chap so use your gift to make your experience of this life as free and enjoyable as possible. Instead of constantly searching for reasons as to why it can't happen :) I'd hate you to miss something good!

Put on some Curtis Mayfield or something ;)

Sadly I'm still bound by the laws of phsyics that is true. My thinking is though if the Commercial Redemption method gets you locked up, why not just go native? Why go through all the rig moral of dealing with cops, hauled into the station held overnight etc. all for the sake of a beer in the street.

CR doesn't seem to provide the practical protection it would need for it to be worth while.

When the line is crossed, I doubt I will be worrying about filing the right paperwork, it will be natural law.

(I'm wathgin my name is early and making VAT changes, might aswell have a chat whilst im on my tod infront of the PC)

rob menard

01-12-2008, 01:33 AM

Hi Rob,

thank you very much for dropping in.

I have two questions in particular (hundreds otherwise):

1. Does a Freeman's (immediate) family have to declare themselves freemen/women, or can that be done through the Claim of Right? Any particularities with regards children?

2. I assume that having declared myself a Freeman, I'd have to surrender my passport...(it's got HER name on it). The problem is, I really like to travel, even if it is just a quick jaunt over to France for the weekend.
How does a freeman get around that problem?

Thanks in advance.

Sorry I did not get to this earlier.
You can be a Freeman and not have your spouse follow you. Marriage in their system would be impossible however division of property on separation would still be decided based on a common law relationship.

Traveling is a trickier one. There is a guy in BC who travels to the States using nothing more then a Photo Affidavit signed by a Notary. I am working on a thing called a Laissez Passer, which is like a passport. Also going to a consulate and seeking a written invitation to travel to their country will help. All these things are harder then what is presently accepted and may not guarantee travel, but neither does a passport.

Hope that helps, sorry for the delay in answering, but the thread got fat.
Rob

tien an

01-12-2008, 01:38 AM

Hi Rob,

thank you very much for dropping in.

I have two questions in particular (hundreds otherwise):

1. Does a Freeman's (immediate) family have to declare themselves freemen/women, or can that be done through the Claim of Right? Any particularities with regards children?

2. I assume that having declared myself a Freeman, I'd have to surrender my passport...(it's got HER name on it). The problem is, I really like to travel, even if it is just a quick jaunt over to France for the weekend.
How does a freeman get around that problem?

PS this is perhaps my main motive for wanting to become a freeman...my daughter's future: I want to educate her before she has to swallow all the garbage we've had to...
Thanks in advance.

Sorry I did not get to this earlier.
You can be a Freeman and not have your spouse follow you. Marriage in their system would be impossible however division of property on separation would still be decided based on a common law relationship.

Traveling is a trickier one. There is a guy in BC who travels to the States using nothing more then a Photo Affidavit signed by a Notary. I am working on a thing called a Laissez Passer, which is like a passport. Also going to a consulate and seeking a written invitation to travel to their country will help. All these things are harder then what is presently accepted and may not guarantee travel, but neither does a passport.

Hope that helps, sorry for the delay in answering, but the thread got fat.
Rob

No problem. Thank you.
But about children...

How do I begin to / do I need to regain possession of my child?
Does this come with Freemanship?
Can I include it in my COR?
Do I need to regain control of my child's birth certificate as well as my own?

boots

01-12-2008, 01:46 AM

I know this is a bit different.

But would it be more acceptable to say Freeman, on the Affidavits instead of Freeman of the land?

Would it be more "legally" correct to use the term Freeman?

That way they can't back you into a corner, if you want to go an a journey to another country.

.

yozhik

01-12-2008, 03:56 AM

Very interesting read ... could have relevance to Freeman movement.

Trust rulings (http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V12N1-Trusts.pdf)

Using reference to "at arms length" in NOU might be worth considering.

rob menard

01-12-2008, 06:20 AM

tien an

01-12-2008, 07:01 AM

To Boots and tien an
Boots: The reason the term Freeman was expanded to FOTL is that a Freeman can be in admiralty and be bound as if he was a passenger on a ship. By stating that he is on the Land, he states that he is not on some imaginary ship.

tien an:
You need to distinguish between your child and your offspring. The first is a legal entity and you are merely its guardian. The second is your physical issuance. Distinguish now.

You will need to seperate your offspring from its person, or the 'child'. The birth certificate is much like a receipt. You need to redeem it. You can act on your offsprings behalf; you my not be able to act on the childs behalf without the permission of the state which is in loco parentis of the child.

If I am understanding your wquestion properly you are asking how to free your offspring along with your self in the easiest possible fashion.

I would claim a distinction between the offspring and the child.
I would claim the right to protect and raise the offspring and to determine what is best for them.
I would then claim that the child is no longer associated with the offspring.
Bear in mind they can only act against the child.

Child = legal entity
Offspring = physical body

Rob

PS- Egg noodles do not have a yolk.

Hit the nail on the head Rob; thank you very much.
I'm sure you've put a few minds at rest with that answer.
I'm sure too that my offspring will thank me in years to come.

A couple more questions, if you don't mind...

(dondaz, for one, has asked about this too)

With regard to self and offspring, how do you suggest taking control of and using this 'account' that is opened in our names?

History. How old is the freeman movement?
Can you name any prominent freemen/freewomen?

That's it for now; don't want to hog your time...there are others who want to pose questions, I'm sure.

Thanks again.
Heavenly Peace.

boots

01-12-2008, 07:06 AM

quote: Rob.

The reason the term Freeman was expanded to FOTL is that a Freeman can be in admiralty and be bound as if he was a passenger on a ship. By stating that he is on the Land, he states that he is not on some imaginary ship.

Yep, I get that. Thanks. Would that work if you were flying too? Thats why I thought of saying just Freeman.

.

whitewolf

01-12-2008, 09:51 AM

Welcome. It is my understanding that in the Greek statutes they acknowledge a claim of right and lawful excuse and that there are people using it successfully.

LSAT = Law School Admission Test. Google for free samples. Start with them, then read the statues looking for specific items that bring remedy.
Rob

Thanks for the reply Rob. Blimey, I'm still at the early stages of learning everyday Greek, to study and understand Greek 'statutes' would need a miracle. I don't mean to sound defeatest and I do believe in 'miracles' however I feel quite overwhelmed task the ahead. I do know some Greeks who may be interested to persue this.
Will you please for the sake of clarity and for those who are new at this, like me, outline what being a freeman is, how it applies to practical everyday living. Or perhaps guide me to a place were it's already set out.
Secondly, can you suggest how I can begin to find those Greeks who have already done this?

thanks for your light in the darkness.

whitewolf

01-12-2008, 10:15 AM

Rob
I just read the page on the website www.thinkfree.ca that has neatly explained my request for you to outline the concepts of Freeman. So that's ok.

malvern

01-12-2008, 10:44 AM

Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The statutes for the "State of Nebraska" are:
found in my case.
The entirety of what you find below is transcribed exactly from what was sent to me by a fellow liberty-minded person. It is itself a transcription of a brief, not a direct, per-character copy of the brief. This is unfortunate, but I'm trying to nail down some of the references, and especially some of the cases in which this particular brief was used.
--Karl Kleinpaste, March 14, 1995.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is the argument that was the reason for charges being dropped, or for a "win" in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants.
The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. In other words, if you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license.

This brief or the right it demonstrates is no substitute for either being safe on the road or for learning the subject of rights versus regulations thoroughly before attempting to use or act upon this information.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
NOW, comes the Accused, appearing specially and not generally or voluntarily, but under threat of arrest if he failed to do so, with this "BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE FOR DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION," stating as follows:
ARGUMENT
If ever a judge understood the public's right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133,147.
The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.

RIGHTS
The "most sacred of liberties" of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
and further...

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law." 1 Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.
Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the "most sacred of his liberties," the Right of movement, the Right of moving one's self from place to place without threat of imprisonment, the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.

When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:

"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." [emphasis added] Hale vs.Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.
Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State's admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.

"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516.
It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or "privilege." We will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a "Right to use the road" and what is a "privilege to use the road". Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
and...

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489.
and...

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights." Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946.
Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived." [emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22; Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934; Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607; 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163.
and...

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.
So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?

"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention.
Here the court held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.

"Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain." Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Willis vs. Buck, 263 P.l 982.
and...

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.
What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so "radically and obviously" from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very "radical and obvious" difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:

"The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary."
and...

"This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities." State vs. City of Spokane, supra.
This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.

"the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary." Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781.
and...

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784; Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)

"Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property... and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, p.987.
As we can see, the distinction between a "Right" to use the public roads and a "privilege" to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of "using the road as a place of business" and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. courts held on this point?

"First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit." Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251; Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited; Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592; Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.
So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the "learned" that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between...

Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and...
Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.

"[The roads]...are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business." Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82; Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

"When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways." Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, supra.

"[The state's] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith." Ibid.

"We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate... the use of the highways for gain." Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.
There should be considerable authority on a subject as important a this deprivation of the liberty of the individual "using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business." However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state's power to convert the individual's right to travel upon the public roads into a "privilege."

Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a "Right" to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a "privilege."

DEFINITIONS
In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.
AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:

"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.
While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:

"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.

The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'" City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.

TRAVEL
The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as:

"The term `travel' and `traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure." [emphasis added] 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, p.717.

"Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health." Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p.3309.

"Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey." Century Dictionary, p.2034.
Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.

Notice that in all these definitions the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.

Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.

DRIVER
The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler,": is defined as:

"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p.940.
Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.

OPERATOR
Today we assume that a "traveler" is a "driver," and a "driver" is an "operator." However, this is not the case.

"It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms `operator' and `driver'; the `operator' of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the `driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both `operator' and `driver.'" Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658.
To further clarify the definition of an "operator" the court observed that this was a vehicle "for hire" and that it was in the business of carrying passengers.

This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the "privilege" of using the road for gain.

This definition, then, is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier, and therefore:

Travelling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler.
Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.
TRAFFIC
Having defined the terms "automobile," "motor vehicle," "traveler," "driver," and "operator," the next term to define is "traffic":

"...Traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state... will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear..." Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.
Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the "privilege" to use the public roads "at the expense of those operating for gain."

In this case, the word "traffic" is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, "vehicles for hire." The word "traffic" is another word which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.

"Traffic -- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.
Here again, notice that this definition refers to one "conducting business." No mention is made of one who is travelling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e.., vehicles for hire.
Furthermore, the word "traffic" and "travel" must have different meanings which the courts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:

"...in addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them."
The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, but to clear up any doubt:

"The word `traffic' is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities." Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18.
Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word "traffic" (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term "traffic" is business related and therefore, it is a "privilege." The net result being that "traffic" is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as a place of business.
LICENSE
It seems only proper to define the word "license," as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:

"The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort." People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4.

"Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent." Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118.
In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to take up the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent.

This position, however, would raise magnitudinous Constitutional questions as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental Constitutional Law. (See "Conversion of a Right to a Crime," infra.)

In the instant case, the proper definition of a "license" is:

"a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power." [emphasis added] Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203.
This definition would fall more in line with the "privilege" of carrying on business on the streets.

Most people tend to think that "licensing" is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the "licensor" which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the "licensor."

"A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation." State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487.
The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee is the real aim of the legislation.

Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government, or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our "enforcement agencies" been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, instead now busying themselves as they "check" our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?

How much longer will it be before we are forced to get a license for our lawn mowers, or before our wives will need a license for her "blender" or "mixer?" They all have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.

POLICE POWER
The confusion of the police power with the power of taxation usually arises in cases where the police power has affixed a penalty to a certain act, or where it requires licenses to be obtained and a certain sum be paid for certain occupations. The power used in the instant case cannot, however, be the power of taxation since an attempt to levy a tax upon a Right would be open to Constitutional objection. (See "taxing power," infra.)
Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions:

"1. Is there threatened danger?
2. Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right?
3. Is this regulation reasonable?" People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715; Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under "Police Power."
When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge.

First, "is there a threatened danger" in the individual using his automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary course of life and business?

The answer is No! There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager, it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy.

It is the manner of managing the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)

"The automobile is not inherently dangerous." Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532.
To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might, in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See "Due Process," infra.)

Next, does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right?

This question has already been addressed and answered in this brief, and need not be reinforced other than to remind this Court that this Citizen does have the Right to travel upon the public highway by automobile in the ordinary course of life and business. It can therefore be concluded that this regulation does involve a Constitutional Right.

The third question is the most important in this case. "Is this regulation reasonable?"

The answer is No! It will be shown later in "Regulation," infra., that this licensing statute is oppressive and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means.

Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power, in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions there imposed.

Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.)

"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority." Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887.

"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution." [emphasis added] Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613; Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60.

"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions." Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60.

"As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language." Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882.
As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear:

No person shall be...deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.
As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel.

In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law.

DUE PROCESS

"The essential elements of due process of law are... Notice and The Opportunity to defend." Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427.
Yet, not one individual has been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, let alone before signing the license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her right to travel, by automobile, on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of Liberty.

"There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty..." Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31; Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356.
and...

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta." Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958).
The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that creates actual damage, an action would lie (civilly) for recovery of damages. The state could then also proceed against the individual to deprive him of his Right to use the public highways, for cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions would be protected.

But unless or until harm or damage (a crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in the private affairs or actions of a Citizen.

One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law, is that of Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case (4 Wheat 518), in which he declared that by due process is meant "a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial." (See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020; Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333.)

Somewhat similar is the statement that is a rule as old as the law that "no one shall be personally bound (restricted) until he has had his day in court," by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation and it is oppressive and can never be upheld where it is fairly administered. (12 Am.Jur. [1st] Const. Law, Sect.573, p.269.)

Note: This sounds like the process used to deprive one of the "privilege" of operating a motor vehicle "for hire." It should be kept in mind, however, that we are discussing the arbitrary deprivation of the Right to use the road that all citizens have "in common."

The futility of the state's position can be most easily observed in the 1959 Washington Attorney General's opinion on a similar issue:

"The distinction between the Right of the Citizen to use the public highways for private, rather than commercial purposes is recognized..."
and...

"Under its power to regulate private uses of our highways, our legislature has required that motor vehicle operators be licensed (I.C. 49-307). Undoubtedly, the primary purpose of this requirement is to insure, as far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard or risk of harm, to which other users of the highways might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with this regulatory provision, by obtaining the required license, a motorist enjoys the privilege of travelling freely upon the highways..." Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88,p.11.
This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every person using an automobile as a matter of Right, must give up the Right and convert the Right into a privilege. This is accomplished under the guise of regulation. This statement is indicative of the insensitivity, even the ignorance, of the government to the limits placed upon governments by and through the several constitutions.

This legal theory may have been able to stand in 1959; however, as of 1966, in the United States Supreme Court decision in Miranda, even this weak defense of the state's actions must fall.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen's Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this "privilege" has been defined as applying only to those who are "conducting business in the streets" or "operating for-hire vehicles."

The legislature has attempted, by legislative fiat, to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of "due process of law." This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.

REGULATION

"In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty." 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.260.
and...

"Moreover, a distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of permission." Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43; Pachard vs. Banton, supra.
One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all, even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative powers. However, we must consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees.

First, let us consider the reasonableness of this statute requiring all persons to be licensed (presuming that we are applying this statute to all persons using the public roads). In determining the reasonableness of the statute we need only ask two questions:

1. Does the statute accomplish its stated goal?

The answer is No!
The attempted explanation for this regulation "to insure the safety of the public by insuring, as much as possible, that all are competent and qualified."

However, one can keep his license without retesting, from the time he/she is first licensed until the day he/she dies, without regard to the competency of the person, by merely renewing said license before it expires. It is therefore possible to completely skirt the goal of this attempted regulation, thus proving that this regulation does not accomplish its goal.

Furthermore, by testing and licensing, the state gives the appearance of underwriting the competence of the licensees, and could therefore be held liable for failures, accidents, etc. caused by licensees.

2. Is the statute reasonable?

The answer is No!
This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable since it requires to the Citizen to give up his or her natural Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the privilege. The purported goal of this statute could be met by much less oppressive regulations, i.e., competency tests and certificates of competency before using an automobile upon the public roads. (This is exactly the situation in the aviation sector.)

But isn't this what we have now?

The answer is No! The real purpose of this license is much more insidious. When one signs the license, he/she gives up his/her Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and exercise a privilege. After signing the license, a quasi-contract, the Citizen has to give the state his/her consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes and quasi-criminal actions where there is no harm done and no damaged property.

These prosecutions take place without affording the Citizen of their Constitutional Rights and guarantees such a the Right to a trial by jury of twelve persons and the Right to counsel, as well as the normal safeguards such as proof of intent and a corpus dilecti and a grand jury indictment. These unconstitutional prosecutions take place because the Citizen is exercising a privilege and has given his/her "implied consent" to legislative enactments designed to control interstate commerce, a regulatable enterprise under the police power of the state.

We must now conclude that the Citizen is forced to give up Constitutional guarantees of "Right" in order to exercise his state "privilege" to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.

SURRENDER OF RIGHTS
A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation.

"...the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use..." [emphasis added] Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619; Stephenson vs. Binford,supra.
If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right?

"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land." Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.
and...

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another." Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389.
Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving, the regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the Citizen of Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitutions.

TAXING POWER

"Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right, this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the Right to travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the state taxation.

The views advanced herein are neither novel nor unsupported by authority. The question of taxing power of the states has been repeatedly considered by the Supreme Court. The Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S. Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied." McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316.
The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state is given the power to destroy Rights through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain.

"...It may be said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a state can tax... a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars." Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46.
and...

"If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation." Ibid., p.47.
Therefore, the Right of travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this argument is used by the state as a defense of the enforcement of this statute, then this argument also must fail.

CONVERSION OF A RIGHT TO A CRIME
As previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right to travel and to transport his property upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one exercises this Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting that Right into a privilege) the Citizen is by statute, guilty of a crime. This amounts to converting the exercise of a Constitutional Right into a crime.
Recall the Miller vs. U.S. and Snerer vs. Cullen quotes from p.5, and,

"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people." Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516.
and...

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda, supra.
Indeed, the very purpose for creating the state under the limitations of the constitution was to protect the rights of the people from intrusion, particularly by the forces of government.

So we can see that any attempt by the legislature to make the act of using the public highways as a matter of Right into a crime, is void upon its face.

Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the highways, and so exercises that Right, cannot be tried for a crime of doing so. And yet, this Freeman stands before this court today to answer charges for the "crime" of exercising his Right to Liberty.

As we have already shown, the term "drive" can only apply to those who are employed in the business of transportation for hire. It has been shown that freedom includes the Citnzen's Right to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business without license or regulation by the police powers of the state.

CONCLUSION
It is the duty of the court to recognize the substance of things and not the mere form.

"The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty -- indeed they are under a solemn duty -- to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect...the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution." Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661.
and...

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd vs. United States,116 US 616.
The courts are "duty bound" to recognize and stop the "stealthy encroachments" which have been made upon the Citizen's Right to travel and to use the roads to transport his property in the "ordinary course of life and business." (Hadfield, supra.)

Further, the court must recognize that the Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen cannot be deprived without specific cause and without the "due process of law" guaranteed in the Fifth Amendment. (Kent, supra.)

The history of this "invasion" of the Citizen's Right to use the public highways shows clearly that the legislature simply found a heretofore untapped source of revenue, got greedy, and attempted to enforce a statute in an unconstitutional manner upon those free and natural individuals who have a Right to travel upon the highways. This was not attempted in an outright action, but in a slow, meticulous, calculated encroachment upon the Citizen's Right to travel.

This position must be accepted unless the prosecutor can show his authority for the position that the "use of the road in the ordinary course of life and business" is a privilege.

To rule in any other manner, without clear authority for an adverse ruling, will infringe upon fundamental and basic concepts of Constitutional law. This position, that a Right cannot be regulated under any guise, must be accepted without concern for the monetary loss of the state.

"Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public." Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660.
and...

"Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee." Riley vs. Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.81.
and...

"Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them." Watson vs. Memphis, 375 US 526.
Therefore, the Court's decision in the instant case must be made without the issue of cost to the state being taken into consideration, as that issue is irrelevant. The state cannot lose money that it never had a right to demand from the "Sovereign People."

Finally, we come to the issue of "public policy." It could be argued that the "licensing scheme" of all persons is a matter of "public policy." However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as:

"No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution." 16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect.70.
So even "public policy" cannot abrogate this Citizen's Right to travel and to use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business.

Therefore, it must be concluded that:

"We have repeatedly held that the legislature may regulate the use of the highways for carrying on business for private gain and that such regulation is a valid exercise of the police power." Northern Pacific R.R. Co., supra.
and...

"The act in question is a valid regulation, and as such is binding upon all who use the highway for the purpose of private gain." Ibid.
Any other construction of this statute would render it unconstitutional as applied to this Citizen or any Citizen. The Accused therefore moves this court to dismiss the charge against him, with prejudice.

June 10, 1986.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ends the legal brief.
In addition:

Since no notice is given to people applying for driver's (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure, the state has committed a massive construction fraud. This occurs when any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways.

The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily.

Few know that the driver's license is a contract without which the police are powerless to regulate the people's actions or activities.

Few if any licensees intentionally surrender valuable rights. They are told that they must have the license. As we have seen, this is not the case.

No one in their right mind voluntarily surrenders complete liberty and accepts in its place a set of regulations.

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke, 1784.

UK law use of comman law on travel, we need to look at "A.P.Herbert v'Rex" to get an understanding the use and miss use of comman law or cases like HOGBY,E.A v's HOGBY ( the price of justice before Mr Justice Plush)..... have you ever read what it says on a passport for the person to travel...."Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secetary of State for Foregn Affairs Requests and requires In the name of Her Majesty All those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and afford the bearer such assistance and protection as my be necessary"..rights you already had before such passport as a freeman to pass freely... what happened before everyone had to have a licence to drive, my uncle never took a test and they gave him his licence. you have the right to private travell ( with all other rights reserved ) but they forgot to tell you.

freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

signalnorth

01-12-2008, 02:12 PM

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

This guy above is offering a talk on his personal efforts at Freeman on the land. Anyone interested in chipping in and getting him up to the NW for a talk?

kblood

01-12-2008, 09:12 PM

Very interesting stuff :) I will have to look more into this being a Freeman.

americana

01-12-2008, 09:25 PM

Wow! Super thread, and very pertinent.

Anyhoo, Rob, or anyone else who can answer . . .

I am wondering about paying one's MORTGAGE with one's "bond". Boots asked this question. I am not so sure it's been answered. I think it's pretty important.

I, personally, have no mortgage and live in a tiny room.

However, I watched videos made by Irene Maus-Gravenhorst (TM), and I must say that while she is a gutsy lady, engaging, and very well spoken, I am rather confused at the OUTCOME of her story.

Hopefully, if people on this thread are familiar with the Freeman idea, you'll know of this lady, and maybe you have watched her vids - - particularly the ones of the bankers and police coming to put her house in foreclosure.

She claims to have paid with a bond (you know what I'm talking about, peeps.)

I BELIEVE, no matter what other good things there may be to say about her, that she was NOT successful in doing so.

While she certainly gave the cops and the bankers and their lackeys a run for their money, in the end, I would say that she lost her house to foreclosure.

(In the U.S., it sure as hell wouldn't have been as "gentle" or gentlemanly a procedure.)

Has ANYONE ever TRULY been successful in paying for a mortgage with their "bond"? Documentation?

I am not a naysayer or a troll. I am sincerely interested in proof that this super idea can WORK in such a large undertaking as paying a mortgage.

alternative_answer

01-12-2008, 09:49 PM

Can anyone come up with a draft letter in response to a UK collection agency who is pursuing you for an alledged unpaid debt on behalf of another company

bones

01-12-2008, 10:06 PM

Can anyone come up with a draft letter in response to a UK collection agency who is pursuing you for an alledged unpaid debt on behalf of another company

go to thinkfreeforums.org , there are many templates for collection agencys...

i personally have ahad no luck with em for a pcn they are just ignorant tossers who think they are above the law.

i will show em different... check out parking notice on thinkfreeforums.org under uk world wide ...

might learn sumthing...

rob menard

01-12-2008, 10:08 PM

Irene did not lose her house to foreclosure, she sold it to a friend and at least stopped the banks from getting a gross profit from their activities. Technicaly she did pay with a BOE, it was not accepted by the court, yet no reason given. I acted for her in court.

I have been told there are people who have successfully paid off their mortgages. I do not have documented proof sorry. I have also seen NUI and COR where that right was claimed and know that those claims are in the process of being perfected.

I have successfully used a COR to help a guy who was being foreclosed upon, and although he did not attempt to pay with his bond, the issues raised with the COR caused the bank to settle for about 1/4 of the original demanded payment.

Rob

PS- If the shortest distance between two stationary points is a straight line, what is the longest distance between two stationary points? ANSWER: Taxi route.

danster82

01-12-2008, 10:26 PM

klinker

01-12-2008, 10:49 PM

Welcome Rob. I hope you stick around instead of getting fed up with the fuckwits that show themselves now and then. :)

thetonic

01-12-2008, 10:56 PM

Can anyone come up with a draft letter in response to a UK collection agency who is pursuing you for an alledged unpaid debt on behalf of another company

Ask them to produce the original bill... Since they are a third party collection agency they can not produce the original bill ... Something along those lines;)

americana

01-12-2008, 11:26 PM

[QUOTE=rob menard;643704]Irene did not lose her house to foreclosure, she sold it to a friend and at least stopped the banks from getting a gross profit from their activities. Technicaly she did pay with a BOE, it was not accepted by the court, yet no reason given. I acted for her in court.

I have been told there are people who have successfully paid off their mortgages. I do not have documented proof sorry. I have also seen NUI and COR where that right was claimed and know that those claims are in the process of being perfected.

I have successfully used a COR to help a guy who was being foreclosed upon, and although he did not attempt to pay with his bond, the issues raised with the COR caused the bank to settle for about 1/4 of the original demanded payment.

Rob
QUOTE]

Thanks very much! Interesting info.

1694

01-12-2008, 11:56 PM

1694

01-12-2008, 11:58 PM

lessgov2007

02-12-2008, 12:03 AM

I'm still studying these concepts. However, I already know how to create a noose, and it would fit nicely around the necks of the criminals that make us need to fight against the system in the first place. Eventually, I'll have enough knowledge to become a freeman on the land. However, it just seems so much simpler to use my noose, which is more along the lines of what our founding fathers would have done... :D

1694

02-12-2008, 12:04 AM

Do you see the words; "reserve the Right to refuse"?
It means I claim the Right of choice.
To accept or not. To determine what is payment and what is not.

As opposed to your definition;

But if you are trying to pay someone else with something that is not legal tender, they can just say no to it.

If you offer legal tender and they refuse, you don;t have to pay, the debt is discharged.

The idea of you reserving the right to refuse is nice and all but places all together too much power in your hands. Once someone owes you for a transaction, you can simply refuse anything they offer, that person will always be in debt to you, they would never be able to escape from it.

You go to a bar and order a pint.

Barman pulls a pint. "That will be £3.20 please"

"Here you go, £3 and 20p"

"No"

"What do you mean No, thats £3.20."

No I refuse your £3.20 in paper and coin, I want £3.20 worth of your brain matter.

"Well you can have your pint back then"

"You ordered it mate, I pulled it on good faith."

"Well how much is £3.20 worth of brain in cm2"

"That's up to me to determine value, more than in your head, you better go harvest some more from somewhere."

duckingdafta

02-12-2008, 12:23 AM

:confused:
:rolleyes:

yozhik

02-12-2008, 12:33 AM

Anyone can refuse anything that isn't legal tender, don't have to give a reason.

Its not talking about the court accepting the Bill of Exchange as payment to the court ... this is regarding the court did not accept it as evidence.

The payer and receiver had agreed (contract) on the BOE being payment.
You need to watch the videos about the story to understand the rationale.

1694

02-12-2008, 02:30 AM

Its not talking about the court accepting the Bill of Exchange as payment to the court ... this is regarding the court did not accept it as evidence.

The payer and receiver had agreed (contract) on the BOE being payment.
You need to watch the videos about the story to understand the rationale.

I may have this completely arse faced, too many late nights and early mornings, rob was there I guess he can explain.

It looks to me like she issued the BOE which instructed the treasury to pay the bank, and they did (quite remarkable in itself). So the tresaury payed over the electronic money to the bank.

The bank however was asking for more in the way of fees and charges. At which point rob offered the judge a BOE for the additional which was refused? The idea being the bank could take the BOE to the treasury themselfs to collect the money?

Interestingly bills of exchange are regulated by statute.

I was also confused as to how you can contract others without their signature whilst at the same time refusing any contract without your signature.

Copyright also seems a bit of an odd route, choosing a statute that wouldn't apply to achieve a common law legal claim?

rob menard

02-12-2008, 04:08 AM

Rob why is it that when you are happy to pay a fine and request a bill they are unable to send you a bill?

Why dont they just send a bill..

And also I was thinking how does one start up their own creditcard company/Bank because then I could deposit say £10,000 into my company as reserve and loan myself £90,000 according to fractional reserve banking it seems an easier way to make money than slave labor.

What is the law around starting your own bank?

What I am doing is using the administrative process.
A bill will require a signature and someone accepting liability for the demand.
The comes the request for a copy of the contract empowering them to make their demand. If they do not have that they can be found liable for fraud.
That is why you ask for a bill.
It is not a refusal but an exercise of your rights.
If they fail the demand to produce a bill is not quite a fraud, but has failed the test of 'not a fraud'.
If they do send you the contract, you demand to see services rendered as per the contract.

Here is why asking for a bill works so well:
They have no contract, thus no ability to present a bill, thus no right to continue demanding and you did not have to enter into conflict or dishonour.

It is simple basic administration and they do it too.

Peace, eh?
Rob

PS- In some parts of the world you can buy 'Monkey Brain Flavoured Ice Cream'. This means the taste testers needed a benchmark. Some things are best not to think about.

dondaz

02-12-2008, 04:26 AM

Would they vote out a bond if it was used for creating an insurance policy for traveling in my automobile, if this is possible, as I have heard?

Peace eh!

rob menard

02-12-2008, 05:11 AM

Would they vote out a bond if it was used for creating an insurance policy for traveling in my automobile, if this is possible, as I have heard?

Peace eh!

I am afraid your question makes no sense to me. Who would 'vote out a bond' and how would they do it? Moreover why would you need one to travel?
Rob

yozhik

02-12-2008, 05:43 AM

What I am doing is using the administrative process.
A bill will require a signature and someone accepting liability for the demand.
The comes the request for a copy of the contract empowering them to make their demand. If they do not have that they can be found liable for fraud.
That is why you ask for a bill.

Rob, forgive me, but I'm going to take this back to some basic questions, just so I have it clear in my head :)

1. Before doing this, do you need to have established an NOU and COR?
2. What specifically constitutes a "bill". On the back of a credit card statement, for example, it then goes on to explain how you can make payment for this bill. I'm confused as to how something labelled as a statement on the front can be described as a bill on the back.
3. Is this the 3 step process of a Verification of Debt that seems to be the current "flavour of the month"? VOD, contract signed by both parties and proof of accounting?

Thanks in advance!

thetonic

02-12-2008, 05:48 AM

I think people are getting way ahead of themselves here... Asking questions on an elementary level to a college professor is a waste of his time and yours...

Please do the necessary ground work before coming with off the cuff questions that attempt to scale mount everest with a thread of twine to back you up in case you fall...

In essence ... KEEP IT SIMPLE .. and start from the beginning people!!!

You cant/shouldnt access an account if you cant even isolate what the word 'account' means in the first place!

One step at a time

boots

02-12-2008, 07:10 AM

When you can "understand what words they use and what words they dont want to use. It gets a lot easier.

A case in point.

How To Cause The Magistrate & Prosecutor To Panic And Walk Away - End Of Case

[Note: Notes at bottom have been updated 18th June 2008 9.55am - Arthur Cristian - Love For Life Campaign]
-----------------------
Hi fellow freedom seekers,
Today was Brian's day at Dandenong Magistrate Court, and what a first time performance he put in. He actually took the magistrate. and prostitutor (prosecutor) by surprise as he had not 'reported to the general enquiries desk on his arrival, however it appears evident to us that they only want you to do that so that the prostitutor can contract you prior to the defendant being called.
Anyhow he told the magistrate that he wanted to plead guilty to the facts.
The look on the mag's (and the prost's) faces was a mastercard moment.
Priceless.
He immediately tried to intimidate Brian into agreeing that he wanted to plead guilty to the charges!
Now WHY would he insist that Brian had to plead either guilty or not guilty to the charges if there was no difference between charges and facts?
Brian stuck to his guns and did not waiver from his stance.
However, after the mag got really frustrated, telling Brian that he was trying his patience and got quite red in the face, it was obviously a Mexican standoff.
At that point the prostitutor jumped in and offered that the mag do a short adjournment to allow him to discuss the case with the deft out in the foyer.
Well the prost wanted to plea bargain and offered to withdraw the 'Dog at Large in Daylight Hours' charge if Brian was prepared to nod the scone to 'Fail to Re-register Dog' charge.
So after a few minutes discussion Brian decided that on this occasion, his first ever time at court, that he would accept the prost's offer.
Back in the court, the mag, whom we expected to still be burning up inside, went through the motions of striking out the first offer, and then blow me down if he didn't say 'I find the case proven without proceeding to conviction OR FURTHER PENALTY.'
You should have seen the prost scrambling to his feet to put in the council's claim for costs!
Shit it was funny.
So all in all, Brian went from facing nearly $400 in fraudulent claims that most unfortunate slaves end up paying with barely a wimper, to only $62 in costs.
What we learned most of all today, was what Mark stated heaps of times last w/e,
'You must break their presumption!'
The only thing Brian didn't remember to do was to break their presumption that he and the deft (defendant) were one and the same.
Other than that he did very well for a first time appearance.
But very importantly Brian's performance was more than enough to make them feel the ground tremble under their feet. Even to the extent that the prost chased us up the street wanting to find out if Brian intended advising others about how to deal with them.
Next it's my own turn at the same venue on June 30.
My biggest challenge will be to not let them engage me in argument!
Warm Regards,
Michael.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rough Explanation Of What is Happening Here
by Arthur Cristian
Love For Life
Note: To break their (The Rules - Statutes) presumption is determining the courts jurisdiction over i.e. the fiction (The Strawman) and their alleged jurisdiction over the living flesh and blood Man.
What Brian achieved was this......
If you were driving in a 60ks per hour zone doing 70'ks per hour, the Magistrate can only see the charge (the $ - the fines - the fees in line with the statute which is the rule within a society that allegedly has the force of law),........
but the magistrate is unable to look at the facts...
i.e, did anyone get hurt or get injured [the STATE is alleging that you harmed or injured the STATE] and if so could he or she please stand before the court and make a claim that they were hurt by you driving 70ks per hour in a 60ks per hour speed limit zone.
Obviously no real flesh & blood Man can STAND.
"Its a Fictitious entity" we are talking about here (prosecutor, magistrate STATE, statutes etc are all fiction)
And this why the the magistrate and the prosecutor were panicked because Brian was saying yes I am guilty to the facts so please lets look at the facts..........
whooooooo Under Admiralty Law everything is looked upon as commerce and the rules (statutes) sees everything in $ and Maritime contract, as the presumption is that Brian is in their ship not in facts (evidence) which requires a jury.
Breaking the presumption is saying that you are not on/in or part of their their ship at sea.
If you defend a claim against you, the state sends in its prosecutor (prostitute) who has no claim because he cant STAND and so they (including magistrate) can't see the facts. What Brian did, is agree guilty to the facts and not the charges, causing the magistrate & the prosecutor to panic,.......
remember THEY CAN ONLY BRING FORWARD A CHARGE.
Breaking The Presumption
In Admiralty Law he/she is breaking the presumption... i.e.
When you bring your case forward for their non-disclosure of material facts, i.e...... the charges against you, when you, the living flesh and blood Man were not even on the ship.
So therefore you say "I Plead Guilty To The Facts" which causes the magistrate/prosecutor etc to disclose the facts or to have the facts disclosed. This is why the Magistrate panicked because then he/she is forced by burden of proof, allowing the defendant to bring up the facts such as
1. You are a real flesh and blood Man - You are not the fictitious person on their ship
2. There has to be an injured party who stands
3. There has to be a witness to back up the claim
etc etc
Arthur Cristian

IT'S ALL A GAME:rolleyes:

IF YOU KNOW WHERE YOU STAND. THEN YOU WIN.

.

boots

02-12-2008, 07:27 AM

Here's a cool one.

If you have speed camera's in your country then this is a good way to fuck them up.

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

I want that fucking camera on trail:D:D

REMEMBER. YOU ARE A MAN A FREEMAN NOT A STRAWMAN.

.

boots

02-12-2008, 07:55 AM

Dont use common law it's bullshit

Because.

The law of equity overides common law

Update on rough notes provided by Mark within [ ]
To break their (The Rules - Statutes) presumption is determining the courts jurisdiction over i.e. the fiction (The Strawman) and their alleged jurisdiction over the living flesh and blood Man.
[dis in an aea dat needs coection badly. The common Law patriots talk about flesh an blood men and de gestapo/establisment love it coz we puttin our big foot in our mouth coz we ain't fl an blood but spirits wiffin a temple. On de Gold Coast 2 yrs ago during a protracted court hearing de defendant died and de Judge ultimately uled dat just coz de man died did not change the status of his persona hahahahaha a legal slip up? Doubt that, de law NEVER slips up. They tellen us 'you bimbos,de body was always dead, its a corps wemeber, wiffout de spirit its sticken wotten meat' we gotta wake up. We is spirits, de body is dead fred]

The body is dead and so are (corpse)..arations

It's all fiction.

.

wise haven

02-12-2008, 12:52 PM

Can anyone come up with a draft letter in response to a UK collection agency who is pursuing you for an alledged unpaid debt on behalf of another company

Personally I would only deal with the company that alleges there is a debt.

If you want to play head games with the collection agency try asking for proof:

1. Ask for proof and their claim of right to be the creditor for this alleged debt.

2. Ask for proof of permission and authority (to act as an agent) to collect the alleged debt.

3. Ask for proof that they have bought the debt (silly buggers if they did)

This information is only relevant to consumer debt and debt collection agencies (toothless tigers) and not bailiffs - which is a whole chapter in itself...generally speaking, bailiffs can only be involved after
judgement has gone against you.......silly bugger if you let it get that far.....but we all make mistakes.

Remember....Debt collection agencies can have their licenses revoked if they employ aggressive methods or mis-represent what powers they have.

No proof, no pay.....

thebarfly1

02-12-2008, 02:36 PM

Hey Rob, watched some of your videos, they are amazing but im still confused. See i live in the republic of ireland and wondering what you've said in those videos apply to my country or is there different routes for us?

Ok, havent read the entire thread yet so may be already answered - BUT, i did a little bit of research and both the magna carta and admirality acts of the UK are still being used in Ireland, the laws were never revoked and and are listed on the attorney generals website as still in use, so thats good enough for me. If that is the case, we've got the same rights and entitlements here as our friends across the water.

PS - Just looked at my Irish Drivers licence, and my legal fiction has an Uimhir Stoic / Stock number printed on it......! So.... i'm a product that Ireland holds in stock??

PPS - Just want to say howdy ho to Rob, watched your videos over the past week or two and find it all great...
Have a great interest in all of this since i "stuck it to the man" a few weeks ago over a load of parking tickets i went to court over. (i wrote to my local council in april saying that i didnt think that i was liable to pay for the tickets under law, but they didnt respond. Because of their lack of response Mr. Judgey threw out all claims for payment made against me.)

airkraft

02-12-2008, 03:50 PM

I`m interested in the story about that bloke from Australia who is helping the native Aboriginal people to make a claim for the monies owing to them from the govts/corporations that stole all the land from them, and then sold it to others for real estate.
Would this sort of thing not work in Canada and the USA for the native tribes that this has happened to ?

PS..life is like a pubic hair on the rim of a toilet bowl.....sooner or later, you`re going to get pissed off

baron von lotsov

02-12-2008, 04:54 PM

pdcdp

02-12-2008, 05:12 PM

I think this freeman business is a scam and has no basis in law. If you disagree with that then show me one QC who is willing to publicly acknowledge it.

It’s the same sort of BS as peak oil and all the rest of the scams the elite use to distract us with.

i believe that freemanery is a valid option, i do not know so with total confidence, but...

either way, why would any QC admit to it?

how exactly can it be a scam? what is there to scam out of us?

i would rather live my life chasing a dream of freedom than exist in semi-comfortable servitude....

i'll let you know in a few weeks when my notice is served and i've discussed it's contents with a police representative, then we may have a better idea :)

don't be such a negative nancy, eh?

p.s. depends on what kind of law you are refering to - commercial or common?

lesactive

02-12-2008, 05:15 PM

You'd do better to ask a wolf if its teeth are merely decorative.

1694

02-12-2008, 05:24 PM

You'd do better to ask a wolf if its teeth are merely decorative.

LOL, are all muslims terrorists aswell? :rolleyes:

No on have friends/relatives in the legal profession? Are they bad people?

Why not become a county court judge yourself: http://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/select/select.htm

thetonic

02-12-2008, 05:31 PM

You'd do better to ask a wolf if its teeth are merely decorative.

:D

rob menard

02-12-2008, 05:33 PM

I think this freeman business is a scam and has no basis in law. If you disagree with that then show me one QC who is willing to publicly acknowledge it.

It’s the same sort of BS as peak oil and all the rest of the scams the elite use to distract us with.

The scam is evidenced by what you have posted. You need a QC to think for you, and that shows a perfectly conditioned human chattel. Is a QC some how better the everyone else? What about if they had a chance to dispute and then failed to do so would you accept that as proof? As I posted earlier, the beauty of their scam is how people like you will defend it without thinking and grant all power of thought and determination to those who are a QC, because they apparently are better human beings. Years ago it was I will believe it if the temple priests say it is so.

When do you start to think for yourself?

As for basis in law, it is working and all you have to do is read sections 15, 38, 39, 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code of Canada to see it there in print and undeniable in court.

Peace eh?
Rob

klinker

02-12-2008, 05:40 PM

When do you start to think for yourself?

Exactly !!!! Thinking for yourself is the whole point. :cool:

bobfunkhouse

02-12-2008, 05:48 PM

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

Having spent the last few days looking into this subject , watching Rob's vids etc. i stumbled across this chap (apologies if it's already been posted) dealing with the freeman/strawman/ tax issue from an English perspective , I like the cut of his jib!!

And Rob , postitive vibes from Africa , keep it up!!

baron von lotsov

02-12-2008, 05:57 PM

how exactly can it be a scam? what is there to scam out of us?

Have a read:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/jordanmaxwell/jordanmaxwell.shtm

klinker

02-12-2008, 06:00 PM

Have a read:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/jordanmaxwell/jordanmaxwell.shtm

Jordan Maxwell ???? PMSL.

baron von lotsov

02-12-2008, 06:00 PM

When do you start to think for yourself?

I have always thought for myself. I'm saying it's a scam, not copying anyone's opinion here-this is my opinion based on what I know.

baron von lotsov

02-12-2008, 06:03 PM

Jordan Maxwell ???? PMSL.

Indeed, I think that the 'BBC of America' is an all time classic, especially how the BBC is these days. 'Scammers R Us' would have been just as relevant.

klinker

02-12-2008, 06:09 PM

I have always thought for myself. I'm saying it's a scam, not copying anyone's opinion here-this is my opinion based on what I know.

Does a scam not involve being duped out of money? Anyway good for you if that is what you think but why do you not let others find out for themselves whether or not it is a scam? Why should anyone listen to you? I've seen you weigh into this subject before without anything of substance Baron but with you I suspect you may have a personal agenda.

You are in a minority on this forum who constantly set out to dismantle a worthy thread that relates to very important useful information that can threaten the status quo should the idea ever gain critical mass. Fortunately most can see through you.

baron von lotsov

02-12-2008, 06:21 PM

Does a scam not involve being duped out of money? Anyway good for you if that is what you think but why do you not let others find out for themselves whether or not it is a scam? Why should anyone listen to you? I've seen you weigh into this subject before without anything of substance Baron but with you I suspect you may have a personal agenda.

You are in a minority on this forum who constantly set out to dismantle a worthy thread that relates to very important useful information that can threaten the status quo should the idea ever gain critical mass. Fortunately most can see through you.

I'm not telling anyone to listen to me; I was just correcting something that was said to me implying that I do not think for myself. This is utterly untrue and the freeman business is something I have already enquired into on here. It was thoroughly unconvincing and everytime I asked a sensible question, all the believers just gave me links, none could answer themselves.

So I asked whether any QCs have agreed with any of these claims. You can actually go to a JC or a QC and ask for council's opinion on any legal matter they are expert in. This came up when I was looking at a business idea many years ago. That was what we were going to do in order to get legal protection for the business and we spoke to them about it. This was in the 1980s and they said you can get a JC's opinion for about £400 and a QC's for about £1000. Go and do it if you like- I'm not stopping you and if you find out it is correct you can make millions. Good luck.

heebeejeebee

02-12-2008, 06:33 PM

hi rob, thanks so much for taking the time to visit here!

I have a question please - how would I go about dealing with car finance as a freeman on the land?

Thanks

dondaz

02-12-2008, 06:33 PM

Have a read:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/jorda...anmaxwell.shtm (http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/jordanmaxwell/jordanmaxwell.shtm)

There you go again baron, not thinking for yourself. Where is the scam? What is your point?

"Defendants failed to answer or otherwise defend against the commission's claims. Accordingly, defendants are in default!"

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/jordanmaxwell/040617defaultjudgment.pdf (http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/jordanmaxwell/040617defaultjudgment.pdf)

They only want Bar members to make money from giving legal advise, so as to keep the scam going. That tells me Maxwell and the other guy never knew how to defend themselves against the corporations. Though Jordan Maxwell knows quite a bit about the history of Law, he clearly is not a Freeman on The Land & to my knowledge has never claimed to be.

I suggest you read the posts in this thread and you'll see how they like to manipulate and decieve in order to stitch good people like Rob for speaking the truth. Only brainwashed solicitors/lawyers give legal advice, for they have a business licence to do so.

Now baron, show me where the scam you were talking about is in the freeman movement?

baron von lotsov

02-12-2008, 06:37 PM

wise haven

02-12-2008, 06:37 PM

I think this freeman business is a scam and has no basis in law. If you disagree with that then show me one QC who is willing to publicly acknowledge it.

It’s the same sort of BS as peak oil and all the rest of the scams the elite use to distract us with.

My post: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=644704&postcount=311

Is nothing to do with the freeman concept - It is accepted, proven, advice from the CAB (UK Citizens Advice Bureau)

If you believe the Freeman thing is bogus - take yourself away and research the Law here in the UK and you will soon see that it is one of those secrets "In plain sight".
It isn't a scam for the simple reason that free dissemination of information prevents any one or more parties making profit from this info (unlike QC's Barristers or solicitors who all have a vested interest in your lack of knowledge)
If you know your rights and understand them you will be empowered.....exactly what the PTB don't want.

Don't worry, it takes a while for the penny to drop (for all of us) but until then you are a bit of a thicky, inside the box thinker - no insult implied, just a bit of matey banter.....and human concern :)

Lots of luv bud.

yozhik

02-12-2008, 06:43 PM

rob menard

02-12-2008, 06:45 PM

hi rob, thanks so much for taking the time to visit here!

I have a question please - how would I go about dealing with car finance as a freeman on the land?

Thanks

Save some money until you can afford one and live within your means is what I am doing.

If you do need to finance one, then I would set up an appointment with a loans officer and share your beliefs and status and establish a trusting business relationship. If your word is good as a child of the state, it should be good as one who has grown up.

Peace eh?
Rob

PS- There are many QC's that work for the government, and I am sure they have sought their advice. I am also sure that there is nothing they can do about freemanery and if there was, they would have done so by now.

1694

02-12-2008, 06:46 PM

Baron makes an interesting point, lawyers get paid to win cases and get their clients off the hook. Why don't they use freeman ideas?

thetonic

02-12-2008, 06:49 PM

Baron makes an interesting point, lawyers get paid to win cases and get their clients off the hook. Why don't they use freeman ideas?

They would be dis-barred im sure... Lawyers dont get paid to win anything , they usually just bargain things down to a smaller charge.. But youre still getting a charge, thats not winning in my book

1694

02-12-2008, 06:51 PM

They would be dis-barred im sure... Lawyers dont get paid to win anything , they usually just bargain things down to a smaller charge.. But youre still getting a charge, thats not winning in my book

Lawyers get "Not Guilty" verdicts for their clients all the time.

Why would it matter if they were disbared, they could just be freeman lawyers.

yozhik

02-12-2008, 06:51 PM

Baron makes an interesting point, lawyers get paid to win cases and get their clients off the hook. Why don't they use freeman ideas?

A ridiculous question in its content and lack of knowledge on the Freeman movement.

What you advocate as "sound reasoning" is like applying for a job as a child minder at a community care centre and using your papers proving a history as a paedophile as being evidence you have experience working with young children

thetonic

02-12-2008, 06:52 PM

Laws / Statutes were initially created for everyones protection in equality... They have been hi-jacked as a means to make a very few select rich... Freeman attempt to circumvent this robbery by using their law against them...

Where is the scam again?

rob menard

02-12-2008, 06:52 PM

Baron makes an interesting point, lawyers get paid to win cases and get their clients off the hook. Why don't they use freeman ideas?

A lawyer makes an oath.
Their primary duty is not to their client, but to their society.
They make all their money on you not knowing this information.
They get paid to get people off.
You said it.
This information means there is nothing to get off.
So how would they make their money then?

Rob

PS- Just because a lawyer may have a better developed analytical and logical reasoning skills does not mean they have greater morals.

wise haven

02-12-2008, 06:54 PM

I'm not telling anyone to listen to me; I was just correcting something that was said to me implying that I do not think for myself. This is utterly untrue and the freeman business is something I have already enquired into on here. It was thoroughly unconvincing and everytime I asked a sensible question, all the believers just gave me links, none could answer themselves.

So I asked whether any QCs have agreed with any of these claims. You can actually go to a JC or a QC and ask for council's opinion on any legal matter they are expert in. This came up when I was looking at a business idea many years ago. That was what we were going to do in order to get legal protection for the business and we spoke to them about it. This was in the 1980s and they said you can get a JC's opinion for about £400 and a QC's for about £1000. Go and do it if you like- I'm not stopping you and if you find out it is correct you can make millions. Good luck.

I can answer your questions - and QC's and JC's have a vested interest in you not knowing and therefore have to employ them for a massive fee.

Get real - They enjoy a monopoly and will dispute anything that takes that monopoly away.

FFS - get educated..............if you don't believe the Freeman stuff at least look at the law as it stands - that is not hearsay, according to you.

LOLove

thetonic

02-12-2008, 06:54 PM

Why would it matter if they were disbared, they could just be freeman lawyers.

Nah ... They care too much about money... Thats why they became lawyers in the first place

1694

02-12-2008, 06:58 PM

A lawyer makes an oath.
Their primary duty is not to their client, but to their society.
They make all their money on you not knowing this information.
They get paid to get people off.
You said it.
This information means there is nothing to get off.
So how would they make their money then?

Rob

PS- Just because a lawyer may have a better developed analytical and logical reasoning skills does not mean they have greater morals.

Well what is that you do?

Essentially a freeman law practicioner? If said freeman law practicioner knows how to get people off by proving their is nothing to get off and the lay person doesn't know how to do this, you bet your balls to a barn dance that someone will charge for this information arbatrage.

If this practice would put traditional lawyers out of business, what is the first thing off a sinking ship? The Rats. They would simply jump ship to charging people for this service instead of traditional legal advice.

wise haven

02-12-2008, 06:59 PM

[/B]

Nah ... They care too much about money... Thats why they became lawyers in the first place

True............So True.

yozhik

02-12-2008, 07:16 PM

I didn't realise this thread was on the merits (or lack thereof) of lawyers.
Can we please get it back on topic?

Please ... let's not have ANOTHER Freeman thread hijacked and trivialised.

tien an

02-12-2008, 07:16 PM

1694

02-12-2008, 07:21 PM

Has it escaped your notice that you MAY NOT give legal advice unless you are a licensed practitioner?

Only commerce can be licensed, commerce is the buying AND selling of something.

Rob gives "legal" advice all the time sans licence.

We wont call it legal advice, we will just say advice on your human rights, aferall we aren't dealing with your straw man corporate person.

yozhik

02-12-2008, 07:25 PM

they could just be freeman lawyers.

:rolleyes:

Good to see you show us your grasp on this concept is growing exponentially 1694.

:D

A lawyer is a member of a secret (legal) society, practising and heralding statutes and acts.
A Freeman is everything a lawyer isn't.

It's like suggesting someone could be an obese anorexic, a drowning swimmer, an honest politician, or a benevolent member of the Rothschild dynasty. They are mutually exclusive.

:D

yozhik

02-12-2008, 07:27 PM

Rob gives "legal" advice all the time sans licence.

We wont call it legal advice, we will just say advice on your human rights, aferall we aren't dealing with your straw man corporate person.

Again, I totally disagree.
Rob shares his experiences and his opinions; but no sane person would take them as advice.

No offence Rob - but I prefer to make my own decisions ;)

I didn't realise this thread was on the merits (or lack thereof) of lawyers.
Can we please get it back on topic?

Please ... let's not have ANOTHER Freeman thread hijacked and trivialised.

Can we please get it back on topic?

1694

02-12-2008, 07:46 PM

:rolleyes:

Good to see you show us your grasp on this concept is growing exponentially 1694.

:D

A lawyer is a member of a secret (legal) society, practising and heralding statutes and acts.
A Freeman is everything a lawyer isn't.

It's like suggesting someone could be an obese anorexic, a drowning swimmer, an honest politician, or a benevolent member of the Rothschild dynasty. They are mutually exclusive.

:D

"Freeman advisors and shareres of experiances, relating to the fields of common and statute law" then. Not as catchy Ill admit, but you could still charge for these services. Infact Rob do you charge for your seminars?

All mutually exclusive events above are perfectly non exclusive as well. Epic grasp of the english lexicon.

john white

02-12-2008, 08:18 PM

So I asked whether any QCs have agreed with any of these claims. You can actually go to a JC or a QC and ask for council's opinion on any legal matter they are expert in. This came up when I was looking at a business idea many years ago. That was what we were going to do in order to get legal protection for the business and we spoke to them about it. This was in the 1980s and they said you can get a JC's opinion for about £400 and a QC's for about £1000. Go and do it if you like- I'm not stopping you and if you find out it is correct you can make millions. Good luck.

Your assuming they would know simply because they have passed the qualifications to administer the system as the system wants them to

It goes much deeper than that

You should know Baron that legal opinion: no matter how expensively sought: is ultimately only that: opinion

Those stuck in a dualistic mindset cannot understand that opinion is exactly what all Law is: and opinion is subject to choice, and subject to WILL

yozhik

02-12-2008, 08:19 PM

"Freeman advisors and shareres of experiances, relating to the fields of common and statute law" then. Not as catchy Ill admit

We can agree on this point :D

pleasuredome

02-12-2008, 08:52 PM

how does a freeman enter another country? i take it they wont have a passport.

bones

02-12-2008, 09:01 PM

how does a freeman enter another country? i take it they wont have a passport.

you have a right to travel!

tell the home office and airport you will be traveling on a certain date and that you will not be using a passport. it may come down to the pilot giving his ok for you to fly on his jet.

you will also need to confirm that the country you are traveling too are ok for you to enter without one.

ive been told that a passport is used so that the country you are going too is told that you are owned by the authoriser of the passport ie the crown...

airkraft

02-12-2008, 09:07 PM

If you`d have asked a few years ago any lawyer, solicitor etc if you could get you bank charges back from your bank, they would have said no....funny how we have found out that it was all illegal, and some of us have got our money back.
I dont think that the person who found out about the illegallities of it was a solicitor/lawyer, it was just some student who did a bit of study.

pleasuredome

02-12-2008, 09:12 PM

you have a right to travel!

tell the home office and airport you will be traveling on a certain date and that you will not be using a passport. it may come down to the pilot giving his ok for you to fly on his jet.

you will also need to confirm that the country you are traveling too are ok for you to enter without one.

ive been told that a passport is used so that the country you are going too is told that you are owned by the authoriser of the passport ie the crown...

does the other country need to issue papers for you to be allowed through border control? what about establishing who you are with your ticket for security?

yozhik

02-12-2008, 10:20 PM

does the other country need to issue papers for you to be allowed through border control? what about establishing who you are with your ticket for security?

Rob mentioned that having a Letter of Invitation from the country you intend to go to is helpful.

I'm sure anything can be arranged, as long as you allow the necessary time prior to travelling. probably not so easy for one of those "spur of the moment jaunts to the continent ..."

alternative_answer

02-12-2008, 10:47 PM

Personally I would only deal with the company that alleges there is a debt.

If you want to play head games with the collection agency try asking for proof:

1. Ask for proof and their claim of right to be the creditor for this alleged debt.

2. Ask for proof of permission and authority (to act as an agent) to collect the alleged debt.

3. Ask for proof that they have bought the debt (silly buggers if they did)

This information is only relevant to consumer debt and debt collection agencies (toothless tigers) and not bailiffs - which is a whole chapter in itself...generally speaking, bailiffs can only be involved after
judgement has gone against you.......silly bugger if you let it get that far.....but we all make mistakes.

Remember....Debt collection agencies can have their licenses revoked if they employ aggressive methods or mis-represent what powers they have.

No proof, no pay.....

Wisehaven: Thank you very much for this, I will challenge them with questions, I kinda had an idea this was the case after reading lots of Free man info.

pleasuredome

02-12-2008, 10:51 PM

so what about paying for local services with your council tax, like having your rubbish collected?

helpus

02-12-2008, 11:02 PM

yozhik

02-12-2008, 11:23 PM

i really want the freeman status to be for the good of mankind...

alot of it though seems to stem from personal greed eg: i want somewhere nice to live, with electric and creature comforts, but i don't want to pay...

It might come across this way, IF your focus is on the bond aspect of it.
Becoming a Freeman is more about being responsible for your own actions.
However, you also have to ask the question; how can you pay when there is nothing to pay with?

also, i am in trouble in court and i don't want to pay...
The Freeman concept is more about NOT ending up in Court ... to resolve matters before they get to conflict. Acting with honour.

also, the driving the car thing.. want to do it, don't want to pay
Sorry? Pay for what? Pay to travel in your private automobile? Why would you need to do that?

seems all very self centered. what if you are homeless, don't break the law (a freeman has to behave also) and do not drive a car... what's the point? or more like it, what has a self centered person got to gain from it?
It's up to each individual as to "why" they choose.
That's the point; free to choose.

i guess people wouldn't be half as interested if their was not some "financial" gain from it.

i think the freeman theory is purposefully obtuse, because either a. it's not true or b. someone's gonna charge for the solution when it's completed.
I guess that is your opinion.
I think you have a mindset that confirms becoming a Freeman is not for you ... but again, thats your choice and your right.

helpus

02-12-2008, 11:30 PM

I think you have a mindset that confirms becoming a Freeman is not for you ... but again, thats your choice and your right.

having lived in the woods of the uk for more than seven years, paying no taxes (edit - claiming no benefits) and avoiding trouble - just living a natural existance, i would guess it might be just up my street...

grenadene

02-12-2008, 11:34 PM

i really want the freeman status to be for the good of mankind...

alot of it though seems to stem from personal greed eg: i want somewhere nice to live, with electric and creature comforts, but i don't want to pay...

also, i am in trouble in court and i don't want to pay...

also, the driving the car thing.. want to do it, don't want to pay

seems all very self centered. what if you are homeless, don't break the law (a freeman has to behave also) and do not drive a car... what's the point? or more like it, what has a self centered person got to gain from it?

i guess people wouldn't be half as interested if their was not some "financial" gain from it.

i think the freeman theory is purposefully obtuse, because either a. it's not true or b. someone's gonna charge for the solution when it's completed.

You are born by chance. The game is already in play you are issued with a birth certificate and hey presto you are suddenly the property of state bound by all its often nonsensical rule and regulations.

Freemanry seems to me to be a bit of a step back and a 'hey hey!' not so fast. I personally have had no imput to the rule making process yet I, as a balanced and conscious individual appear to be legally bound to texts I've never seen and don't understand.

500 years ago the source of all law was the Church, not a lot of people could read, bibles weren't widely circulated so the 'flock' had to rely on pompous clerics to interpret the good book for them. This is what's happening now in the legal system.

For us the 'magic documents' are the laws and statues of the land. Not even a well educated individual would attempt to decipher them. Hence people pay the guys who know the tricks of the trade many hundreds of pounds to do it for them.

The right to travel isn't a privilege that some other human being can grant you, we are free souls if I want to travel I will thank you very much... Next! :) If I am using the public highway for profits then it seems right to apply for licence to do so.... these are public roads not privately owned toll roads. They are paid for by the tax on fuel . If corporations want to use roads freely then perhaps they should contribute to their upkeep. If one wishes to travel in a manner not causing harm to other public road users then what can possibly be the problem. Whether I choose to travel by foot, horse or automobile as long I am not causing anyone else distress then of what concern is it to anyone.

The basic fact is NO group of other humans can possibly dictate to another group of humans ... as to how to behave on the planet they were born on! unless God wishes to speak to me directly I'm pretty much considering myself the top of my own food chain.

We can all think for ourselves.... that's why we have a brain each

If I damage your property I will reimburse you, I promise not to kill you or your ox or steal your wife..... enough said I think :)

1694

02-12-2008, 11:37 PM

having lived in the woods of the uk for more than seven years, paying no taxes (edit - claiming no benefits) and avoiding trouble - just living a natural existance, i would guess it might be just up my street...

Kudos.

One thing that puts me off; what was the mating situation like?

Seriously though, it seems you have already been more of a Freeman than any of the freeman "Gurus" will ever be.

helpus

02-12-2008, 11:47 PM

Kudos.

One thing that puts me off; what was the mating situation like?

Seriously though, it seems you have already been more of a Freeman than any of the freeman "Gurus" will ever be.

the mating situation is basic and healthy... just as it should, it's a natural situation, that's been going on since the slime water...

yeah, there are alot of people doing the freeman deal, but without the label...

i want this to work out for people, i'm just a bit concerned a few people have the wrong motives for it, and i don't want anyone to be hoodwinked by it. If it's real, let's have it...??

i spoke to a friend who is principal of one the biggest colleges in the uk, i asked him to ask his employees, eg: business studies, law studies professors about the freeman situation... it's a work in progress but so far this is a portion of what has been said...

" taking one tiny detail which may be true and adding 10 times as much nonesense or unproven supposition to make what they think is the truth about how everyone is being deceived by everyone else."

i'm just wary... or is it paranoid, as one poster stated, trying to lay the term "paranoid" in a negative, derogatory way??

dunno yet, i'm openminded

1694

03-12-2008, 12:03 AM

the mating situation is basic and healthy... just as it should, it's a natural situation, that's been going on since the slime water...

yeah, there are alot of people doing the freeman deal, but without the label...

i want this to work out for people, i'm just a bit concerned a few people have the wrong motives for it, and i don't want anyone to be hoodwinked by it. If it's real, let's have it...??

i spoke to a friend who is principal of one the biggest colleges in the uk, i asked him to ask his employees, eg: business studies, law studies professors about the freeman situation... it's a work in progress but so far this is a portion of what has been said...

" taking one tiny detail which may be true and adding 10 times as much nonesense or unproven supposition to make what they think is the truth about how everyone is being deceived by everyone else."

i'm just wary... or is it paranoid, as one poster stated, trying to lay the term "paranoid" in a negative, derogatory way??

dunno yet, i'm openminded

Aye but is there much of a selection? :p

I have noticed similar motivations, often these seem to be driving people to believe. They are looking at it from a "If this works it will be great for me" perspective, no one is easier to decieve than those who want to be decieved.

I really cringed at the beggining to the Irenes vid where she gave a bitter little rant that she didn't get enough in her divorce from her rich husband and that drove her down the freeman route.

yozhik

03-12-2008, 12:10 AM

it's a work in progress but so far this is a portion of what has been said...

" taking one tiny detail which may be true and adding 10 times as much nonesense or unproven supposition to make what they think is the truth about how everyone is being deceived by everyone else."

dunno yet, i'm openminded

I have to agree with you on this - maybe we just have different ways of approaching it. :)
I'm reading and searching and asking and experimenting with it as much as I can. I can see and feel some of the foundation of it, but some of it seems a bit "half assed" ... or as you have said; hidden.
I firmly believe with everything that I have, that the powers that be have attempted to control, manipulate, enslave and bleed us dry, for as long as there has been air to breathe.

Enough is enough.

... and as many looking at the Freeman movement have stated; if you believe you are free, you are. Most of this is how you see yourself and conduct yourself.

I don't have all the answers; truth is, I don't have any answers ... yet.
There seem to be some possibilities, but a heck of a lot more questions than anything else right now.

The journey continues ...

yozhik

03-12-2008, 12:13 AM

I really cringed at the beggining to the Irenes vid where she gave a bitter little rant that she didn't get enough in her divorce from her rich husband and that drove her down the freeman route.

Interesting ... I heard a woman who had been abused by a control freak and wanted her fair share ...

Two sides to every story ...

1694

03-12-2008, 12:19 AM

Interesting ... I heard a woman who had been abused by a control freak and wanted her fair share ...

Two sides to every story ...

So the lesson is if you want a lots of money without working find a rich guy who treats you like shit, mary then divorce him? Id rather be poor.

If the guy was a dick why didn't she just leave?

Why do you want monetary compensation for choosing to stay with someone who is a twat.

(Unless the guy physically stopped her leaving 100% of the time)

helpus

03-12-2008, 12:20 AM

Aye but is there much of a selection? :p

of course not....

but in a flippant way, it does give credance to the theory of how aids has spread.

no offence intended :)

1694

03-12-2008, 12:23 AM

of course not....

but in a flippant way, it does give credance to the theory of how aids has spread.

no offence intended :)

Pisser.

yozhik

03-12-2008, 12:24 AM

So the lesson is if you want a lots of money without working find a rich guy who treats you like shit, mary then divorce him? Id rather be poor.

If the guy was a dick why didn't she just leave?

Why do you want monetary compensation for choosing to stay with someone who is a twat.

(Unless the guy physically stopped her leaving 100% of the time)

Are you happy in life?
What makes you smile?
I'm compelled to ask, due to the simple fact that every post I have ever read from you is negative, cynical, dismissive or oppressive.

Life is just too damn short ... live a little. :)

Anyway ... enough of that ... let's get back to topic!

1694

03-12-2008, 12:28 AM

Are you happy in life?
What makes you smile? Cynicism
I'm compelled to ask, due to the simple fact that every post I have ever read from you is negative, cynical, dismissive or oppressive.

Life is just too damn short ... live a little. :)

I have made jokes on here, but sometimes I do wish I'd listened to what my mother told me when I was little.

helpus

03-12-2008, 12:38 AM

Pisser.

mate it's not that bad...you can always spill your seed on the ground and be damned to eternal hell...

anyway freeman, i notice robert maynard stated something along the lines of he is living to his means, which (without selling his secrets) sounds like a pretty humble existance, which is fine and dandy, but it's a ruff deal, society has got it's shit together in many ways, and the alternative is a pretty basic lifestyle, what we need is not liberation from corrupt governments, but governments that are not corrupt or peoples governments or true democracy where people have referendum's and have a say in our outcomes at every step of the way...

the way it is now is not so bad compared to how it could be, however it is worse than it could be because of elitist agenda's. We need new systems in place that have the good of the people at heart, and the only way is to embrace the governments at their own games and remove them from within... no use fighting or rejecting, we have have to rise to the occasion and play them at the same game rather than shirking away...

helpus

03-12-2008, 12:52 AM

that's part of the reason i was dissapointed when David Icke insisted he wasn't actually running for government, but just playing their game...

it needs someone to follow it through and be committed...

youtube link (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OT9gq334_LM&feature=related) - David Icke running for by-election in Haltemprice and Howden (correct me if wrong)

yozhik

03-12-2008, 01:30 AM

the way it is now is not so bad compared to how it could be, however it is worse than it could be because of elitist agenda's. We need new systems in place that have the good of the people at heart, and the only way is to embrace the governments at their own games and remove them from within... no use fighting or rejecting, we have have to rise to the occasion and play them at the same game rather than shirking away...

From what I have seen, this is what the Freeman and CR way is all about ... it it using the corrupt system they have setup out of greed, to fight them by turning their rules against them, to achieve what we want.
At some level it does smell of hypocrisy - but given where we are; what choice is there?
All we're trying to do is achieve an outcome by using all means necessary, and taking back what is Rightfully ours.

However, I must admit to a growing sense of frustration at the lack of something "concrete".
OK - I get the theory ... I can grasp the rationale ... the process is somewhat convoluted and lacks any structure.
The "evidence" of success is scarce and vague.

The UK's most forthright exponent of this (from what I can see); John Harris ... has even had huge difficulties even getting his papers served - let alone in place, validated and "active".

All credit to the likes of Rob who are at least willing to "put it out there" ... but even then, there is conflicting information and suggestions;
do you go the Freeman route?
The Commercial Redemption route?
Accept for value?
Claim of proof?
Any dealings with the UCC come with a HUGE warning label on them ... even some of the different options don't agree on "basic" premises.
The bond is your birth certificate but some use an EIN number, or do you use the NIN/SIN/SSN?
What if you don't have a birth certificate from a country but DO have an NI/SIN/SSN?

Examples;
Freeman is about separation of the man from the person ... Winston (see Kelowna videos) rejects the division of man and corporation and unites them as a corporate soul, acting as one.
Freeman is based on NOU and CoR ... Commercial redemption is about being bonded and being in control of the public/commerce world when you are in it.

It's like two completely different schools of thought.
The biggest issue I see is the two being completely intermingled and in my opinion, THAT'S where the confusion and vagueness comes from.

helpus

03-12-2008, 01:36 AM

From what I have seen, this is what the Freeman and CR way is all about ... it it using the corrupt system they have setup out of greed, to fight them by turning their rules against them, to achieve what we want.

At some level it does smell of hypocrisy - but given where we are; what choice is there?

All we're trying to do is achieve an outcome by using all means necessary, and taking back what is Rightfully ours.

I had a feeling you'd say that... i know where you're coming from, let's all stop playing the game and then their game will cease, but does this sound like it's achievable? maybe, personally, i would like to see these people taken on within their own rules, not be rejecting them or manipultating them or finding backdoors to freedom, but by facing them and altering them and opening the front doors for everyone.

idealistic maybe, but dropping out ain't gonna change nowt.

tough call though granted.

pdcdp

03-12-2008, 01:37 AM

Have a read:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/jordanmaxwell/jordanmaxwell.shtm

what on earth was that supposed to prove?:confused:

helpus

03-12-2008, 01:39 AM

i think we are talking about the same thing, but just covering different angles.

that's why i would like to learn more about freemanery so we can have all angles covered.

pdcdp

03-12-2008, 01:53 AM

yozhik

03-12-2008, 02:07 AM

I had a feeling you'd say that... i know where you're coming from, let's all stop playing the game and then their game will cease, but does this sound like it's achievable? maybe, personally, i would like to see these people taken on within their own rules, not be rejecting them or manipultating them or finding backdoors to freedom, but by facing them and altering them and opening the front doors for everyone.

idealistic maybe, but dropping out ain't gonna change nowt.

tough call though granted.

Given what they have shown themselves to be capable of - not just now, but through the ages - I just don't see them "allowing" us to seek remedy through the front door.

It sounds childish and pathetic; but you have to wonder whether a full blown revolution is the only way ... but the apathy and success of the "dumbing down" has simply been too great widespread ... at this time.

Watch c-span ... read other threads on this forum ... search the internet ... politicians from various countries have been warned to start storing food - make sure they have provisions and a "safe place". Stories of bunkers and secure installations have/will be made available to U.S politicians and their immediate family members ... secret sessions of Congress ... the army deployed INSIDE the U.S for the first time in its history, Rex 84, martial law, FEMA concentration camps ... indefinite detention, anti-terrorism laws that have seen "paper terrorists" jailed in the U.S ... and have also seen Gordon brown name a BANK ... a f***ing BANK (Landsbanki / Iceland) on the list of "terrorist regimes".

It's out of control ... the fear is growing, the anger is growing, the media hype is growing ... and something will surely give.

The only way to start the seed is by education; the only way to achieve that is the slow, gradual erosive process of small victories against the status quo.

How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time.

yozhik

03-12-2008, 02:16 AM

somebody mentioned john harris as our uk whatever....

but didn't he take a different route? from what i remember he entered lawful rebellion under section 61 of the magna carta.

i was never really convinced about that process, a nuicor seems like a far, far better structured way of doing it....

In a roundabout way, this is my point.
It seems somewhat "fractured".
If you look on the tpuc site, it mentiones Lawful Rebellion and section 61 ... on the forum it also mentions Freeman AND it also mentions Commercial Redemption, which actually seems to be a major "mission" of the tpuc modus operandi.

From what I have seen and read ... there definitely ARE grounds for lawful rebellion under section 61 and also a very strong case for treason, committed by the UK politicians from the mid-70's ... hence the numerous complaints that have been filed in police stations throughout the country to start the process.

The end goals appear to be the same ... taking back control from the lecherous, lying, corrupt, parasitic puppets of the elite - masquerading as our representatives - kicking them out ... dissolving their money driven, moral-less commercial world ... and establishing some form of "sanity".

I'm not sure how effective we will be at achieving that goal, unless we have some form of co-ordination and unified strength.

helpus

03-12-2008, 02:36 AM

I'm not sure how effective we will be at achieving that goal, unless we have some form of co-ordination and unified strength.

i can't get away from the idea of forming a political party with pooled resources and acheiving redemption through legally elected domination of the corruption. it can then be truly faced and dismantled, rather than trying to rebel against it from the outside.

i know that's their game and it's what they want us to do, put once infilltrated the rules can be changed officially and legally...

surely any old fool with a few quid and a touring stage show can get elected...

i don't know why we don't try it, instead of working ourselves up into an antisocial frenzy?

rob menard

03-12-2008, 04:31 AM

mate it's not that bad...you can always spill your seed on the ground and be damned to eternal hell...

anyway freeman, i notice robert maynard stated something along the lines of he is living to his means, which (without selling his secrets) sounds like a pretty humble existance, which is fine and dandy, but it's a ruff deal, society has got it's shit together in many ways, and the alternative is a pretty basic lifestyle, what we need is not liberation from corrupt governments, but governments that are not corrupt or peoples governments or true democracy where people have referendum's and have a say in our outcomes at every step of the way...

the way it is now is not so bad compared to how it could be, however it is worse than it could be because of elitist agenda's. We need new systems in place that have the good of the people at heart, and the only way is to embrace the governments at their own games and remove them from within... no use fighting or rejecting, we have have to rise to the occasion and play them at the same game rather than shirking away...

Living within my means is what makes me rich. I have no debts to worry about, I have a nice one bedroom place, many good friends, and wisdom. People worry about losing their money, wisdom cannot be removed from you.

Also, I am somewhat offended by people who suggest I hide information or do not do my best to reveal all I know which could help them. Everything I sell in my package is available online freely. I do have a belly and rent demands and enjoy my beer. None of these are free to me because I am a Freeman.

The big difference between a Freeman such as myself and someone who is not a Freeman is not their nicer car which they do not even own. I am an adult responsible for my actions, and others are actually wards of the state.

When I hear people such as yourself complain about Freemanery, I hear them saying 'Who will give me my cookies?" The fact is you will learn to bake. If you want to be half man and mostly child, at least from a legal perspective you are seen as a child, then stay where you are and do your best to be happy but do not cry when your allowance runs out or you are put to bed early. And above all, do not try complaining to your nanny when those who no longer need a nanny are engaging in practices that you cannot, as a child.

This is not anti social behavior. It is pro spiritual growth behavior. As a Freeman, I am not 'anti' or 'non' anything. If I am acting it is because I am for something, and trying to label me an 'anti' is just a way of dismissing my claim.

Peace eh?
Rob

PS- Being a Freeman means no longer being a pampered overly governed child. How is that anti-social? Unless of course 'social' means childish.

lesactive

03-12-2008, 04:58 AM

After the doubt, when the light switches on and the beasts that had cast the shadows are stripped of their cover, there is an initial welling of anger and resentment that seems to encompass the whole of your autonomous existence up to that point. Fear, confusion and denial play havoc with reason. I think it's natural for a vengeful spirit to be present at first; that righteous indignation which comes from the realization that a fraud may be occurring and that you're the patsy. Good thing people can change.

Cheezy metaphor time....
You start digging through reams of information looking for bits and pieces of a grand puzzle and you attempt to gain a foothold by setting parameters to this new paradigm you've discovered. You begin with the idea that honour, truth, duty and love will be the four corners of your puzzle and you're going to make your own image by anchoring your search to those precepts. They (the them of ill repute) have an image all laid out for you but it's missing one corner and it throws the whole composition off balance due to its lack of direction. Without the tie in to love the other precepts become fickle imaginings of those in control.

So you read on....

You're teased by snatches of truth offered from conflicting sources and of varying intentions. You know now that you're born free and have only enslaved yourself for the sake of manufactured agreements. You read accounts of others acquiring 'stuff for free' and start dreaming of the possibilities, for yourself. You check the corners of your picture and 'stuff for free' doesn't really fit. But then you think, "Everything is free and provided for us on this planet; the only thing expended is energy through our labour to construct the things we need and want. You do what you do and I do what I do and we all get our stuff. Money should not even be involved." But it is. There must be an exchange of energy.

So you read on...

Hopefully, we all come to the realization that trying to get something for nothing is not the aim of the 'movement' at its heart and is actually its antithesis. If people start getting into this for personal gain it can only hurt the 'movement' and probably themselves to a great extent.

That being said, it can't hurt to make them obey their own rules and if it takes using their system of currencies and false identities to make the truth known then so be it. These people expend minimal energy to collect the energy of others only to twist it to the point that our future is already pledged to the hoarder/manipulators.

The way I see, they created the game and the means to play it. How and whether you want to play is up to you. Do you want to be the token or the player?

boots

03-12-2008, 07:58 AM

The scam is that instead of explaining how it works in any way that has any bearing on the law, you so-called freemen play the 'their hiding it all from us' card. This is bullshit and there are many people in the legal profession who would use this if it were in any way true. The fact is that it is total bollox.

ROFLMAO,

This, coming from a guy who gallivants around with lawyers:rolleyes:

The fact is that in Australia there are 4 Magistrates who are backing a Freeman and are totally on his side as well as a few lawyers who have seen the light and are working with people becoming Freeman.

The other FACT (lawyers and QC) is that 99% of then FEED of the system that you love :rolleyes: so much.

Enough said.

I will get this of my chest so I dont have to deal with these distractior's again.

1694 & helpus.

You 2 dont have any questions that might even look to be understanding the ideology of it, but stick to the slave mentality of the established way:rolleyes: either you are both gutless and can't stand up for yourselves and dont have an open mind that can think laterally, or you are seriously trying to put of anyone that might, like to look into this phenomenon.

Now, this stuff works, there is no doubt about it. I have given at least 3 examples on page 31 and 32.

The whole point of it is to 1) Break presumptions and 2) Get a mind set that you are NOT a slave.

Get this in your head's, then doors open up for you because you start to act like a Man/Women again who will NOT be controlled by money and the elite. You can use the system to work for you not the other way around. This is the only way to win back freedoms for the whole of society for our children of the future. The PTB can only control us by fear there is no other way and we have let them do this to us for over 4.000 years this how long commerce has been in place. When you love life and are free then others will follow.

I can bet my balls that when i have achieved this and played the system to my advantage then other's will follow, for deep in our hearts is the desire for a better way of living one that see's a better existence for our children and the world.

Freeman and women will break the control bit by bit until there will be a tidal wave to strong for anyone of the elite to stop.

Let us raise the consciousness of everyone and stand together in communities and back each other in the courts.

This way we win.

There is no selfishness to this movement because it will, benefit the whole world in the long run.

.

klinker

03-12-2008, 10:46 AM

what on earth was that supposed to prove?:confused:

It proves nothing that is relevant to Freeman.

klinker

03-12-2008, 10:47 AM

ROFLMAO,

This, coming from a guy who gallivants around with lawyers:rolleyes:

The fact is that in Australia there are 4 Magistrates who are backing a Freeman and are totally on his side as well as a few lawyers who have seen the light and are working with people becoming Freeman.

The other FACT (lawyers and QC) is that 99% of then FEED of the system that you love :rolleyes: so much.

Enough said.

I will get this of my chest so I dont have to deal with these distractior's again.

1694 & helpus.

You 2 dont have any questions that might even look to be understanding the ideology of it, but stick to the slave mentality of the established way:rolleyes: either you are both gutless and can't stand up for yourselves and dont have an open mind that can think laterally, or you are seriously trying to put of anyone that might, like to look into this phenomenon.

Now, this stuff works, there is no doubt about it. I have given at least 3 examples on page 31 and 32.

The whole point of it is to 1) Break presumptions and 2) Get a mind set that you are NOT a slave.

Get this in your head's, then doors open up for you because you start to act like a Man/Women again who will NOT be controlled by money and the elite. You can use the system to work for you not the other way around. This is the only way to win back freedoms for the whole of society for our children of the future. The PTB can only control us by fear there is no other way and we have let them do this to us for over 4.000 years this how long commerce has been in place. When you love life and are free then others will follow.

I can bet my balls that when i have achieved this and played the system to my advantage then other's will follow, for deep in our hearts is the desire for a better way of living one that see's a better existence for our children and the world.

Freeman and women will break the control bit by bit until there will be a tidal wave to strong for anyone of the elite to stop.

Let us raise the consciousness of everyone and stand together in communities and back each other in the courts.

This way we win.

There is no selfishness to this movement because it will, benefit the whole world in the long run.

.

Well said. :cool:

Many of us can see but we are blind to what is hidden in plain sight right in front of us.

pleasuredome

03-12-2008, 10:50 AM

so what about paying for local services with your council tax, like having your rubbish collected?

friendsinthesky

03-12-2008, 11:20 AM

so what about paying for local services with your council tax, like having your rubbish collected?

In the 'freeman' movement, I can't answer that, but , you can buy a 'worm farm waste' management system --> http://www.wormfarm.com.au/

You put paper cardboard and other recycle stuff into, let the worms do their thing and you have fertilizer for the garden. yes, you will have to shop carefully when purchasing items, but it makes sense dosen't it.

boots

03-12-2008, 11:31 AM

Well said. :cool:

Many of us can see but we are blind to what is hidden in plain sight right in front of us.

It sure is klinker;)

I'm trying to get into the concept of honour and dishonour because this something that works well in the court system and as a matter of fact in our everyday lives.

This is what I'm learning.

Ownership
Accountability
Responsibility
Solutions

Are Honourable ways of dealing with the courts because as "creditors" we ask questions or withdraw?

Blame
Excuses
Denial
Slavery Is dishonour.

1 Full acceptance
2 Conditional Acceptance. I like this one

= honour

3 Argument.
4 silence

= Dishonour

You always lose when you try 3 & 4 with a judge or cop.

Thanks to :Mark :Pytellek: for this advise.

Anyway here is how you will need to respond in court.
You must remember NEVER to argue anything or to remain silent .or to testify – make a statement/claim
Creditors respond
Debtors testify/make statements/claims
Just accept whatever is being thrown at you as long as the other party can verify – establish proof of claim via autographed affidavit.
An affidavit is the highest form of commercial energy recognised by court and if anyone knowingly lies on an affidavit, that’s perjury and gaolable offence.
If they refuse to autograph an affidavit or say they don’t have to, then that’s ok, but we just say, ‘that’s ok, you don’t have to autograph an affidavit attesting to your claim but I take it by your refusal as your admission of guilt to lying directly or lying by omission or deception and that what you just claimed is false, but I forgive you and you may retract that statement.’
See how powerful that is. Instead of arguing that they are lying just accept their statement as long as they can prove it.

.

intellection

03-12-2008, 11:43 AM

Dear Robert of the Family Menard,

I have great interest in this concept of becoming a Freeman on the Land derived mainly from your teachings. Reading these forums I see many people who appear predominantly driven by the bond aspect. Redemption of such and the belief that it will lead to a life of prosperity. The incorrect path in my opinion. My interest is motivated purely by the freedom aspect. Being able to choose and be free of a government that I have not selected and which conducts itself in a disagreeable manner to me. I do not wish to contribute to a government which lies, cheats, supports war and elevates the needs of Corporation above its Citizens. I believe the Freeman concept could offer this immunity and freedom to create an alternative.

I have conducted some research but find the whole situation a tangle. This furthers my belief that they are hiding something by making it so difficult to understand. How the hell did we let this happen? They are supposed to do what we say but they use the majority of non-thinkers as backing for their decisions. I no longer want to be part of it. i'd rather build a treehouse in the woods and hunt.

I'd like to finish by highlighting that this concept appears to be of great interest to a great amount of people and those people have invested much time into understanding. I just hope that this isn't a cruel trick played under the guise of comedy because preying on peoples disatisfaction with a sick society is even sicker.

I guess I will discover the truth for myself in due course.
Thank-you for your effort in raising awareness.

PS. Some things just aren't funny but we still laugh.

klinker

03-12-2008, 12:06 PM

It sure is klinker;)

I'm trying to get into the concept of honour and dishonour because this something that works well in the court system and as a matter of fact in our everyday lives.

This is what I'm learning.

Ownership
Accountability
Responsibility
Solutions

Are Honourable ways of dealing with the courts because as "creditors" we ask questions or withdraw?

Blame
Excuses
Denial
Slavery Is dishonour.

1 Full acceptance
2 Conditional Acceptance. I like this one

= honour

3 Argument.
4 silence

= Dishonour

You always lose when you try 3 & 4 with a judge or cop.

Thanks to :Mark :Pytellek: for this advise.

Anyway here is how you will need to respond in court.
You must remember NEVER to argue anything or to remain silent .or to testify – make a statement/claim
Creditors respond
Debtors testify/make statements/claims
Just accept whatever is being thrown at you as long as the other party can verify – establish proof of claim via autographed affidavit.
An affidavit is the highest form of commercial energy recognised by court and if anyone knowingly lies on an affidavit, that’s perjury and gaolable offence.
If they refuse to autograph an affidavit or say they don’t have to, then that’s ok, but we just say, ‘that’s ok, you don’t have to autograph an affidavit attesting to your claim but I take it by your refusal as your admission of guilt to lying directly or lying by omission or deception and that what you just claimed is false, but I forgive you and you may retract that statement.’
See how powerful that is. Instead of arguing that they are lying just accept their statement as long as they can prove it.

Much of it is about language. What language to use and when. What you say in legal situations is so important from dealing with local councils, the police and court representatives. They know what the language is and are disarmed when it is used against them.

yozhik

03-12-2008, 12:42 PM

Even MORE reason to become a Freeman in the UK :mad:

Police State (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1091448/Big-Brother-police-war-time-power-demand-ID-street--pain-sending-jail.html)

The line in the sand has been well and truly crossed ...

boots

03-12-2008, 12:46 PM

Much of it is about language. What language to use and when. What you say in legal situations is so important from dealing with local councils, the police and court representatives. They know what the language is and are disarmed when it is used against them.

From what I'm learning It's all about contract law, as you know and these bullies try intimidating us but when, as you say, you use the threat of law against them they back down.

Here is the main thing to do and that is to make them prove it with an Affidavit of claim signed by the plaintiff if the "plaintiff is the cops (MET) then it is impossible because you can't bring in a corporation to testify. A corporation is dead. and if they say this is a representative then great get them to sign an Affidavit of claim. that is " true, correct and not misleading with full commercial liability" The cop cant because he is not the MET.

I'm getting think that itr's more about statements that words although the words are important those words are traps because it is "their" words.

Here is an example.

I'll highlight the words that are relevant.

Now, even before the magistrate calls you up you are supposed to report your attendance/presence to the court but I suggest you don’t do that coz you enter a contract wiff em straight away.
Just go into the chamber room and sit down until ya name is called up
Now when the magistrate calls you up, here’s what you say:
Stuart(S).....
Sir, I have NOT come to argue today but to settle and close this matter, to stop and correct any and all dishonours and that my intent is to make all parties with a real interest in this matter commercially whole again, that is my intent Sir, and that upon mature reflection, it has come to my attention, that I have committed an unintentional and mistaken dishonour, due to my previous ignorance of the law.
I wish to sincerely and humbly apologise for any and all of my dishonours, which were committed unintentionally and in error, and I humbly seek the forgiveness of all parties in interest in this matter for any and all such dishonours which to the best of my ability, will not occur again.
I hereby wish to inform all real parties in interest in this matter that it is my sincere and humble intention to make all parties in interest in these/this matter, who believe that they may have been damaged in any way, to be made commercially whole again, and not to argue any of the well-pled facts in this matter. dont say charges
I wish to humbly apologise for a number of grave dishonours committed and attributable to me in this matter (if magistrate ever interjects, just wait and then just continue because the apology wipes the slate clean of all dishonours and they don’t want you to come back into honour), including but not limited to, not settling this matter earlier before coming into the public here and using public resources, (Bond maybe?) among other dishonours committed unwittingly as a result of my ignorance of the law and ignorance how to deal with matters and also for my delinquency, that I now wish to rectify all dishonours committed and will do my very best to not make any mistakes or dishonour any party again Sir and if I do, can you please tell me my errors so as not only to maintain the honour of those around me but also my own and that unless I am brought to attention by you Sir for any dishonour I may unwittingly commit, I shall take it that I have not committed any further dishonour, otherwise if I am denied my remedy They ALL ways must offer you a remedy is the law to correct any dishonour when unaware of it, would it not put you then in dishonour to prevent me my remedy and opportunity to cure my unintended dishonour?
I also wish to ask for forgiveness for all those dishonours and pray that you will extend that courtesy to me, thank you.
Now Sir, over the matter before us, I wish to settle the matter privately and exhaust my opportunity to do so with my neighbour ( or the corporation)But you must make clear you are a man not a chattel and in honour and ask for an extension of time in order to release funds held in a trust account so I may be able to settle the matter in honour. It will take me about 5 or 6 weeks to release the Trust funds Sir, will the court extend this courtesy to me and permit me my remedy to settle the issue privately with my neighbour in honour?
Registrar(R)/Prosecutor(P)
Ok, we will extend you the time required…. (or whatever in the positive)
IF ‘no, we will finish the matter today, you have had enough time already’ (this is just a test to see if you really are the creditor and will respond honourably by not arguing but RESPONDING with a conditional acceptance. That is by accepting what they offer you as long as they can show they are NOT injuring you by denying you due process of the law) Thats a good one due process of law

S
Sir, I am happy to accept your offer that the court (or whoever makes the claim to want to proceed) wishes to proceed when I asked for an adjournment to settle with my neighbour on proof of claim that in doing so, you can show you or this court has NOT now denied me due process of the law that evidences that; one is afforded the opportunity to settle with thy neighbour and may exhaust that process before going into the public is it not? So please show by denying me my remedy to go and settle with my neighbour, that you and the court have not now injured me and please show the law that evidences I would not reserve the right to a remedy for that injury by holding you personally liable and accountable for the injury unless of course you withdraw the claim and provide me the remedy that I seek?
(I AM SURE HIS MOUTH WILL DROP AND HE WILL BE SILENT, SO NOW MEMORIALIZE HIS DISHONOUE INTO THE COURT RECORD AND SHOW YOU ARE THE CREDITOR- SO YOU PASS THE TEST)
S
Sir, I take it by your silence that you agree to withdrawn the claim not to have the matter adjourned and will therefore now permit me the remedy that I seek. How long an adjournment may I have please?
(from here any Q’s fielded to you is just a test to see if you are the creditor, so to pass the test you now only need respond…)
R/P
Its ok you don’t need to apologise…..
S Yes that’s true Sir, but I feel tremendously better when I do, and would it not be
Honourable to stop and correct all previous dishonours attributed to me caused earlier through my ignorance? (see, no argument, but a nice acceptance = pass)
R/P
What is this trust account you talked about?
S Sir, I’m happy to answer that as long as you can show by doing so it would NOT be causing me a disability and that you can show you are NOT attempting to raise a controversy where none exists when I have already expressed my desire and offer to settle the matter privately and that you can show I have NOT tendered my offer to settle the matter privately and honourably.
R/P
(any Q from now on, eg why haven’t you paid yet?)
S
Sir, I’m happy to answer that as long as you can show it has any relevance in the matter when I have already expressed my desire to settle this matter privately and that you are now not attempting to raise a controversy with perhaps intent to injure me and that you can show any law that evidences I can not hold you personally accountable for injuring me when I have already expressed my desire to settle the matter honourably

baron von lotsov

03-12-2008, 12:50 PM

... you forgot the words "in my opinion".

Every post I make is my opinion, unless it is in quotes. I don't follow gurus you know.

baron von lotsov

03-12-2008, 12:54 PM

A ridiculous question in its content and lack of knowledge on the Freeman movement.

What you advocate as "sound reasoning" is like applying for a job as a child minder at a community care centre and using your papers proving a history as a paedophile as being evidence you have experience working with young children

It's a perfectly reasonable question and your reply is total gibberish. You hardly give credence to this freeman movement.

baron von lotsov

03-12-2008, 01:03 PM

I can answer your questions - and QC's and JC's have a vested interest in you not knowing and therefore have to employ them for a massive fee.

Get real - They enjoy a monopoly and will dispute anything that takes that monopoly away.

FFS - get educated..............if you don't believe the Freeman stuff at least look at the law as it stands - that is not hearsay, according to you.

LOLove

Don't tell me to get educated. I have used lawyers in the past, some good, and some bad. If you use a duty solicitor then he will just tell you, in a round about way, that he is too useless to fight the case and will suggest you plead guilty. However, if you have, lets say about £20 000 of your own money to pay a lawyer, then you will get quality. I call them defense solicitors, as in that is what they do. My family has recently won a case in Italy's supreme court using just such a lawyer. Going back a while I have had defense solicitors who have been fantastic and I have had prosecution solicitors pass confidential information to the other side and had to sack them. None have ever mentioned freemen. Maybe you might like to find out what a freeman actually is. I think it would surprise you.

baron von lotsov

03-12-2008, 01:07 PM

Has it escaped your notice that you MAY NOT give legal advice unless you are a licensed practitioner?

That's bullshit. You are most likely thinking of giving legal advice for money where you do need a licence. I have not charged you, so you have no case, and it looks like another one just trying pathetic tactics to shut up anyone who is exposing the freeman scam.

baron von lotsov

03-12-2008, 01:11 PM

what on earth was that supposed to prove?:confused:

Nothing. I just thought you might be interested, especially since he has worked with Icke and was involved with legal scams of a similar nature to this freeman business. Draw your own conclusions.

boots

03-12-2008, 01:15 PM

Don't tell me to get educated. I have used lawyers in the past, some good, and some bad. If you use a duty solicitor then he will just tell you, in a round about way, that he is too useless to fight the case and will suggest you plead guilty. However, if you have, lets say about £20 000 of your own money to pay a lawyer, then you will get quality. I call them defense solicitors, as in that is what they do. My family has recently won a case in Italy's supreme court using just such a lawyer. Going back a while I have had defense solicitors who have been fantastic and I have had prosecution solicitors pass confidential information to the other side and had to sack them. None have ever mentioned freemen. Maybe you might like to find out what a freeman actually is. I think it would surprise you.

Your so deep in the shit that all you see is shit:rolleyes: That what "lawyers" are.

Any of them worth their salt would comprehend that it is all about contract law

More elitist shit if you got money then they work for you

Haven't you heard all are equal before the law that doen't mean the more money you have the better the judgment will be for the derendant any wat they dont give a fuck because they are part of the system of commercial law.

yozhik

03-12-2008, 01:15 PM

yozhik

03-12-2008, 01:17 PM

It's a perfectly reasonable question and your reply is total gibberish. You hardly give credence to this freeman movement.

In your opinion ... :D

boots

03-12-2008, 01:21 PM

Every post I make is my opinion, unless it is in quotes. I don't follow gurus you know.

Your lawyer buddies are your gurus:rolleyes::rolleyes:

.

i_am

03-12-2008, 01:23 PM

Nothing. I just thought you might be interested, especially since he has worked with Icke and was involved with legal scams of a similar nature to this freeman business. Draw your own conclusions.

This has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion so could we please stay on topic or allow those who are seriously looking into this to have the freedom to do so.

boots

03-12-2008, 01:25 PM

Well isn't it funny I know quite a few people here who are Freeman and do it the right way..

So much for your "scam" accusations.

What are you going to do lump Icke into this as well.:rolleyes:

.

baron von lotsov

03-12-2008, 01:29 PM

This has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion so could we please stay on topic or allow those who are seriously looking into this to have the freedom to do so.

You are wrong. His legal scams were quite similar to this freeman business. It was just a bit of background material, not intended to divert anything.

baron von lotsov

03-12-2008, 01:32 PM

More elitist shit if you got money then they work for you

.

Yes, that would be about right. State lawyers work for the state in my experience. I'd say that was more an argument against communism myself.

boots

03-12-2008, 01:34 PM

You are wrong. His legal scams were quite similar to this freeman business. It was just a bit of background material, not intended to divert anything.

Wrong again :rolleyes:

Your article was proven to be false regarding the Freeman movement back a few pages a go :rolleyes:

.

yozhik

03-12-2008, 01:40 PM

anyone who is exposing the freeman scam.
OK ... please provide evidence. It's a simple request.
Let's assume you're right. Prove the scam. Show the facts.
You demand this of the "Freemen con artists" ... so, fair is fair.
Back up your claims with hard facts.

Thanks

baron ... so that I have ALL the facts to both sides of the arguments and also so you don't lose sight of this earlier post ... here it is again.

Can you please back up your accusation?

Thanks

boots

03-12-2008, 01:41 PM

Yes, that would be about right. State lawyers work for the state in my experience. I'd say that was more an argument against communism myself.

WHAT.

Dear oh dear

However, if you have, lets say about £20 000 of your own money to pay a lawyer, then you will get quality. I call them defense solicitors

Elitist:rolleyes:

I'll repeat it again

All are equal before the law but that is NOT the case. As stated by you in the above quote.

Thats the line of thinking you have acquired by hanging around "lawyers" who work for contract law in a commercial/commerce system of law.

.

i_am

03-12-2008, 01:46 PM

Hey guys, I have a novel idea :p

Don't bite, you are just taking the thread further off track.

i_am

03-12-2008, 01:50 PM

You are wrong. His legal scams were quite similar to this freeman business. It was just a bit of background material, not intended to divert anything.

Like you baron, I am never wrong :p

I thought I was once but I was mistaken!

oops sorry. Must take my own advice

Back on topic!!!

boots

03-12-2008, 02:00 PM

Hey guys, I have a novel idea :p

Don't bite, you are just taking the thread further off track.

Point taken and a good idea.

This thread is to important to let our passion be derailed.

Yozhik you have a lot of info that you can share as you have looked into this quite a lot.

I would like to get into some technicalities and share what I am learning. But just for now this old man needs his beauty sleep or I'll be to ugly to go out. I'd be arrested:p:)

yozhik

03-12-2008, 02:28 PM

Point taken and a good idea.

This thread is to important to let our passion be derailed.

Yozhik you have a lot of info that you can share as you have looked into this quite a lot.

Yeah ... I've been immersed in research for what feels like weeks on end ... 20 hours per day ... and if I'm honest; I'm dizzy from going around in circles and spinning in one spot.

The amount of information/disinformation is incredible. I'm wading through so much bullshit, in the next life, I can come back as a qualified sewer technician :D

Where I'm at;
In my opinion there is no doubt the statutes and acts have been written and encrypted to fuck us over. They are not there to help us. if they were, the language would be comprehensible. It's in code, with the definition of a commonly used word often twisted to legally mean the antonym of the word you and I know and use. Why do that? We are being fucked over. End of story. Full stop. :mad:

The cancer is global and the doors are almost locked and hermetically sealed. we have very little time or opportunity left; if at all. :eek:

The LOGIC behind the Freeman movement, et al ... is sound; however, it is still, prima facie, only an ideology. The substance and understanding is minimal. :cool:

Central to the Commercial Redemption branch is the access to and control of; the bond/security account. Irrefutable proof of it's existence seems lacking. Acquiring access seems random at best. :confused:

Even the most successful amongst us, who have acquired Freeman status, still tell stories of court appearances, incarceration and (in some cases) violence and thuggery from tptb. :(

Despite being a "ticket to freedom", travel, one of the most basic of Rights, seems heavily impaired. So it would seem you are free, as long as your freedom is confined to and expressed within, your local community. Is that what the majority of men and women exploring this concept would classify as freedom? :rolleyes:

Confusion reigns over mixed and conflicting paths and terminologies; Freeman, Commercial Redemption, Accept For value, Verification of Debt, Proof of Claim, UCC, EIN/SSN/SIN/NIN, bond account, honour/dishonour, man/person/sovereign, driver/traveller, submit/application/register, birth certificate/birth registration/certificate of live birth

... a lot to learn, but very little in terms of definitive information and few, well supported facts. Maybe this is due to it being new and relatively untested.

Also seems to be major geographic variances in success levels. Canada and Australia seem to have higher levels of success. I'm not sure if this is because of local variations in statutes, local variations in mentality, or simply "time on the job". It would appear that the nefarious machinations of tptb in both the UK and the USA corporations, has been more thorough.

Not trying to be negative ... just sharing my learning experience thus far.
The jury is still out.

yozhik

03-12-2008, 03:02 PM

I would like to recommend this as a further launchpad to your journey ...

First Video in a series (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9xayBdBn_Q)

A little dated, but raises some interesting points.
Only 10mins long ... the first in a series - if interested, I'm sure you will find the others ;)

baron von lotsov

03-12-2008, 03:22 PM

A real Freeman:

Harry Patch, the 18th Freeman of the City of Wells.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Harry_Patch.jpg/250px-Harry_Patch.jpg

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

If you read what he has been through during WW1 you would understand.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-176198461.html

helpus

03-12-2008, 03:54 PM

some freeman info regarding uk and london

cityoflondon.gov (http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/nr/rdonlyres/155d63ec-c7bf-4b8f-b7d2-9574c07fe071/0/cityfreedom.pdf)

*Sheep Over London Bridge: The Freedom of the City of London, by Caroline Arnold
(Corporation of London, 1995), is a popular guide to the City Freedom generally, including the
present-day admission procedures in a City of London context.

helpus

03-12-2008, 04:12 PM

grenadene

03-12-2008, 05:17 PM

How to apply...

City of London (http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Leisure_and_culture/Local_history_and_heritage/Freedom_of_City/applying.htm)

Modern Freedom

City of London (http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/LGNL_Services/Leisure_and_culture/Local_history_and_heritage/Freedom_of_City/modern_freedom.htm)

I'm confused? how are they able the 'grant' freedom? we've all got it already

Just some of us don't know it yet !

p.s I hope all that earlier nonsense on the thread hasn't scared Rob away - his presence is very much valued

:)

griswald

03-12-2008, 05:52 PM

I'm confused? how are they able the 'grant' freedom? we've all got it already

Just some of us don't know it yet !

p.s I hope all that earlier nonsense on the thread hasn't scared Rob away - his presence is very much valued

:)

Well it was flagged up earlier, ;)

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=640500#post640500

hopefully hes only gone for some well earned kip,

Maybe if we say his name 3 times...Rob,Rob,Rob

griswald

helpus

03-12-2008, 06:39 PM

Ashley Mote MEP, seems to have a handle on this issue in relation to the uk.

contactable...

Ashley Mote MEP (http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/)

tien an

03-12-2008, 06:41 PM

godspeed

03-12-2008, 08:26 PM

hi rob,
welcome and good to see your here to help cos i could do with some,can you tell me how and were to use due process, what is meant by facts is that just evidence,ive been involved in a trial and now there's an appeal next year its not me but i want to help all i can...:D

goldman

04-12-2008, 04:30 AM

Yeah ... I've been immersed in research for what feels like weeks on end ... 20 hours per day ... and if I'm honest; I'm dizzy from going around in circles and spinning in one spot.

The amount of information/disinformation is incredible. I'm wading through so much bullshit, in the next life, I can come back as a qualified sewer technician :D

Where I'm at;
In my opinion there is no doubt the statutes and acts have been written and encrypted to fuck us over. They are not there to help us. if they were, the language would be comprehensible. It's in code, with the definition of a commonly used word often twisted to legally mean the antonym of the word you and I know and use. Why do that? We are being fucked over. End of story. Full stop. :mad:

The cancer is global and the doors are almost locked and hermetically sealed. we have very little time or opportunity left; if at all. :eek:

The LOGIC behind the Freeman movement, et al ... is sound; however, it is still, prima facie, only an ideology. The substance and understanding is minimal. :cool:

Central to the Commercial Redemption branch is the access to and control of; the bond/security account. Irrefutable proof of it's existence seems lacking. Acquiring access seems random at best. :confused:

Even the most successful amongst us, who have acquired Freeman status, still tell stories of court appearances, incarceration and (in some cases) violence and thuggery from tptb. :(

Despite being a "ticket to freedom", travel, one of the most basic of Rights, seems heavily impaired. So it would seem you are free, as long as your freedom is confined to and expressed within, your local community. Is that what the majority of men and women exploring this concept would classify as freedom? :rolleyes:

Confusion reigns over mixed and conflicting paths and terminologies; Freeman, Commercial Redemption, Accept For value, Verification of Debt, Proof of Claim, UCC, EIN/SSN/SIN/NIN, bond account, honour/dishonour, man/person/sovereign, driver/traveller, submit/application/register, birth certificate/birth registration/certificate of live birth

... a lot to learn, but very little in terms of definitive information and few, well supported facts. Maybe this is due to it being new and relatively untested.

Also seems to be major geographic variances in success levels. Canada and Australia seem to have higher levels of success. I'm not sure if this is because of local variations in statutes, local variations in mentality, or simply "time on the job". It would appear that the nefarious machinations of tptb in both the UK and the USA corporations, has been more thorough.

Not trying to be negative ... just sharing my learning experience thus far.
The jury is still out.

Why don't you develop your own remedy? Law is nothing more than interpretation.

goldman

04-12-2008, 04:35 AM

Baron makes an interesting point, lawyers get paid to win cases and get their clients off the hook. Why don't they use freeman ideas?

You just partially answered your own question, go sleep on it a bit or read a few pages back to understand why. :)

boots

04-12-2008, 10:12 AM

Never believe a politician or a lawyer. Period.

They work for the system of control and are scared of losing their fat pay checks:rolleyes:

boots

04-12-2008, 10:22 AM

Why don't you develop your own remedy? Law is nothing more than interpretation.

Or not playing their game??

Yeah ... I've been immersed in research for what feels like weeks on end ... 20 hours per day ... and if I'm honest; I'm dizzy from going around in circles and spinning in one spot.

The amount of information/disinformation is incredible. I'm wading through so much bullshit, in the next life, I can come back as a qualified sewer technician :D

Where I'm at;
In my opinion there is no doubt the statutes and acts have been written and encrypted to fuck us over. They are not there to help us. if they were, the language would be comprehensible. It's in code, with the definition of a commonly used word often twisted to legally mean the antonym of the word you and I know and use. Why do that? We are being fucked over. End of story. Full stop. :mad:

The cancer is global and the doors are almost locked and hermetically sealed. we have very little time or opportunity left; if at all. :eek:

The LOGIC behind the Freeman movement, et al ... is sound; however, it is still, prima facie, only an ideology. The substance and understanding is minimal. :cool:

Central to the Commercial Redemption branch is the access to and control of; the bond/security account. Irrefutable proof of it's existence seems lacking. Acquiring access seems random at best. :confused:

Even the most successful amongst us, who have acquired Freeman status, still tell stories of court appearances, incarceration and (in some cases) violence and thuggery from tptb. :(

Despite being a "ticket to freedom", travel, one of the most basic of Rights, seems heavily impaired. So it would seem you are free, as long as your freedom is confined to and expressed within, your local community. Is that what the majority of men and women exploring this concept would classify as freedom? :rolleyes:

Confusion reigns over mixed and conflicting paths and terminologies; Freeman, Commercial Redemption, Accept For value, Verification of Debt, Proof of Claim, UCC, EIN/SSN/SIN/NIN, bond account, honour/dishonour, man/person/sovereign, driver/traveller, submit/application/register, birth certificate/birth registration/certificate of live birth

... a lot to learn, but very little in terms of definitive information and few, well supported facts. Maybe this is due to it being new and relatively untested.

Also seems to be major geographic variances in success levels. Canada and Australia seem to have higher levels of success. I'm not sure if this is because of local variations in statutes, local variations in mentality, or simply "time on the job". It would appear that the nefarious machinations of tptb in both the UK and the USA corporations, has been more thorough.

Not trying to be negative ... just sharing my learning experience thus far.
The jury is still out.

No they are not because you can always go back to the original meanings of words. A case in point is the Magna Carta it is still used as a bases in law. And Blacks law dictionary the 5th edition is the one that you should be used in court.:)

There comes a time to step back and not get caught up in the use of words but look at the mind set you started out with.;):)

.

boots

04-12-2008, 10:31 AM

baron von lotsov

04-12-2008, 11:48 AM

You just partially answered your own question, go sleep on it a bit or read a few pages back to understand why. :)

The truth is though that it is a scam and you can't answer the question in a straightforward way because you do not have an answer. Ditto with the other comments such as 'never trust a lawyer’.

i_am

04-12-2008, 12:13 PM

yozhik

04-12-2008, 12:54 PM

The truth is though that it is a scam and you can't answer the question in a straightforward way because you do not have an answer. Ditto with the other comments such as 'never trust a lawyer’.

baron von lotsov hypocrisy ... this is now the THIRD time I have asked for evidence to substantiate your claims.

So far, you have provided nothing.
You demand proof from those holding the opposite view and yet continue to ignore a simple request; baron von lotsof unsubstantiated accusations, please provide some evidence to support your allegations.

scam (skm) Slang
n.
A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.

How is the Freeman concept a scam?
Instead of making baseless, hollow claims ... put something of substance to support it. Some facts. Some evidence. Some proof.

Three times asked to do so ... will you ignore it a third time.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by baron von lotsof
anyone who is exposing the freeman scam.
OK ... please provide evidence. It's a simple request.
Let's assume you're right. Prove the scam. Show the facts.
You demand this of the "Freemen con artists" ... so, fair is fair.
Back up your claims with hard facts.

Thanks
baron ... so that I have ALL the facts to both sides of the arguments and also so you don't lose sight of this earlier post ... here it is again.

Can you please back up your accusation?

Thanks

baron von lotsof bluff and bravado ... Put up or shut up.

baron von lotsov

04-12-2008, 02:33 PM

You want me to prove a negative. OK, let me give you an example. I say to you that fairies do exist and my proof is that you can't prove they don't.

yozhik

04-12-2008, 02:35 PM

You want me to prove a negative. OK, let me give you an example. I say to you that fairies do exist and my proof is that you can't prove they don't.

Nice try ... but incorrect.
The concept of Freeman does exist.
That is evident by it having its own forum thread and numerous posts.
The concept exists. Fact.

What I have repeatedly asked you to provide proof of is your accusations that it is a scam.

The request still stands.
Put up or shut up.

helpus

04-12-2008, 02:38 PM

Ashley Mote MEP, seems to have a handle on this issue in relation to the uk.

contactable...

Ashley Mote MEP (http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/)

write to this fella, he has the ability and knowledge on this subject to put it to bed, or open up the can of worms, which i doubt.

baron von lotsov

04-12-2008, 02:43 PM

Nice try ... but incorrect.
The concept of Freeman does exist.
That is evident by it having its own forum thread and numerous posts.
The concept exists. Fact.

What I have repeatedly asked you to provide proof of is your accusations that it is a scam.

The request still stands.
Put up or shut up.

You are utterly ignorant of the point I was trying to make. You are twisting my words rather than addressing the point itself. Indeed, I'll take it as more evidence you have no case. None of my concerns have been addressed on this thread in fact. I asked you people whether any QCs have publicly endorsed any aspect of the freeman stuff you peddle. I'm still waiting.

baron von lotsov

04-12-2008, 02:47 PM

write to this fella, he has the ability and knowledge on this subject to put it to bed, or open up the can of worms, which i doubt.

Ashley Mote

Fraud conviction

[edit] Proceedings begin
In 2004, the Department of Work and Pensions brought criminal charges against Mote for allegedly claiming £32,000 in income support and £35,000 in housing benefit from Chichester District Council over a six-year period without declaring his monthly earnings of £4,000. Mote was committed for trial at Chichester Crown Court on 27 April 2004. He would face nine charges of false accounting and one charge of making a false representation. On 16 June, at a plea and directions hearing, he pleaded not guilty to the charges and a trial date was fixed for 15 November.[9] The following month, the UK Independence Party withdrew the whip from Mote on 15 July 2004 after learning from an article in the The Daily Telegraph that he faced trial; Mote had failed to inform his party of the impending charges.[10]

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

helpus

04-12-2008, 02:57 PM

Ashley Mote

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

yep that's the bloke... he's a freeman who attempted to use the magna carta against the queen...

i assume you quoted that to discredit him? and me? never mind...

i'm telling you he's your man

yozhik

04-12-2008, 03:00 PM

You are utterly ignorant of the point I was trying to make. You are twisting my words rather than addressing the point itself. Indeed, I'll take it as more evidence you have no case. None of my concerns have been addressed on this thread in fact. I asked you people whether any QCs have publicly endorsed any aspect of the freeman stuff you peddle. I'm still waiting.

No baron ... don't wriggle out of your accusations by trying to claim the moral high ground.

You have made baseless claims that the Freeman concept is a scam on numerous occasions. You have provided nothing to support this.
How have your words been twisted? Here are your words again ...

The truth is though that it is a scam

Your words ... no twisting. (nice try - again)

Read through the posts; there are numerous references to and opinions of there being a lack of definitive success. So your questions re: any QC publicly endorsing any aspect of the freeman stuff has already been addressed. The question is though; why does it require endorsement from a QC? There are documented cases of "small victories" on aspects of the Freeman concept, as well as "small losses" ... so you can make of that what you will. Noone has made claims of it being 100% successful. Even Rob Menard has openly written of success AND FAILURES. He also speaks from experience of mixed outcomes. Noone has claimed this to be the cure-all. Rather, it appears to be more of a concept that shows promise. A work in progress.

However, going back to your accusations; what have you provided to substantiate/support/prove your repeated claims that the Freeman movement is a SCAM.
scam (skm) Slang
n.
A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.
Debatable concept, incomplete concept, even mistaken ideology ... sure - many posts have raised this opinion. But a SCAM??
That is a statement. A derogatory claim of fact.
Where is your proof of claim?

gaznix

04-12-2008, 03:05 PM

HI! Robert-Arthur of the Menard family here. I am a Freeman-on-the-Land, amazing cook (I invented soup), awesome comedian (Before me there were no punchlines. I was like "There's something missing..."), and uniquely humble considering how amazing I truly am.

Been reading some posts here and decided to join and offer any assistance I can to those who are examining the Freeman concept and have questions regarding the process or outcome.

I will answer the questions I can as I can and reserve the right to disregard the posts of trolls or those clearly seeking conflict or confrontation.

Peace eh?
Rob

Hello Rob!!!

I have watched you on Google and as a contributer in another documentary, and you have me researching.......so THANK YOU for being THERE!!! You are a good dude!

Lenny

baron von lotsov

04-12-2008, 03:19 PM

yozhik

04-12-2008, 03:26 PM

yozhik

I really don't think you have any real grasp of the law yourself. You might have been tricked into believing this freeman business is the cure-all snake oil, but don't shoot the messenger. If you want to pursue it then that is fine, but I think you are wasting your effort when you could be doing something far more productive and effective with your time.

The elite put these scams out on a frequent basis, and they come in all flavours. They usually revolve around a word or a concept, and as I have already stated, peak oil was one of them, the Jordan Maxwell international driving licenses was another, then we have indigo children, organic portals and literally hundreds. People use this forum to spread all these, and use people's gullibility. It's embarrassing to admit you have been fooled, and so once the scammer has got people pushing this stuff they find it hard to slam in the reverse gear. You will find out sooner or later that what I'm saying is correct, but for your own good it is better that it be sooner.

So, provide me with the proof then. It's a VERY simple request. So very, very simple.

Please ... to assist me in my learning, show me the scam. I'm happy to acknowledge it is a scam, upon proof of claim.
I have already stated repeatedly; "the jury is still out" ... my research thus far is inconclusive. http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=646769&postcount=414
I'm not interested in Jordan Maxwell's international driving licenses or any of the other topics you mentioned. This is about the Freeman concept/movement.

Just provide me with the evidence to support your claims.
You're obviously an intelligent man. This is well within your ability.

Please provide proof of claim.

It's embarrassing to admit you have been fooled,
et tu Brute

signalnorth

04-12-2008, 03:31 PM

None of my concerns have been addressed on this thread in fact. I asked you people whether any QCs have publicly endorsed any aspect of the freeman stuff you peddle. I'm still waiting.

If there is anything in it then they surely will be the last people in the world who will endorse it.

1694

04-12-2008, 03:41 PM

If there is anything in it then they surely will be the last people in the world who will endorse it.

They would, they would simply jump ship to advising people on how to be a freeman and charge for that.

baron von lotsov

04-12-2008, 03:56 PM

They would, they would simply jump ship to advising people on how to be a freeman and charge for that.

Indeed they would, and if you notice what happens it is clear to see that any legal loophole is exploited to the max. There is a great long history to this, it has even built entire industries. I'd cite the personal injury claims shite at one of the more prolific examples, it resulted in huge firms of solicitors milking it.

grenadene

04-12-2008, 04:50 PM

yozhik

04-12-2008, 04:55 PM

To borrow Rob's line ... I think baron needs a hug :D

But upon proof of claim - he can have two

helpus

04-12-2008, 05:26 PM

Why would anyone who is currently making pots of cash through our ignorance of the legal system suddenly stand up and substantiate the claim that they are indeed only blokes in wigs.

fame and notoriety - however it would have to be true in the first place for that to happen.

kblood

04-12-2008, 05:33 PM

They would, they would simply jump ship to advising people on how to be a freeman and charge for that.

From what I have read so far, it seems that most of the Freeman concept is based on it not being done for profit or related to making profit for a company. So if you need to travel to another country the Freeman way, you would be charged if you are found out working for money in that country. The same with driving a car, if you do it to sell or manage business relations, it would require the stuff that is normally required. Drivers licence, passport etc.

So I guess you wouldnt be allowed driving to work without a drivers licence, or going somewhere requiring a passport unless it is business related.

dondaz

04-12-2008, 06:14 PM

baron von lotsof bluff and bravado ... Put up or shut up.

That's his job my friend. One minute he says he wants 'the word of a QC' before he will believe the freeman way is real and works and the next minute he is agreeing with 'Never trust a lawyer'.

His original user name was actually baron von lostsovmindmanipulationspecialistpsyopmaster.

You like your obsfucation eh baron!

baron von lotsov

04-12-2008, 06:33 PM

That's his job my friend. One minute he says he wants 'the word of a QC' before he will believe the freeman way is real and works and the next minute he is agreeing with 'Never trust a lawyer'.

His original user name was actually baron von lostsovmindmanipulationspecialistpsyopmaster.

You like your obsfucation eh baron!

Now we have to resort to misrepresentation of what I have just said on this thread in order to score points. Did I or did I not say that I have met good and bad lawyers?

dondaz

04-12-2008, 06:44 PM

dondaz

04-12-2008, 06:46 PM

Now we have to resort to misrepresentation of what I have just said on this thread in order to score points. Did I or did I not say that I have met good and bad lawyers?

Yawn!

1694

04-12-2008, 06:49 PM

godspeed

04-12-2008, 08:19 PM

i_am

04-12-2008, 08:28 PM

baron von lotsov

04-12-2008, 09:30 PM

can the keyboard mafia stop annialating this thread and show some respect for a freeman and allow him space to reply to the ones seeking help on law matters,i just dont read any of your threads and i get more truthful information from the others here,there are good lawyers in the uk their just harder to find lol.....no one needs to prove anything to anyone if your not interested why are you here ???

Well in fact it is the Freemen who have the angst, not the sceptics. I was enquiring as to whether they have any people in the profession publicly willing to testify to the correctness of this business. It has been said that all lawyers are conspiring to keep the truth hidden, but this is such a weak argument. Lets take the subject of global warming, where evidence of an official conspiracy is overwhelming. Still you get respected academics speaking out. I just asked for one example and none have given me even one. What would a reasonable man conclude from that? Especially considering the rudeness of the replies.

tien an

04-12-2008, 09:46 PM

From what I have read so far, it seems that most of the Freeman concept is based on it not being done for profit or related to making profit for a company. So if you need to travel to another country the Freeman way, you would be charged if you are found out working for money in that country. The same with driving a car, if you do it to sell or manage business relations, it would require the stuff that is normally required. Drivers licence, passport etc.

So I guess you wouldnt be allowed driving to work without a drivers licence, or going somewhere requiring a passport unless it is business related.

I have to agree with you there...I spent hours thinking about / researching the same subject and came to the same conclusion.

tien an

04-12-2008, 09:50 PM

Well in fact it is the Freemen who have the angst, not the sceptics. I was enquiring as to whether they have any people in the profession publicly willing to testify to the correctness of this business. It has been said that all lawyers are conspiring to keep the truth hidden, but this is such a weak argument. Lets take the subject of global warming, where evidence of an official conspiracy is overwhelming. Still you get respected academics speaking out. I just asked for one example and none have given me even one. What would a reasonable man conclude from that? Especially considering the rudeness of the replies.

Here's one:
Any Notary who has worked with a Freeman of the Land to provide him the services necessary.

Now, if you've nothing better to do than stir shite,
would you mind giving other people a chance at posing questions
and having them answered by Rob Menard?

Thanks in advance.

baron von lotsov

04-12-2008, 09:55 PM

Here's one:
Any Notary who has worked with a Freeman of the Land to provide him the services necessary.

Now, if you've nothing better to do than stir shite,
would you mind giving other people a chance at posing questions
and having them answered my Rob Menard?

Thanks in advance.

Oh, I see, so asking a reasonable question is now considered stirring shit. Well I guess it will remain unanswered, so I'll let the rest of you enjoy your religion. I'll leave it at that, since to be honest, it is rather boring me now. I have said my thing.

Over and out.

lesactive

04-12-2008, 09:55 PM

yozhik

04-12-2008, 10:09 PM

Oh, I see, so asking a reasonable question is now considered stirring shit. Well I guess it will remain unanswered,
Pot calling kettle black???
Let him without sin, cast the first stone.

I'll leave it at that, since to be honest, it is rather boring me now. I have said my thing.
... and we all know what your "thing" is :D

Over and out.

Nice of you to grace us with your presence baron von lotsovhyprocrisy.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Bye now.

:)

grenadene

04-12-2008, 11:11 PM

There is a big difference between traveling to the place where you work and driving. Who are drivers? Truck drivers, cab drivers, bus drivers and etc. Driving is an integral part of their job. If you're not being paid to drive then you're not a driver.

I agree, self employments that don't make extraordinary demands on the highways should be treated as private enterprise and thus not subject to commercial restrictions.

griswald

04-12-2008, 11:24 PM

How is a newbie going to make an objective decision on the freeman of the land issue, unless he can see the debate between both sides of the argument.

I dont know any of the posters well enough yet to know whether they are contributing or destroying a thread, and I dont know enough about the topic to arrive at a decision on it myself yet...thats why I am what they call a newbie to the concept. But i want to learn.

Can I make an objective decision , if some of the questions raised are censored. The answer is no. Is there a historic reason for hostility to some of the posts, as a newbie I dont know them. That doesn,t mean that I dont want to hear some of the questions answered.

As I say, I am a freeman newbie, and I am here to gather info, and make my own mind up. I dont want to get censored answers, I want to get intelligent answers from both sides, and make my own mind up. I dont want it made for me by either for/against posters.

Maybe there are politics going on on the backgound, I,m not interested in that. This is a question and answer thread , and thats what I expect to see here, or as a newbie I will have to look elsewhere.

griswald

malvern

05-12-2008, 12:23 AM

baron....... spoke with an X QC the other week , some good points came out but he did not understand this fully and all seemed a little too long winded for him at the time, but he's still looking ( this QC has reversed orders ). but the big shock is that he states that he does not understand the lawers of today and what they speak.... and he's not happy with this take system.
if you took time out and spoke to them, you would find that they only know mainstream, learnt from the same program manual they used for most of us .....
sad to see that you understand so much but can not see for yourself , you are free that much you understand ,,,,,,so be it, tell others ..... maybe a hug is what you need

freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

tien an

05-12-2008, 12:28 AM

There is a big difference between traveling to the place where you work and driving. Who are drivers? Truck drivers, cab drivers, bus drivers and etc. Driving is an integral part of their job. If you're not being paid to drive then you're not a driver.

Sure, I agree...but I'm just framing the situation as it is (already) framed:

At the moment, if I use my car to go to a client's house, I can claim any expenses connected with that journey as being legitimate 'costs'. (The same goes for the return journey.)

Those costs can then (again, legitimately) be passed on to the client.

I'm just thinking along these lines...out loud if you like.
I'm practising...;)

Go ahead and pick it apart: I'm actually looking for a good result for the Freeman here.

bobfunkhouse

05-12-2008, 12:44 AM

<to the tune of boney m's brown girl in the ring>

Freeman on the land la la la la la
Freeman on the land Laa la la la la la
Freeman on the land la la la la la

<sorry it's just been in my head all day>:o:D

tien an

05-12-2008, 12:48 AM

To Griswald:

All the way through a thread (begins with viedo of Freemen/women demonstrating outside Parliament), we had this individual (the baron) and another named 1694, who initially posed questions that contributed to the debate. As soon as the members already in discussion took notice of these two and entered into dialogue with them, the questions took a different turn and became disruptive. So disruptive, in fact, that a moderator had to split the thread and dedicate it to the questions posed by 1694...such was their effect on the thread.

Now that this thread is well under way, with one of the most prominent Freemen on the planet willing to answer our questions, these two (and others - I can't impress upon you how important it is for you to decide for yourself!) see fit to disrupt this thread too.

dondaz posted a list of methods that disruptive elements use as a general MO, which was very informative. Know them by their fruits (sorry to quote the Bible at ya...)
In this case, having been put in the spotlight, their first reaction is to play the victim.
Don't be taken in.

Hopefully now, if some of the more impassioned among us don't 'bite' and give these disruptive elements the excuse they need to divert the discussion away from the subject of the thread ie. Rob Menards answers to questions about becoming a Freeman on the Land...we can get back to the interesting stuff.

pleasuredome

05-12-2008, 12:54 AM

helpus

05-12-2008, 02:14 AM

It's clear helpus, 1694 and the baron are not interested in the freeman on the land concept, only to create disruption in the threads so as to put newbies off. There is nothing constructive to learn from these three keyboard commando's. We have known this about the baron since he started posting here. They are here to create divisions and controversy, nothing more. The sooner you realise this the less time you will spend debating them on all 'their' issues and more time on the real subject.

i find you to be a bit self righteous really, are you a freeman?, do you know any freeman? do you know definatively if this is real?

not interested in the subject? personally i would just walk away if i was not interested.

Putting newbies off, not quite, but we are all newbies on the subject, i suggest it's very unwise to for us accept this on face value. afterall that's the whole idea of what the governments are alledgely to doing to us right now.

I have rang Ashely Mote independant MEP (http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/?page_id=2) who is a freeman and attempted to use the magna carta against the queen asking her not to grant the Royal Assent to the Bill to ratify the EU’s Treaty of Nice. There was no answer, so i have emailed him at both his email addy's regarding the subject, and the debate here, and i have asked him if he cares to join in or provide some light on the subject.

personally i think you just WANT to believe it's true, blindly so.

helpus

05-12-2008, 02:23 AM

dondaz

05-12-2008, 02:54 AM

If you get attacked and injured and robbed of your belongings and your car is stolen and your house is burnt down... what then?

All in one day? I would imagine that would make it on the news and people would soon be rallying around to help out. You know what help is don't you? It's in your username. You need to learn to help yourself mate, no-one is coming to save anyone.

helpus

05-12-2008, 03:04 AM

All in one day? I would imagine that would make it on the news and people would soon be rallying around to help out. You know what help is don't you? It's in your username. You need to learn to help yourself mate, no-one is coming to save anyone.

are you Rob? are you are Freeman?

if not, please don't hijack my questions - they are important.

thankyou

helpus

05-12-2008, 03:08 AM

All in one day? I would imagine that would make it on the news and people would soon be rallying around to help out. You know what help is don't you? It's in your username. You need to learn to help yourself mate, no-one is coming to save anyone.

I am a Freeman-on-the-land. How May i help?

i guess you're saying Rob isn't coming to help then.

duckingdafta

05-12-2008, 03:11 AM

questions for Rob or anyother freemen.

If you get attacked and injured and robbed of your belongings and your car is stolen and your house is burnt down... what then?

Hope that the address or ID of those who do it is unknown ..they should have left you dead to be safe for the rest of their future.

Do you have the police to help you?
Do the police have any interest in someone who has hurt someone who is not their property.
Can you call an ambulance?
Can you be insured?
are you infact totally isolated with no where to turn?

Community...never worry about being alone. Even when people think they are, someone is talking about them or making something up in many cases.

from personal experience, NO, you DON'T have the police to help you... I have experienced all of the above in one go.. Yes it hurt at the time. There are ways of dealing with things that are illegal if you cannot get the correct common law protection of the innocent. Many forget, freeman isn't being weak and relying on others for protection, but that doesn't mean that protection isn't available and they are actually weak.

interesting you are convicted to being their property

helpus

05-12-2008, 03:25 AM

interesting you are convicted to being their property

sorry? don't quite understand...

duckingdafta

05-12-2008, 03:44 AM

questions for Rob or anyother freemen.

Firstly your question was to Rob or any other freeman...though some may not be fully committed yet, it is unfair to attack on people answering what they know or feel to be correct... this is what debate is all about.

sorry? don't quite understand...

you wrote "Do the police have any interest in someone who has hurt someone who is not their property".

I have a policy on watching wording and the manipulation of it.. and this could be one way of doing this. The fact you didn't understand it means you may have done it unintentionally, but that doesn't mean it's not a tool used in everyday life. We are not the property of the police....but police officer or not, I reckon as a human being they would aid if possible.

rob menard

05-12-2008, 05:17 AM

questions for Rob or anyother freemen.

If you get attacked and injured and robbed of your belongings and your car is stolen and your house is burnt down... what then?

Do you have the police to help you?
Do the police have any interest in someone who has hurt someone who is not their property.
Can you call an ambulance?
Can you be insured?
are you infact totally isolated with no where to turn?

Hi!

The police have two roles, one is as a policy enforcement officer, the other as a peace officer. There are limits on both, but as a peace officer he would have a duty to preserve and maintain the peace and that would suggest a duty to provide assistance.
Yes, they have an interest in the public peace.
Yes I can call an ambulance and access health care.
I can enter into whatever lawful contracts I wish.
No, I am in fact one of the freest and least encumbered people I know, and feel blessed and very rich. Rich with things that are not affected by financial meltdowns or stock losses can not be denied, removed or ignored. Money can be taken from you, friendships with people who are willing to share and appreciate your company and efforts for them are nontaxable, unseizable and when they lead top community building efforts result in peace and abundance for all.

I am facing the so called authorities actively trying to entrap me with a charge of contravening a court order, and they are certainly acting like it affects me, but I am addressing that lawfully and hope to have it resolved by next week.

What I hear repeatedly from people who take this path is that they like how they no longer feel fearful and many remark on how alive they feel for the first time in a long time.

In a word, it is exhilarating.
Peace eh?
Rob

PS- Dumplings are really just boiled dough, and were created by the worlds laziest cook.

boots

05-12-2008, 06:14 AM

Hi!

I can enter into whatever lawful contracts I wish.
.

I've been wondering about this Rob?

Can you use your "PERSON" as a tool and still be a Freeman?

It's like putting your foot in 2 bath tubes and how would you deal with that if it ever came to court?

MMMmm Is it like using your bond to pay for the electricity bill?

boots.

.

helpus

05-12-2008, 06:19 AM

Firstly your question was to Rob or any other freeman...though some may not be fully committed yet, it is unfair to attack on people answering what they know or feel to be correct... this is what debate is all about.

you wrote "Do the police have any interest in someone who has hurt someone who is not their property".

I have a policy on watching wording and the manipulation of it.. and this could be one way of doing this. The fact you didn't understand it means you may have done it unintentionally, but that doesn't mean it's not a tool used in everyday life. We are not the property of the police....but police officer or not, I reckon as a human being they would aid if possible.

To answer your first point, it's sort of personal between Dorzan and I, he claims i'm a disrupter and to stick to asking Rob questions...so that when i do just that, he steps in and disrupts my questions.

The second point, using "police property" is exactly what this thread is about, we are suposedly owned from birth by the state...

i hope that clears them two up for you.

helpus

05-12-2008, 06:26 AM

Hi!

The police have two roles, one is as a policy enforcement officer, the other as a peace officer. There are limits on both, but as a peace officer he would have a duty to preserve and maintain the peace and that would suggest a duty to provide assistance.
Yes, they have an interest in the public peace.
Yes I can call an ambulance and access health care.
I can enter into whatever lawful contracts I wish.
No, I am in fact one of the freest and least encumbered people I know, and feel blessed and very rich. Rich with things that are not affected by financial meltdowns or stock losses can not be denied, removed or ignored. Money can be taken from you, friendships with people who are willing to share and appreciate your company and efforts for them are nontaxable, unseizable and when they lead top community building efforts result in peace and abundance for all.

I am facing the so called authorities actively trying to entrap me with a charge of contravening a court order, and they are certainly acting like it affects me, but I am addressing that lawfully and hope to have it resolved by next week.

What I hear repeatedly from people who take this path is that they like how they no longer feel fearful and many remark on how alive they feel for the first time in a long time.

In a word, it is exhilarating.
Peace eh?
Rob

PS- Dumplings are really just boiled dough, and were created by the worlds laziest cook.

Thanks for the answers Rob...

so you would or could ask the police for assistance?
You can call an ambulance and access public health care... in the uk this is "free" of charge, would you have to pay?

Is the freeman movement as relevant with a Queen at head of state?

cheers

helpus

05-12-2008, 06:28 AM

Rob,

you speak highly of the pro's, what are the con's?

rob menard

05-12-2008, 06:34 AM

I've been wondering about this Rob?

Can you use your "PERSON" as a tool and still be a Freeman?

It's like putting your foot in 2 bath tubes and how would you deal with that if it ever came to court?

MMMmm Is it like using your bond to pay for the electricity bill?

boots.

.

I know of a man who is a postal worker and could not have that job without a SIN. He also needs to wear a uniform to work. I suggested that in his NUI and COR he express the reality he wished to create, and when he is working, he is in uniform and is working through his person. When he is not in uniform, he is not using that person and thus not subject to the rules he would be subject to when working.

Rob

PS- A pigs orgasm can last 30 minutes. The Sanskrit word for "war" means "desire for more cows." Coincidence?

helpus

05-12-2008, 06:39 AM

If everyone was a freeman, there would be no laws to responsibly adhere to, thus causing total anarchy?

For the freeman to peacefully exist someone has to be enslaved?

boots

05-12-2008, 06:58 AM

I know of a man who is a postal worker and could not have that job without a SIN. He also needs to wear a uniform to work. I suggested that in his NUI and COR he express the reality he wished to create, and when he is working, he is in uniform and is working through his person. When he is not in uniform, he is not using that person and thus not subject to the rules he would be subject to when working.

Rob

PS- A pigs orgasm can last 30 minutes. The Sanskrit word for "war" means "desire for more cows." Coincidence?

Yep, I get that thanks Rob:)

So at the end of the year when they ask you to "submit" your tax return and want to know your main occupation.

Do you say... Agent in commerce?... Does that work in Canada? ..Hey:)

About that pig:) you might like to have a laugh at this post.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=618378&postcount=1984

.

goldman

05-12-2008, 07:17 AM

yozhik

I really don't think you have any real grasp of the law yourself. You might have been tricked into believing this freeman business is the cure-all snake oil, but don't shoot the messenger. If you want to pursue it then that is fine, but I think you are wasting your effort when you could be doing something far more productive and effective with your time.

The elite put these scams out on a frequent basis, and they come in all flavours. They usually revolve around a word or a concept, and as I have already stated, peak oil was one of them, the Jordan Maxwell international driving licenses was another, then we have indigo children, organic portals and literally hundreds. People use this forum to spread all these, and use people's gullibility. It's embarrassing to admit you have been fooled, and so once the scammer has got people pushing this stuff they find it hard to slam in the reverse gear. You will find out sooner or later that what I'm saying is correct, but for your own good it is better that it be sooner.

I think Baron has some strong arguments here. As per say, I too am not very convinced. Want to know why? as regularly done in proper philosophy: take the other guys viewpoint defend that view-point to see it's fallacy, then use yours to come to a good conclusion, that's correct reasoning.

Here are my arguments for and against it,

My arguments For:

- individual freedom
- individual justice
- free from "slavery" (the hidden chains)

My arguments Against:

- countering society
- unproductive as a whole
- immunity or separation from society.

Now, my counter arguments also comes in another flavor.

I want you to imagine something. We generally understand that the "elite" always want to overthrow a governing force, so that they can rule. What if the elite put up a scheme that the people start using that will revolt against a law society & a government as a whole? (socialism and communism are based on these concepts also) The individual will rise, but at some point the elite will take over. This sounds plausible, because the Illuminati say: "order out of Chaos". So: Chaos first! Sounds familiar regarding history?

Again, it's so important to question everything before settling, but that's why everyone on this forum is (or should) be good at, otherwise we we're mindless drones watching soaps 24/7, right? :)

--

boots

05-12-2008, 07:49 AM

Here are my arguments for and against it,

My arguments For:

- individual freedom
- individual justice
- free from "slavery" (the hidden chains)

Yes, Individual freedom and Justice from corporations/governments and also letting all who want to listen become free.;)

My arguments Against:

- countering society
- unproductive as a whole
- immunity or separation from society.

We all want to be free and so would all of society from the shackles of corporations. (and all the BS thats goes with it) Thats why they made us Chattel corporate entities.

Can you imagine if people worked because they wanted to not because they had to? some people love doing things that we would hate and some do things out of caring/need for people or the community as a whole.

Freeman/woman technology/philosophy is about love, honour and respect for everyone. Those that want to argue and hate seldom win in court situations or with anything.

Now, my counter arguments also comes in another flavor.

I want you to imagine something. We generally understand that the "elite" always want to overthrow a governing force, so that they can rule. What if the elite put up a scheme that the people start using that will revolt against a law society & a government as a whole? (socialism and communism are based on these concepts also) The individual will rise, but at some point the elite will take over. This sounds plausible, because the Illuminati say: "order out of Chaos". So: Chaos first! Sounds familiar regarding history?

Again, it's so important to question everything before settling, but that's why everyone on this forum is (or should) be good at, otherwise we we're mindless drones watching soaps 24/7, right?

The elite have always had the Governments in their back pockets. We have been under their control for 1000's of years but it's hard to control sentient beings, that is why it has taken them so long to even get to this stage. You know even the average cop knows about this they spread it in their news letters that they share between themselves they know that they are just collecting taxes for the Corp/government.

The world is all ready in Chaos, have a look around at all the wars and shit that is going on. They are losing control that is why they are ratching up the fear all the time. IMO everyone conscious is stepping up and deep down inside they know there is a better way.

.

helpus

05-12-2008, 09:22 AM

Freeman/woman technology/philosophy is about love, honour and respect for everyone.

right that's it - unsubscribed - this thread is nonsense.

if David Icke has anything to say on the matter, i might regain interest.

f3dom

05-12-2008, 10:28 AM

Don't go helpus, could you tell me what you think the so called "freeman movement" is about; in your words, so as I may try to understand what you believe?

Also, where do you stand on the subject matter so as I my know of your intentions if we are to communicate openly, without frivolity.

Have you made your investigation, without the glass darkened by: prejudice.

I am interested in your points of view as well as others.

tien an

05-12-2008, 01:48 PM

To f3man, helpus, goldman and others discussing the subject of freemanism here on this thread.

The thread was originally created so that Rob Menard could answer questions from people interested in the subject.
I in no way wish to curb your right to freedom of speech (indeed, I'd fight to the death to protect it, even if I didn't agree with what you were saying), however, this is not the place to do it.

There are other threads where the questions you are posing may be answered. May I ask that you post your questions on those threads or create threads of your own.

Please keep this thread free for questions directed to Rob Menard only.
It is the only way that confusion and a multitude of opinions may be kept at bay.

I repeat: I do not wish to curb your right to freedom of speech, or to express your opinion.

Thanking you in advance.

helpus

05-12-2008, 05:44 PM

helpus

05-12-2008, 06:12 PM

The way i understand it, is the same maybe as you do, the freeman bit, capital letters, operate your automobile... i struggle for more truths...

UK that's all i can deal with right now, because one step at a time,that's where i am at.

It based on he magna carta section 61, i won't quote, this was changed under duress so section 61 is no longer appropriate, unless you want to turn back time eg 800 years.

The freeman status is sill valid, however the "advantages"of it have long been disregarded.

It's all very well having freeman status towards the government,but in the uk we have a monarch as a figure head and therefore all laws are accepted through that. This makes freeman status a bit different to achieve than other countries that do not have a monarch.

For we accept, if the monarch accepts, then so do we accept. therefore freeman status has to be claimed through her majesty, for she is keeper of the law.

This has been challenged, and i refer you to here (http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/?page_id=2)

If this is to be of any advantage, then we have to foloow where others have failed, it's not a quick fix.

Also, what is being suggested is a Utalitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism) situation, where the acceptance and governce is put upon the people - for, for everyman to be freeman invloves either morals passed down from unwelcome governers in order to regulate freemen, or the freemen themselves to control the morality of it's community. either way, it involves a responsibility towards others.

see self ownership on

wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership)

This freeman status malarkey, is highly irresponsible, not only to people that want to accept but towards people that don't.

There needs to be definative guidelines, before anybody even begins to entertain the idea. We are talking about the whole fabric society here, and it's not a joke to have a bit of unfounded banter between ourselves on the matter.

I await Ashley Mote's take on the Uk version of this, but i fear because we have a monarch and an altered maga carta this might not be as relevant to this day and age or this country as it may appear on the surface.

I urge caution.

I would not like to see a person who develops a serious disease or a serious situation, have limited options because of some youtube vids or because of some blokes on david icke forum.

see my previous posts if i am not too much of a distractor of a disinfo merchant...

i do not want this all to be a one way truth without challenge.

rob menard

05-12-2008, 08:17 PM

tien an

05-12-2008, 08:18 PM

...or do we all feel after seeing some youtube vids we know everything?

Who are you to imply that I "know everything" and that my knowledge is based on "some youtube vids"?

Neither assertion is true or accurate.

Nor do I place my faith in "some blokes" on David Icke's forum (yourself included).

I'd just like to hear information from "the horse's mouth", so to speak and then make my mind up, instead of having to read what YOU think of the concept.

That is all.

tien an

05-12-2008, 08:21 PM

Rob Menard wrote:

"Do you realize she refuses to make that claim?"

Interesting; could you elaborate on that please?

h2pogo

05-12-2008, 08:25 PM

If everyone was a freeman, there would be no laws to responsibly adhere to, thus causing total anarchy?

For the freeman to peacefully exist someone has to be enslaved?

responsibility for one self is neccecary for every one and every one freemen included must adhere to common law(laws of common sense or the law of god/the creator. like murder,rape, theft ect)

ag3nt5mith

05-12-2008, 08:58 PM

If everyone was a Freeman, there would still be commissioned peace officer wouldn't there?

Rob knows all about that one.

Also I think that Freemanry doesn't break the system in anyway. Remember the government is your servant, and as a sovereign or Freeman not playing their games by their rules, you change the nature of the relationship between yourself and the government, the system stay intact you just understand that you don't have to play the games of your servants.

And as your servants they should be doing what you tell them, like the work that they are neglecting to do while they play their silly little word games.

Remember it goes: God, Human Being, Government and then Person.

Choose your place wisely.

Anyone remember that song 'Things can only get better'. :cool:

kblood

05-12-2008, 09:14 PM

I wasnt much aware of the Freeman concept before reading this thread, only as headlines. One of my favourite freeman cases is Wesley Snipes though, who risked alot to prove his case:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22955757/

OCALA, Fla. - Action star Wesley Snipes was found not guilty of federal tax-fraud and conspiracy charges Friday, but was convicted on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file a tax return.

Its millions of dollars he hasnt payed in tax, and the constitutuin in the US doesnt have anything about having to pay tax. It isnt the law, but that is kept quite secret. This is one of the Illuminati / elite secrets and the foundation of the US government. People who knows dont have to pay taxes, or at least most of them.

I know you live in the UK Rob, but have you looked into stuff like this as well? Many of the most powerfull people already know of this and do not pay tax as far as I know. Seems to me that Snipes most likely proved it in this case. How could they find him not guilty otherwise? Their excuse was that he was in good faith.

1694

05-12-2008, 09:15 PM

If everyone was a Freeman, there would still be commissioned peace officer wouldn't there?

Rob knows all about that one.

To do what? I don't regocnise either their definition of peace or their authority to impose peace upon me.

Im a free-freeman on the earths inner core, not this floating crust of "land" goverened by land law.

1694

05-12-2008, 09:16 PM

I wasnt much aware of the Freeman concept before reading this thread, only as headlines. One of my favourite freeman cases is Wesley Snipes though, who risked alot to prove his case:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22955757/

Its millions of dollars he hasnt payed in tax, and the constitutuin in the US doesnt have anything about having to pay tax. It isnt the law, but that is kept quite secret. This is one of the Illuminati / elite secrets and the foundation of the US government. People who knows dont have to pay taxes, or at least most of them.

I know you live in the UK Rob, but have you looked into stuff like this as well? Many of the most powerfull people already know of this and do not pay tax as far as I know. Seems to me that Snipes most likely proved it in this case. How could they find him not guilty otherwise? Their excuse was that he was in good faith.

Did you read the case? He has been found guilty of failing to pay taxes and has to pay the lot plus penalties and interest. He only got off because he was influenced by others and convinced by them it was legal. Those who instructed him are now in jail.

ag3nt5mith

05-12-2008, 09:24 PM

To do what? I don't regocnise either their definition of peace or their authority to impose peace upon me.

Im a free-freeman on the earths inner core, not this floating crust of "land" goverened by land law.

I guess that was a classic 1694 response.

Want some cheese?

This is a classic me response.

Or

Eat me, I'm tasty.