Freeman Resource Thread [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

View Full Version : Freeman Resource Thread

pleasuredome

03-12-2008, 05:00 PM

Please post links to websites, videos, pdfs etc.... with a brief explanation as to what it is if you like. there needs to be a thread where everyone can find stuff quickly instead of searching through a zillion threads trying to find information. please dont post responses to posts, just start another thread about it.

can this be made a sticky please?

some links:

http://www.tpuc.org/

http://debtlitigation.co.uk/services.php

http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/

alternative_answer

03-12-2008, 05:54 PM

1694

03-12-2008, 06:18 PM

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ Office of public sector information.

Searchable database of UK Statutes.

stickwhistler

03-12-2008, 08:19 PM

Every statute in force in the UK - Including Magna Carta & Bill of Rights 1689
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/

Right to Silence upheld Tuesday, 2 May, 2000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/734018.stm

h2pogo

03-12-2008, 08:48 PM

some good advice on how to respond to a judicial attack

thanks to stickwhistler for posting this on another thread.

http://http://web.archive.org/web/20070202062028/www.avoiceforchildren.com/documents/respond_to_contempt.htm

pleasuredome

03-12-2008, 11:28 PM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=u9xayBdBn_Q

pleasuredome

04-12-2008, 07:36 PM

robert menard's 'Bursting Bubbles'

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...rsting+bubbles

lesactive

04-12-2008, 08:26 PM

A class in shutting up put on by a lawyer and a cop. 2 videos, 1 hour total.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=don%27t+talk+to+cops&emb=0&aq=f#

Not freeman oriented but valid nonetheless (U.S., compare to local statutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaCe6nQUX5c

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

pleasuredome

04-12-2008, 10:52 PM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S_4efuOs4l0

link http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S_4efuOs4l0

pleasuredome

04-12-2008, 11:05 PM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9YGsGhrbn7c

link http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9YGsGhrbn7c

ag3nt5mith

04-12-2008, 11:46 PM

Mary-Elizabeth:croft's book.

http://www.freedomfiles.org/mary-book.pdf

Content:- CLOBBERING EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN...

Youtube user:-

http://uk.youtube.com/user/21stCenturyPolitix

Content:- Uk Tax, Notice of understanding Claim of Right...

Youtube user:-

http://uk.youtube.com/user/TheAntiTerrorist

Content:- Corporations, dealing with the police, exposing the system...

Youtube User:-

http://uk.youtube.com/user/Beatleha

Content:- Claimed his Freeman status, My Word is My Bond 5 part series...

Website:-

http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/

Content:- Not had time to look into this one yet.

Forum:-

http://thinkfreeforums.org/index.php

Content:- Lots of info & rob has posted lots there, good stuff.

Forum Thread:-

http://www.penaltychargesforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=45318&page=2

Content:- Dealing with collection agencies using common law, used this one myself. Good place to start a freeman topic and spread the word. I would do the same on paypalsucks.com

Sorry for any doubling up, I'm rushing to get this posted.

I'll edit in more when I get time.

Can we get some Freeman leaflets designed, I would be willing to deliver, oh say a few thousand or so. I was a postman for a time. ;)

Sorry not trying to go off topic here, but! I had an idea of spreading these leaflets effectively. Make them look like parking tickets and blitz a few dozen car parks, put them at the post office, on bus stops, on the bus, near cash machines, how about at work in the toilets, should make a good read while folks attend to some business. :)

I have a million of these rolling around in my head... :D

lesactive

05-12-2008, 12:18 AM

Winston Shrout's Solutions in Commerce:

http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/4116

A page of links to a loooong seminar: N. American info hosted on an
Australian site but the principles of commerce are universal.

pleasuredome

05-12-2008, 12:19 AM

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/ABF6DDB6-DA04-4C74-8451-5AA3038E29B9/0/PEL_HF_AppFormnew.doc

shows the distinctions between natural person and corporation.

alternative_answer

05-12-2008, 10:44 AM

Fantastic Free Man Resources people, keep em coming, they will benefit massively. knowledge is power. ;)

ag3nt5mith

05-12-2008, 08:04 PM

http://www.dnb.co.uk/Default.asp

Dun & Bradstreet, see the Anti-Terrorist for more detailed information on this little gem.

I believe there is a thread here discussing it, what happened to the pool for buying some reports?

Content:- Corporations, and how pretty much every institution is actually a registered corporate entity, including the police & councils all doing business in commerce.

I can't back this up as I ain't got the cash to buy the reports, I was think that as D&B is a 'person' are they not bound by the freedom of information Act, just a thought.

pleasuredome

08-12-2008, 05:30 PM

Common Law Constitutionalism - A Different View (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1147423)

pleasuredome

08-12-2008, 05:36 PM

Examples of Claim of Right and Understanding of Intent (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44688)

thebarfly1

08-12-2008, 06:06 PM

For The Paddies:

Magna Charta Hiberniae (http://ua_tuathal.tripod.com/magna.html)

List of All Statutes and Acts from 1066 - 1922 Still in Force in Ireland (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1220707538&view=ag-view&docrank=3&numhitsfound=127&query=malicious&query_rule=(($query1)%3C%3DYEAR%3C%3D($query2))%20 AND%20(($query3))%3ATITLE%20AND%20(($query4))%3Anu mber%20AND%20(($query5))%3Asectionno%20AND%20(($qu ery))&query1=1960&query2=2002&docid=71250&docdb=Acts&dbname=Acts&dbname=SIs&sorting=none&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1) - (includes pre-union and UK acts and statutes) - you'll have to google for the individual statutes and acts that have been implemented, although some don't seem to be on the wibbly wobbly web - most of the old UK ones are available on british or aussie websites though

griswald

11-12-2008, 01:44 AM

Found this interesting article about signing your name,

http://mhkeehn.tripod.com/TradeNameBinder.pdf

griswald

dondaz

12-12-2008, 02:36 AM

I'm a bit late in posting on this thread, sorry:

Rob Menard - ThinkFree Presents:

Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doci... (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doci...)

The Magnificent Deception
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

Lawful Excuse:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doci... (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doci...)

Security Of The Person
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

Demockery
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

Radio appearance:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doci... (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2878719493946574491&ei=61PnSKjxJIKM_QHws5n4Dw&q=robert+arthur+menard)

Audio Clips:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doci... (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-215419265211020281&ei=IVXnSNebH4Ts-wGGsYn9Dw&q=robert+arthur+menard)

Winston Shrout: Solutions in Commerce

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9131797588913913745)

vienna

18-12-2008, 12:39 PM

4879

18-12-2008, 01:28 PM

European forum about this subject, the Dutch are very active in it.
http://www.claimyourrights.eu/

fnulnu

18-12-2008, 08:11 PM

One for those who were wondering about the origins of "Commercial Redemption"

"Originally a farmer from Minnesota, Roger Elvick is now credited as the founder of what has come to be known as the “Redemption Process1” or otherwise known as “Commercial Redemption,” which is a complex esoteric, theological, metaphysical, quasi-legal theory, which involves the Federal Reserve System, The Internal Revenue Service, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5th 1933, The United States being a bankrupt corporation, including but not limited to the United States Government creating a secret “corporate” dopple ganger as a means of extracting taxes i.e. economic energy from the United States citizenry as a means of control. The Redemption process also has many associated and often times unorthodox procedures, many of which are championed by many legal researchers such as Winston Shrout, Jack Smith, Rice McCleoud and many others throughout America, let alone the world. According to online sources Elvick spent more than ten years developing the Redemption Process, but in so doing he made mistakes, which landed him and others in prison."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8757346216985678105

1694

18-12-2008, 08:39 PM

fnulnu

18-12-2008, 09:37 PM

When did this start? I remeber watching an episode of King of the Hill as a youngster and in it the "conspiracy" one who smokes, wears a liught blue shirt and dark blue baseball cap was in a court room. When the judge asked him a question he piped up with "The flag in this court room has a gold edging indicating it is a flag of the admiralty, I do not recognise the jurisdiction of an Admiralty court" The judge just told him to get out.

I don't know why but that stuck with me for a decade or so and has been bugging me ever since I came across the concept of commercial redemption.

1694,this thread is for listing links,not discussion,so maybe the mods could split these two last posts off into another thread and I'll try to present the smattering of information I have on the admiralty side (which isn't much yet).:) The flag is a story in itself.

smilie indicates that the reply is not to be read in an admonishing tone lol

EDIT:Just incase the thread doesn't get split,I'll simply link to some sources,which I've found to try & piece it all together.As far as I can discern,Roger Elvick based his procedure on the findings of many others,and tried to consolidate them all.One was named Hartford Van Dyke,whose tactics centred around "common-law liens".

"The Founding Fathers authorized three legal systems in the Constitution, first Common Law, secondly Equity Law, and thirdly Admiralty Law, which is the law of the sea. Gradually Common Law has been displaced by Equity Law until today the Common Law is rarely heard of or understood because it has been covered up and hidden away by the legal profession for very understandable business reasons. Such people are pursuing their own private agenda. In fact the Common Law is generally looked upon as obscene, example: to have a common law marriage is considered to be unclean. Why? The first marriage license in the United States was issued in 1863. The question is not whether some third party should or should not perform the service; it is whether sovereigns must get permission from their servants (the government) before they can be married."

http://www.freedomdomain.com/Redemption/comliens1.html

"THE SECRET OF THE SPECIAL MARITIME JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES EXPOSED"

http://216.239.59.132/search?q=cache:FZzaXEKiRXAJ:usa-the-republic.com/items%2520of%2520interest/Special%2520Maritime%2520Exposed.pdf+http://autarchic.tripod.com/files/specialmaritimeexposed.pdf&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

Reveals that the basis of the belief stems from a lawyer named Proctor Wiswall (Frank L Wiswall) & his lecture:

http://freedom-school.com/the-1994-ebsworth.pdf

RE: The flag...I'm still mulling this one over.

http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/creator/martiallaw.htm

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=31086

goldman

19-12-2008, 02:28 AM

Fantastic Free Man Resources people, keep em coming, they will benefit massively. knowledge is power. ;)

Wrong. knowledge isn't power, you've been misled. Intuition and the sense of having a soul is what is tuning your perception of truth. Knowledge is what starts fires, knowledge is that what knitted the invisible noose around your neck, and you want more knowledge to escape the noose that was created with knowledge? There will be a day when they will say: Jump, or we will help you with it.

Behold those who seek power, they will become powerless.

--

boots

19-12-2008, 06:23 AM

Wrong. knowledge isn't power, you've been misled. Intuition and the sense of having a soul is what is tuning your perception of truth. Knowledge is what starts fires, knowledge is that what knitted the invisible noose around your neck, and you want more knowledge to escape the noose that was created with knowledge? There will be a day when they will say: Jump, or we will help you with it.

Behold those who seek power, they will become powerless.

--

Get a grip.

To know is to understand.

How do you think you can write what you have written, by using intuition.

Have any resources to share? No. Then fuck off.

.

fnulnu

21-12-2008, 04:35 PM

I just happened upon this geocities sitebelonging to Dave-Thomas Hutchings Freeman-On-The-Land .
http://sites.google.com/site/freemanonthelandproject/Home
Freeman-on-the-Land-Project
This website is a result of a 'study group'.
We are enthusiasts of 'Solutions in Commerce' as advocated by:
Winston Shrout, Mary Croft ,Robert Menard ,
Mark McMurtie - among others

goldman

23-12-2008, 01:26 AM

Get a grip.

To know is to understand.

How do you think you can write what you have written, by using intuition.

Have any resources to share? No. Then fuck off.

.

so you want to stand-under? stand under lies? your choice, but please don't insult me because of it.

boots

23-12-2008, 05:34 AM

so you want to stand-under? stand under lies? your choice, but please don't insult me because of it.

Ha. The only one that stands under is you.

How interesting that you use this term "stand under" which is legalese that the court system use to make a person bow down too them and stay with in their control. Yet here you are turning this statement around for your own benefit. To troll.

HAVE ANY RESOURCES TO SHARE?? NO, THEN YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO.

.

goldman

23-12-2008, 10:58 PM

Ha. The only one that stands under is you.

How interesting that you use this term "stand under" which is legalese that the court system use to make a person bow down too them and stay with in their control. Yet here you are turning this statement around for your own benefit. To troll.

HAVE ANY RESOURCES TO SHARE?? NO, THEN YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO.

.

Yeah it's right isn't it, having proper argumentative opinions makes you a troll. what does that makes you?

Yeah I have plenty of resources to share let's start here:

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

Members of the Montana Freemen and their sentences

* Emmett Clark - (Pled guilty) [2] Time served plus 3 years under supervision [3]
* Richard Clark - 12 years [4]
* James Hance - 5 years, 7 months [5]
* John Hance - 5 years, 3 months
* Steven Hance - 6 years, 6 months
* Lavon T. Hanson - (Pled guilty with plea bargain), 1 year, 1 day [6]
* Dale M. Jacobi - 13 years
* Dana Dudley Landers - (Pled guilty) [7] 1 year, 9 months with credit for 2 years and 3 months already served
* Russell Dean Landers - 11 years, 3 months
* John McGuire - 15 years
* Jon Barry Nelson- 5 years, 11 months
* Cherlyn Petersen - Time served and released
* Daniel E. Petersen Jr. - 15 years and ordered to pay restitution of $39,845
* LeRoy M. Schweitzer - 22 years, 6 months
* Rodney O. Skurdal - 15 years
* Agnes Stanton - Time served and released
* William Stanton - 3 years
* Elwin Ward - Time served and released

On 7 April 2008, Russell Dean Landers had his sentence extended for 15 years for attempting to extort his release from prison. He and two other inmates at the federal prison in El Reno, Oklahoma had demanded millions of dollars from officials for the use of their names, which they claimed were "copyrighted." They were found guilty of "conspiring to impede the duties of federal prison officials and extortion in (their) efforts to gain release from prison by making financial demands on prison staff and attempting to seize their property."

All good guys right? happy and caring people who look after their neighbors and fellow man. Let's invite some of them to your tea party, and see if you still think it's a good idea. These guys actually did it, no bold words, they had their reality check in prison.

LeRoy Schweitzer's commitment to waging an Identity inspired war against the government is matched by that of his common law compatriot Rodney Skurdal. In September 1992 Skurdal had made a public "Declaration of War" in order to "honor my God and the Laws of the [MY] Bible," to "regain my rights to acquire private allodial property" and "to regain our Justices'Court." Skurdal made clear in the declaration that "my duty is to God and this Republic...and to "NO" other, of the "de facto"/Democracy form of government."

A document produced by Skurdal in November 1994 gives insight into the racist leader's understanding of his God and his vision for "this Republic." In the document, in which Skurdal declares himself a "Notary Public" of the "one Supreme Court in and for Musselshell County," he lays out his Christian Identity beliefs. Skurdal writes that God is not a God unto the other races, but only that of Israel, the White [sic] Race;" that Jews "were fathered by Satan" and "will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven," and that people of color are the "beasts of the field" described in Genesis.
What a nice guy. source: http://www.albionmonitor.com/freemen/justus.html

A new multilevel marketing operation is tailored to the Common Law movement -- those folks who claim to be sovereign, and who handle disputes in their own courtrooms under their own quaint legal interpretations. It's not the first time Common Law militants were involved in multilevel marketing, which is sometimes called pyramid marketing. After all, the convicted money launderer M. Elizabeth Broderick of Palmdale, who learned how to pass out phony comptroller warrants at the knee of Montana Freeman LeRoy M. Schweitzer, was once a multilevel marketing huckster.

"They are avoiding the semblance of a real office," says Mark Taylor, editor of San Francisco's Online Fraud Newsletter. "They are probably operating out of Canada."

Gateway makes wild claims: After you have recruited enough people into the scheme, you make 90 percent profit -- yes, 90 percent -- on each sale of the company's product.

What are those products? The first, Gateway I, costing $1,250, is a binder of audio cassettes telling you about the evils of the Federal Reserve, about offshore banking and trusts, as well as Common Law.

The second, Gateway II, costing $6,250, is a three-day financial seminar that improves your knowledge of offshore tax strategies, international trusts, and the like.

The third, Gateway III, costing $18,750, is a one-week workshop "presented by renowned international bankers and financiers," according to promotional materials.

source: http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/5395/gpmg.html

WOKE UP YET?

rob menard

23-12-2008, 11:42 PM

pleasuredome

24-12-2008, 12:02 AM

Yeah it's right isn't it, having proper argumentative opinions makes you a troll. what does that makes you?

could you ask a mod to move these off topic posts to a thread of your own please?

goldman

24-12-2008, 12:06 AM

Yes the people who called themselves Freemen in Montana did in fact do it wrong. According to your logic, since they did it wrong, it is impossible to do it right.

I heard of a guy once who raped a woman. He was a man. Therefore all men are rapist.

This is your logic.

So it's okay to assume that this time everything will go well, while it failed more times than it succeeded based on probability and hard facts rather than rumors of folks who "made" it, that's your logic.

What I do not understand is if you are so sure this is a fallacy or a scam, why do you care and spend so much time trying to get people to agree with you? Why do you care if you believe it is a fallacy? What do you get out of trying to convince people that it is a fallacy?

If you are happy the way things are, then what even brought you to this thread and forum?

There is a difference between not wanting to partake yourself and attempting to stop o0thers from doing so. I went to a buffet once and there were foodstuffs I did not like. So any time I saw someone with food I DID NOT LIKE I knocked it out of their hands. If I don't like it, no body should.

Rob

I spend less time than you, considering your 100 posts in a couple of weeks, maybe my posts stand out, but I haven't posted that much actually. I certainly don't stop people, I just give them a glimpse of the flip side of the same coin, if they want to flip it over and research it, it's their choice. In any case, one should research both sides, how else can you be right about a topic? maybe that is due to my scientific training, where I learned to verify and have at least 2 sources for any claim.

Maybe out of compassion and the need to warn people as a possible spiritual duty? or karma? whatever the case maybe considering my intuition about it.

goldman

24-12-2008, 12:09 AM

could you ask a mod to move these off topic posts to a thread of your own please?

No need, I'm tired of this fascist attitude, I'll drop my discussion all together and unsubscribe from these freemen forums.

Have it your way, you've won, it's all good, it's the truth, I'm a shill, whatever. Wanna hear that? there you have it.

rob menard

24-12-2008, 12:14 AM

So it's okay to assume that this time everything will go well, while it failed more times than it succeeded based on probability and hard facts rather than rumors of folks who "made" it, that's your logic.

I spend less time than you, considering your 100 posts in a couple of weeks, maybe my posts stand out, but I haven't posted that much actually. I certainly don't stop people, I just give them a glimpse of the flip side of the same coin, if they want to flip it over and research it, it's their choice. In any case, one should research both sides, how else can you be right about a topic? maybe that is due to my scientific training, where I learned to verify and have at least 2 sources for any claim.

Maybe out of compassion and the need to warn people as a possible spiritual duty? or karma? whatever the case maybe considering my intuition about it.

How can you show any one the flip side of anything when you are unfamiliar with the whole? I say this because based upon your posts, you clearly have no understanding of what Freemanery is about. Since you do not have a clear picture of one side, how can you show the other?

Rob

goldman

24-12-2008, 12:19 AM

How can you show any one the flip side of anything when you are unfamiliar with the whole? I say this because based upon your posts, you clearly have no understanding of what Freemanery is about. Since you do not have a clear picture of one side, how can you show the other?

Rob

I've never went in depth about my knowledge of freemen and it's movement, so you can't interpret this based on my posts.

But this is my last post, I'll go unsubscribe now on these freemen topics on recommendation of the other "FREE" men with free minds, and free speech warriors in disguise.

Wish you all the best,

Namasté!

dondaz

25-12-2008, 01:02 PM

Winston Shrout - Fort Collins (5 hours) as 12 parts (3 x 4 parts)...

1-1 video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1038276782308887999 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1038276782308887999) (25 mins)

1-2 video.google.com/videoplay?docid=470978216057565378 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=470978216057565378) (25 mins)

1-3 video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1819046046183789561 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1819046046183789561) (25 mins)

1-4 video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3581361366388439461 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3581361366388439461) (25 mins)

2-1 video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7747023869513799959 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7747023869513799959) (25 mins)

2-2 video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4579143276364258595 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4579143276364258595) (25 mins)

2-3 video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8621940432301681095 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8621940432301681095) (25 mins)

2-4 video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4417106487526006308 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4417106487526006308) (25 mins)

3-1 video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5908050427680975207 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5908050427680975207) (25 mins)

3-2 video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6012507988534846061 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6012507988534846061) (25 mins)

3-3 video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3538988802945019667 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3538988802945019667) (25 mins)

3-4 video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9131797588913913745 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9131797588913913745) (25 mins)

The Freeman Movement is going to rock in 2009, we're going to put the naysayers to shame, he he, it's going to be fun!

Have a merry xmas.

pleasuredome

20-02-2009, 11:26 AM

TAX and criminal liability for WAR CRIMES. this should get you out of paying anything where the funds go to the government

http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=blair+war+crimes&hl=en&emb=0#

IT'S ALL AN ILLUSION - JOHN HARRIS

http://www.tpuc.org/node/558

A CASE FOR TREASON - ALBERT BURGESS. please guys, start serving notices on your local police for these crimes, they are shit scared of them.

http://www.tpuc.org/node/560

STATE OF THE NATION - BRIAN GERRISH

http://www.tpuc.org/node/564

pleasuredome

20-02-2009, 11:38 AM

basic freeman videos....

THE STRAWMAN ILLUSION - THE MATRIX REVEALED

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-6526777574574871930&hl=en

MARK PYTELLEK

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-687830120951556277

pleasuredome

20-02-2009, 11:42 AM

UNREGISTERING YOUR CAR

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53927

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...7&postcount=68

jay303

21-02-2009, 04:05 PM

jimmi

24-02-2009, 01:05 PM

And a reminder to all to post only links to info. ,; as politely requested previously;)

yozhik

24-02-2009, 04:24 PM

hi i have a question

when a card company phones and asks for your name, DOB etc
they usually start with "can i speak to (FRED BLOGGS)"
what is the best way to answer them
its ok saying i refuse to give you my name, they could refuse to carry the call anyfurther.
would it be best to say iam an agent of fred bloggs.

If someone asks for a PERSON with a name that sounds like the one I go by, I do not answer; I simply ask who is calling.

Then, when they ask for DOB or further info to create a contract with me and create a joinder, I merely tell them that I do not consent to them having that information and I am not about to surrender it to a person over the phone.

They will usually try to persuade me by quoting some bullshit about it being for security reasons. I ignore this and inform them directly that I will give any personal information over the phone. Period.

they could refuse to carry the call any further.
Ummmm ... and what?
They made the call; not you.
If they wish the call to continue, then they play by YOUR rules - not theirs.
Did you ask for them to call?
In whose interests is a continuation of the call?
Do you know the person on the other end of the phone?
What obligation do you have to giving information to strangers?
If the information they have and wish to share with you is so important; they can send it in writing.
However, given that you have not confirmed your identity by agreeing to being the PERSON they have attempted to contract with, they have no power.

Be very clear on this; at no time should you confirm the name of the PERSON they are calling about.
Do not give any information that will create joinder or contract.
If they stress that the information is important - tell them to put it in writing.
If they then TRY TO TRICK YOU by asking you to confirm your address (another form of joinder), tell them that they must have that information on file, so just use what they have.

Be courteous, but be firm.
Do not contract with them.
Do not provide any information that will positively identify you with the PERSON.

.

jay303

25-02-2009, 04:57 PM

thanks for the reply yozhik
i can only try this and see what happens

all the best
jay

yozhik

25-02-2009, 06:03 PM

thanks for the reply yozhik
i can only try this and see what happens

all the best
jay

It works. I do it every time.
They get frustrated and keep pushing it is for "security purposes" ... but in my mind, I use the same rationale.

I do not know who this person on the other end of the phone is.
I have no proof that they are who they say they are.
For me to divulge any information pertaining to "my person" and validation of "my person" would be irresponsible.

I am under no obligation to divulge this information over the phone.
There is no law being broken by withholding this data in a phone call.
In fact, most brochures issued by financial regulators would recommend that this information, is indeed, withheld.

Oh - and guess what?
Not once have they EVER followed up in writing; so I guess the phone call wasn't as important as they attempted to portray it to be.

.

scotfree

25-02-2009, 06:58 PM

My site Freeman Scotland
has many links and videos linked

http://www.spanglefish.com/freemanscotland/

See also http://www.tpuc.org/
and tpuc Forum http://www.tpuc.org/forum/index.php

guardia

25-02-2009, 07:15 PM

yozhik

25-02-2009, 07:23 PM

hi there!
I am from Romania.
In my country , the judicial system is of Napoleonian inspiration, like the majority of the countries in the EU.
I asked some lawyers here, and they said that all these principles of Freeman of the Land and Common Law are not applicable here, because our judicial system is not one of anglo-saxon inspiration.
they told me that In the Napoleonian Law system , the state decide what is good and what is bad for the citizens, the common law is not aplicable in the courts.
Is that true?
This make me very frustrated, and I feel it have to be a way to avoid all this non-sense in our judicial system.
Can be applied the principles of Freeman of the land everywhere in the world, despite we are not on using the common law like UK, USA, and The Commonwealth?
I hope someone knows about that issue.

If you asked a lawyer in any country the same question, they would probably give you the same answer.

The answer you were given was correct; the state DOES decide what is good or bad for the citizens.
That's what being a citizen means - you are a ward of the state.
The state assigns rights.

A Freeman HAS rights.
A citizen is GIVEN rights.

See the difference?

.

guardia

25-02-2009, 07:42 PM

yes, I see the difference , and I understand your logic, is beautiful.
But my question is simple: cand we use this logical and natural thinking in the courts or versus police or versus the state, banks, etc., for defending our rights in these countries (like my country, and other european countries with French-Napoleonian judicial system) where the common law is not applicable?
Can we demand our rights based on common law basis, regardless the country where we live?
And thnaks for your promptitude :)

jimmi

08-03-2009, 11:57 AM

The point is , we know that we have the ability to stand in court and speak our truth but we want to know what will be the direct consequence to us if we do so, yes?

If I do it here in the (european state of the united kingdom plc :D) then the worst that will happen to me is that I get shoved around by a few bully boy coppers and spend a few hours inside a police station until they realise they've made a cock up because the resulting publicity would be more damaging to them! So I have little to lose by using my new found knowledge.

So, I am in no position to give any advice to someone else, especially if they are from a country of which I know absolutely nothing, so I will!

After a couple of seconds of research I have discovered that if you have to appear in court in Romania and play the freeman game then you have to wear a string of garlic cloves around your neck and a big heavy metal cross is usefull as well apparently, something to do with original bloodlines or something. Then they let you go at around an hour before sunset with a fond farewell and a "see how free you feel now you fucker".

So I 'd like to make it clear that this is not intended as legal advice and no payment is necessary;)

disorder2k8

16-07-2009, 11:19 AM

disorder2k8

16-07-2009, 11:22 AM

[Useful links (Posted in other topics)]
http://www.fmotl.com/
http://www.freemanhighland.co.uk/
http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality41.htm
http://www.relfe.com/plus_5_.html (OR http://www.scribd.com/doc/6155123/i-Want-the-Earth-Plus-5-Percent)
http://www.tpuc.org/node/368
http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf
http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/

[video and audio here]

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-7040453665540929835
http://www.youtube.com/v/jSeLVebtCds

disorder2k8

16-07-2009, 11:28 AM

[templates for various letters]

I ***** a living soul agent for the legal entity ******, do declare the following to be true and correct to the best of my knowledge with God as my witness.

I am in receipt of your letter dated 20 May 2009 ref : xxxyyyzzz, in which you detailed what I believe is a falsified breakdown of fees for 3 visits to the property of ******* outstanding balance of £00.00.

I conditionally accept your notice of alleged debt upon receiving the following :

1. Proof of debt , Validation of the actual debt (the actual accounting).

2. Full disclosure of the alleged debt. (a lawful requirement of any contract).

3. Verification of your claim against me (a sworn affidavit).

4. Proof of second and third visits. (Only acceptable if deemed as ‘proof’ in a court of law)

I demand that all of the above conditions be met and presented in Affidavit format sworn under oath or attestation, under penalty of perjury and upon your full commercial liability. Due to the urgency and seriousness of this allegation, I will give you fourteen (14) days to respond. If I do not receive such a response conforming to the above criteria within fourteen (14) days of the date of this letter, it will be deemed a tacit agreement by your acquiescence that the debt is null and void and non-existent.

Sincerely and without malice, afterthought, ill will, vexation or frivolity, and accept the payment of £000 that I initially paid as a gesture of goodwill.

Signed by : _____________(agent)

Dear Sir/Madam
I refer to your contact dated the 17/04/2009 with reference XXXXXX
XXXXX in which you allege there is an outstanding balance of £xxxxx0 owed by me to your client XXXXX.
I do not acknowledge any such debt either to your company or to hfo services.
I ask that you no longer process my data and that you cease all further communications as is my right under Section 10, subsection (1) of the Data Protection Act 1998.
You have 21 days from receipt of this letter to state that you comply or intend to comply with my request. Should you not comply or intend to comply, you are to state your reasons as to why.
Please be aware that I will regard any further approaches other than in writing as harassment under S40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, and any inappropriate written contact as harassment under that Act or S1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988.
As such you are now to cease any telephone calls to my residence or workplace . Furthermore, should it be your intention to arrange a "doorstep call", please remember that there is only an implied license under English Common Law for certain people to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v. Sheppard and Short Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. per Lord Evershed M.R.).
Please therefore take note that, I revoke license under English Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and if you do so without my permission, you will then be liable to damages for a tort of trespass. You would also be conspiring in a trespass if you sent someone to visit me nevertheless.
Should you decide to ignore or continue to contact me about the alleged debt, I would ask that you provide documented proof that a) the debt exists and b) you are acting legally in your instruction for the alleged debt.
Failure to comply with any of the requests in this letter will result in further action being taken by me. This may include and may not solely be restricted to a complaint being made to The Office of Fair Trading and the Credit Services Association with regard to your professional conduct.
Please note that you will receive no further correspondence from me on this matter. The only communication I would now expect to receive from you would be confirmation that the matter is now closed.
This matter is not going to go away and ignoring the problem could potentially make your situation worse and I therefore strongly recommend that you heed the contents of this letter.

yozhik

16-07-2009, 11:55 AM

So you're proposing all suggested replies and templates get put here?
Or just standard templates?

disorder2k8

16-07-2009, 11:57 AM

So you're proposing all suggested replies and templates get put here?
Or just standard templates?

any forum replies with some legal advice in them
templates for letters
useful forum or external links (text)
useful vids and clips

All you have to do is post it in, and I will sort it in the relevant section or make a new one if needed.

yozhik

16-07-2009, 12:17 PM

any forum replies with some legal advice in them

There aren't any replies that contain "legal advice" ;)
There might be some replies that offer an opinion or share a personal experience; but definitely no "legal advice" is given or offered.
I do not think any one has the qualifications to do such a thing.
It would be unlawful to offer "legal advice", wouldn't it?

:rolleyes:

disorder2k8

16-07-2009, 12:19 PM

There aren't any replies that contain "legal advice" ;)
There might be some replies that offer an opinion or share a personal experience; but definitely no "legal advice" is given or offered.
I do not think any one has the qualifications to do such a thing.
It would be unlawful to offer "legal advice", wouldn't it?

:rolleyes:

lol, nice way to cover yourself...err "unbiased opinions or neutral advice" then :D

disorder2k8

16-07-2009, 12:23 PM

Established, Fundamental, Axioms

(As simplified as I can make them, based on the work of Robert-Arthur: Menard, Mary-Elizabeth: Croft and (to some extent Winston Shrout and Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst). Basically it is their work, tweaked a bit by re-writing, and removing 'God' - thereby reducing it to absolute fundamentals)

1) 'Lawful' is what it is all about. 'Lawful' .vs. 'unlawful'. Do not get trapped into discussing 'legal'/'illegal'.

2) In order to empower a representative, you must have the power yourself. You cannot give to anyone something you, yourself do not possess. You cannot give them any more than you, yourself, possess. Consequently you can look at anything any representative does, and say "I must be entitled to do that myself, without - necessarily - empowering someone else to do it for me".

3) In a democracy, 'a majority' does not depend on 'large numbers'. A majority can be as low as ONE. And that ONE must, of itself, (therefore) carry sufficient empowerment to put any motion into practice. (The US Supreme Court has 9 Members. A 5 - 4 majority carries any ruling. That's 'democracy')

4) Consequent to (3) no Government has more power than you do yourself. The powers are equal. The only difference is that your power is inalienable - it can't be taken away from you - whereas a Government can be replaced by some other set of role players. Consequently YOU are 'supreme'.

5) 'Requesting permission' is the act of a child. 'Licencing' is 'begging for permission' and 'submitting to someone else's will'. Adults do not beg permission for something they are lawfully entitled to do, and prepared to take full responsibility for so doing. Anything for which a licence can be granted must, by definition, be fundamentally lawful (otherwise it would be incapable of being licenced), and there is, therefore, absolutely no need for an adult to 'ask such permission'. The act of 'obtaining a licence' is the act of throwing away a fundamental Right, and substituting a (revocable) privilege instead.

6) 'Registration' of anything transfers superior ownership to the entity accepting the registration. Once an item has been registered, you are no longer the OWNER (even though you will still be paying for the item), but instead you become the KEEPER. This includes cars, houses, children (who become 'wards of the state' by virtue of a birth registration), etc. ('regis ...' = handing ownership to The Crown ... which, by the way, is the British Crown in Temple Bar, and NOT Elizabeth II)

7) When parts of the Magna Carta were 'transferred' into Statutes what was actually happening was that fundamental Rights were being transferred into privileges. Thus they were being watered down. Diffused. Being rendered powerless.

8) In all cases you are always being OFFERED A SERVICE - which includes 'benefits' - in the form of privileges. You are always fully entitled to waive such services, and of course you will also be waiving the attendant benefits, as you so choose. Your choice is - ultimately - to either assert your (inalienable) Rights, or accept (revocable) privileges.

9) The law can give rise to a FICTION, but a fiction cannot give rise to a law. Consequently a legal fiction called THE GOVERNMENT has no power to make LAW. It is, in point of fact, BOUND BY LAW (like everyone else, and including all other legal fictions). PARLIAMENT is another legal fiction entity. Statutes created by Parliament are not, therefore, the LAW. They are 'legislated rules for a society' and ONLY APPLICABLE TO MEMBERS OF THAT SOCIETY. Join a different society, and you would be bound by a different set of rules. (If this were not the case it would be impossible to become, for example, a Freemason and be bound by the rules of Freemasonry). Statutes are nothing more than the Company Policy of THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, or THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, etc. (See 'society', below)

10) Only a sovereign flesh and blood human being, with a living soul, has a Mind. Only something with a Mind is capable of devising a CLAIM. Legal fictions are soulless, and do not possess a distinct Mind. They cannot, therefore, in LAW, make a CLAIM.

11) Consequent to the foregoing, and since the Judiciary in a court de facto derives all its power from colour-of-law/Statutes, then no court de facto has any power over you as a sovereign human being, IN FACT (although, of course, they don't bother to tell you!). A court de jure is the only kind of court to which you are subject under Common Law, and there are none of those left (unless you insist that the court operates de jure, by demanding a Trial by Jury. But they will attempt to resist that with every fibre in their 'corporate', soulless, 'bodies').

12) YOU, and your fellow countrymen, constitute the entire and total 'wealth' of your country. The resources may be considered as assets, but without you & your fellow countrymen they are worthless. A field must be ploughed, and seeded, before potatoes will grow. Once grown they must be dug up, bagged, and transported before they can do the worthwhile job of sustaining life. Without the efforts of you, and your countrymen, NOTHING can happen, and your country itself is a worthless lump of soil.

13) A Society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. A society makes its own rules, and its Members are duty-bound to follow them. Different societies can exist, having their own unique set of rules. One way of 'choking' the action of a court de facto is to claim membership of a society that only exists in Common Law jurisdiction. The World Freeman Society has been set up precisely for this purpose.

14) Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO, it must comprise the following:

A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract.

B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other party's CONSIDERATION.

C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree.

D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.

Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been followed. (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!). Standing on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating just about every action that may be taken against you. (See No. 16, below)

15. Agreement to pay. Consequent to (14) above, all 'payment demands', that could result in court actions against you, can be stopped by 'conditionally agreeing to pay the sum demanded', subject to proofs that the 4 rules were followed in the first place. (Make sure you send this letter by registered post, heading it 'Notice of Conditional Agreement' and including 'Without Prejudice' in a suitable place). In almost all cases no proofs are possible (because the rules were never followed lawfully). However, by 'agreeing to pay' you have removed all CONTROVERSY. Thus a court action, which is only there to adjudicate on CONTROVERSY, cannot take place. If you receive a Summons, you can write back (registered!) with a copy of your agreement to pay, subject to the proofs being presented. The court will consider that any further action is 'frivolous', i.e. a complete waste of its time, since there is no CONTROVERSY on which it can adjudicate. (The court may even consider whoever applied to the court to be in contempt). (See No. 16, below)

16. "I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn thing! When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours in the first place. You created the 'money' when you signed the Loan or Credit Application. By doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument called 'the money'. They cashed this in(*), and then used that to loan you back your own money. You don't owe a damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an apology at the very least - for applying this confidence trick on you - AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU ALREADY GAVE THEM.

(* Actually they just could have walked away with your cash. But they didn't, because they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they could get you to pay everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on top of that. Thus they had already been paid in full ONCE when they cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it back to you, and reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'. Are you just beginning to feel slightly less sympathetic? If not, I don't know what else to say.

"Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way. Banks are not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held by them 'in trust'). Loan Companies and Credit Card Companies (etc.) have no Deposit Money in the first place! Do they? So how else could they do it, then?)

17. 'Responsibility' .vs. 'Authority'. You can DELEGATE authority, but you can only SHARE responsibility. In other words, if you task (delegate) someone to do something, you still retain the RESPONSIBILITY for getting it done, and for anything that may happen as a result. If, for example, a Police Officer carries out any order, given by a superior, then that Officer is personally responsible for what may occur as a result, and all those up the chain of command are considered accomplices, in LAW.

(That's what the Nuremberg Trials were all about)

Therefore it is important that, if you delegate authority, you delegate to the right individual or group of individuals. You delegate to an individual who will accomplish the task without come-backs. And who you choose is your choice, and your responsibility.

(If this had been pointed out, during the de Menezes trial, INCLUDING THE OBVIOUS BREACH OF COMMON LAW, a lot of Police personnel - up to, and including the Home Secretary & Prime Minister - could easily have ended up behind bars. The so-called 'legal profession' did a thoroughly abysmal job - as normal. A golden opportunity, tossed into the bin of history, by virtue of plain, common or garden, useless waffle. The police were charged under the Health & Safety Act. What utter rubbish! They should have been charged under Common Law)

disorder2k8

16-07-2009, 12:24 PM

The Long Arm of the Law is much shorter than realised

Disclaimer: Nothing herein constitutes professional legal advice. I am not a Lawyer. Before embarking on anything you should seek professional legal advice. The hope is simply that, when seeking that advice, you know which questions to ask. Please note: This only applies to the United Kingdom, and specifically to England. Other nations/countries may have variances.

Nevertheless everything stated herein can be verified, if necessary with reference to Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition.

Veronica: of the Chapman family

December, 2008

Last updated: 6th January, 2009 (click to go there) (However some re-wording has been done to the main essay since the original posting, in the interests of further clarification. The last update on that was 5th January, 2009)

Abstract

The information contained herein is now established fact. Feel free to check with a competent Lawyer.

There is law. Irrefutable and permanently applicable law which, as a peaceful individual is unlikely to ever affect you. It is called Common Law. Provided you keep the peace, do not cause injury, harm or loss to another individual, then you will remain within the terms of Common Law and will not break it.

But Statutes, as passed by Parliament (any Parliament or Congress) are not, necessarily, "the law". And, that being the case, there are circumstances where it is possible to ignore them - as if they did not exist. The circumstances and reasoning are fully explained herein.

It is unlikely that you will have been told about this by your parents, friends, family and acquaintances because it is not the subject of any known school curriculum, and consequently they would not know themselves. And there are reasons for this. Simply put, if you were told, you would become empowered. You would become empowered to take full control of your own life, as a fully-responsible individual, and would remain outside the grasp of any 'nannying' governmental 'Statutory' control. To all intents and purposes you can freely ignore anything your Government may do. If you don't like something your Government does, you can say "I don't accept that rule, and will not abide by it. I, personally, see no valid reason to". And a court can be made to uphold your right to say that, and your right to ignore the Statute created by your Government.

In a sense this is the real, fundamental, law that no-one ever told you about.

However, while you may whoop for joy at the possibility of freely ignoring Parking Tickets, etc., just remember you are never free to cause harm, injury, or loss to another individual. On the other hand if, by parking in a certain place, you caused no harm, injury, or loss to any other individual, you are freely able to do that and remain within the law.

But how is it that people are 'done' for parking?

Because they are deliberately deceived. They are deceived, by means of a Grand Deception, in which the Government, Police, and Judiciary (and Media) all collude to pull the wool over their eyes. These agencies combine forces, using 'legal-speak' to hide the truth from you. To be fair, this is really only collusion between the Government and Judiciary. The other agencies mentioned are deceived into doing the dirty work. To be absolutely fair, it is perfectly possible that MPs - certainly in the lower echelons - have no idea about the Grand Deception. This may even be true for most Solicitors and Lawyers, and so on. It is possible to envisage formal legal training that omits to mention this most fundamental aspect. And without a doubt, the Police have absolutely no idea.

But, the point is, Judges know. And, if you know as well, that's all that matters because everything else will always fall into line.

Judges know, but they won't 'tell you'. They assume you - like everyone else - have fallen for the Grand Deception. And they will try every trick in the book to trap you into admitting they have jurisdiction over you. If, one the other hand, you are being prosecuted for violating a Statute and 'you tell them', their immediate response will invariably be "Case dismissed!".

Oh yes. Judges know. And, if they don't, higher courts certainly do.

What is Common Law?

It's the "law-of-the-land". And the Grand Deception starts when you do not realise the implications of the apparently insignificant word "land". And the very real difference between "the land" and "the sea". There is "law-of-the-sea". It's sometimes called Maritime Law. Or Admiralty Law, and so on. Other terms, meaning the same thing, are Civil Law, Commerce Law, Fleet Law, etc. Statutes are the "law-of-the-sea" and, if you committed the (apparent) violation on dry land, then you are only subject to the law-of-the-land. And the only "law-of-the-land" is Common Law. Statutes, passed by any Parliament, are the "law-of-the-sea". Statutes will be discussed in more detail later.

Common Law derives from the mists of time. It comprises those customs and traditions that make a Nation or Country what it is. The following description applies to the United Kingdom, specifically England but - since all Common Law stems from this (world-wide), it is generally applicable to everyone on this planet.

Back in the Celtic times the British Isles were populated by tribes. They had traditions and customs. Nothing was permanently written down, but they lived by rules that everyone knew. This entirely mirrors the situation world-wide. There was a time when everything was tribal, and each member knew the rules that governed their lives. If anyone broke these rules there would be some kind of Tribal Meeting, and the Chief or Holy Man would preside. A judgment was made on the basis of arguments put forward by both sides, and that judgment was executed.

In the year 1100 the English Monarch Henry I took the first step towards rationalising the situation by actually writing it down. He issued what is known as the Charter of Liberties. It was a small-ish step to codify the customs and traditions at the time.

This codification was felt necessary in order to provide some semblance of order and unification of justice, thereby preventing 'wayward' decisions/judgments resulting from various forms of corruption. The idea of 'money' - in place of pure bartering - had already taken root, and any Monetary System always provides golden opportunities for corruption. (And getting away with it!)

But it was recognised that a living breathing human being had certain fundamental requirements. It is not necessary to go into those in any detail - food, water, shelter, and so on. And that, if these were not available in sufficient quantities, that individual would surely die. It was therefore recognised that a living breathing human being had, basically, fundamental rights to the "necessities for sustaining their life".

Please note (for the record) this may, or may not, have been a benevolent attitude. There was undoubtedly some benevolence in it, but the necessity to have personnel available to fight wars on behalf of the King was undoubtedly an important factor. And that means live men are needed. And that means live women are needed in order to bring these men into the world. And, furthermore, to bring other women into the world, in order to continue the supply of men. This reasoning, you can be sure, did not escape our ancestors.

In fact the lack of benevolence next came to a head in 1215. This year, as many people know, is the year that the (original) Magna Carta was signed on 15th June at Runnymede. At that point the lack of benevolence had reached such proportions as to cause the English to say, fundamentally, "Listen: Enough is enough!". And King John was forced to listen.

(Once again this second important step was not entirely full of benevolence. The Nobility, who forced the King to sign, were mainly looking out for themselves but - once again - recognised that by ignoring the rights of the common individual they, themselves, would lack an army to defend their own piece of the pie)

And so it goes.

Nevertheless, the Magna Carta was a massive step forward in securing Common Law rights for everyone. Massive, as anyone who reads the original version can see for themselves. One major step was the introduction of the idea of a Jury to decide guilt or innocence. In other words a Prosecutor did not need to convince one single Judge, but needed to convince "13 normal people". People who could put themselves in the place of the Accused, and look at it from their own point of view. They could use their own discretion, and that was very important step. Alternatively it can be said that the Accused had to convince these 13 of their innocence. A liar has more of a task when multiple individuals need to be convinced. And, furthermore, it was agreed that the verdict of this Jury was sacrosanct and should not be swayed by the Judge, nor could he overturn any verdict. It also said that if anyone was accused under - what was generally considered to be - an unfair or unjust law - then a Jury could find the law guilty, and totally acquit the Accused.

Now that is some semblance of power to the people. And it provides the basis for all Constitutional Republics world-wide, and came in particularly handy when the Constitution of the united States of America was drafted and agreed.

But that is only one aspect of the Magna Carta. Other essential and fundamental steps were agreed, the major ones being:

1) Trial by Jury as an essential right.

2) Everyone engaged in applying the law must know the law, and be minded to observe it well.

3) Property can only ever be seized on the basis of a verdict from a court of law.

4) Trivial offences can be dealt with based on "the oaths of good men in the neighbourhood".

5) No-one can be placed on trial based solely on their own unsupported confession.

6) The right to justice can never be removed, cannot be sold, nor can it be delayed. In summary: You have the right to know what you are charged with, the right to defend yourself, and the right to your day in court.

7) The right to petition the Monarch and allow 40 days for any grievance to be settled. The right to enter into a state of lawful rebellion if that grievance still remains after this period. In the state of lawful rebellion to be able to seize the Monarch's property and to throw every spanner in the works necessary to have the grievance resolved (apart from harm, injury, etc. In other words simple non-co-operation in every respect). And the right to encourage any others to help in this respect. To hand back any seized property once the dispute has been settled.

There are others.

And this was the kick-start to Common Law.

It forms the bedrock of Common Law.

Subsequently there were more distinct codifications, particularly in 1688/89 and 1701.

The bulk of Common Law has subsequently been derived from precedents handed down as judgments and verdicts since that time.

But it is important to remember that all (Case Law) judgments and verdicts have been based on, and do not deviate from, those fundamentals previously established by the Magna Carta, etc.

Common Law, real law, the law-of-the-land, addresses the fundamental human condition, assuming equality of all before it. It has been said "Don't use your head ... use your heart. If your heart tells you it's fair, right, and just, then Common Law will support and fully protect you. If you know, in your heart, it's wrong or unfair, and you do it anyway, Common Law will come down on you like a ton of bricks".

And, fundamentally, that's all you really need to know. You do not have to wade through Case Law because those concepts were employed in order to create that Case Law.

What is a Statute?

Put simply if you live peaceably, you will not violate Common Law. And you will not, therefore, end up in court charged with breaking Common Law.

Consequently, if you end up in court, it will be because you violated a Statute.

(And therefore you did not need to end up in court, as you will see if you read on. So, in essence, if a peaceful person ever actually ends up in court, it was because they simply did not know their rights)

A Statute is the final result of a Bill placed before Parliament. If the Bill is passed by Parliament, it becomes an Act of Parliament. Upon receipt of the Royal Assent it becomes a Statute.

Now, in a well-ordered society, we assume our elected representatives create our Parliament and make our laws.

And this is where the Grand Deception starts.

There is a long explanation and there is a short explanation. Which one do you want?

"Oh ... the short and uncomplicated one, please!"

This is it: A Statute is a rule created by a representative governing body of a society designed to create common goals, which carries the force of law by the consent of the governed.

Hold on to the thought "... by the consent of the governed", because that is a crucial thought. The long explanation (given below) can be crystalised into this definition.

Are you the Government? No. Therefore you must be 'the governed'.

A Statute only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it. If you do not give your consent, a Statute cannot affect you in any way whatsoever.

And the courts know this. You may not, but they certainly do.

And the last thing they will do is tell you. In point of fact they will hide this from you at every opportunity.

On the other hand, if you tell them, they will accept it because they know it is actually true.

This is the Grand Deception.

Does this mean that you can break the law with impunity? The careful answer to that is "No", because that is a sloppy question. 'The law' is Common Law, and you can't break that (without consequences).

The question should have been "Does this mean you can violate a Statute with impunity?". The answer to that is "Yes" because a Statute is not the law. It is, in reality, nothing more than Company Policy (as you will see). And, if you decide not to work for a particular company, its 'policy' does not in any way affect you.

Think of it this way. You go to work for a Supermarket Chain. You will be given a handbook of company rules. While in their employ you must follow these rules or be sacked. For example, one such rule may be that - while working on Checkouts - you must not carry any of your own money about your person. This may be because it is impossible to tell money from money, and if you are caught in possession of money it might be the company's money, out of the till. And the only way the truth could be determined is if you are barred from carrying your own money while operating the till.

You either accept such rules, or don't work for that company. But, if you don't work for them, the rules don't apply to you. You can carry your own money about your person at all times with impunity. You don't expect to have to ask anyone if you can carry money, do you? During life, going about your peaceful business you don't expect to be barred from carrying money. How else would you pay for anything?

So how do you avoid such rules? Don't work for the Supermarket Chain. Leave the company, 'the society'. Work for some other company whose rules you can accept.

OR BECOME 'SELF-EMPLOYED', and make your own 'Company rules'!

And that, is actually 'it'. That's the nub, the kernel, the crux.

You can choose to leave the 'Statute Society', the 'Statute Company', and become 'Self-employed' - as a Freeman-on-the-land.

No, this is nothing to do with your job! That was just analogy! That's why 'Self-employed' was written in quotes. You don't need to become a self-employed builder, plumber, or carpenter, etc as your vocation in life. You can become Self-employed in terms of a 'lawful, sovereign, peaceful human being entirely responsible for their own actions and not having to take any notice whatsoever of company policy issued as Statute by a nannying (and thoroughly, utterly corrupt) Board of Directors aka MPs, with one who calls himself Prime Minister aka Managing Director, or one who calls herself Queen aka Chairwoman'.

Do I hear you say "That's all very well, but we are talking about England, not a company!"?

Well, here is some rather important news. The United Kingdom, like all other countries on the planet, is actually a Corporation. And you can check this out by obtaining a Credit Report on it via Dunn & Bradstreet.

A number of these companies, such as THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION and THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION are, in point of fact, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy - but being only Chapter 11 are still, therefore, allowed to trade.

So this is a bit more of The Grand Deception.

More of the Grand Deception is that the UK Ministry of Justice is a Corporation (yes, listed by D&B!), and that all courts are sub-franchises actively trading.

Consequently a Summons (according to Black's Law Dictionary synonymous with 'an invitation') is nothing more than 'An invitation to go to the company's place of business in order to be made a offer'.

And you are perfectly entitled to say "No thanks, not interested in any offers you may make"

The European Union is nothing more than a Corporate Merger, allowing them to dictate the size and shape of bananas, cucumbers, etc.

Who owns the UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION then?

Like all companies, the shareowners of course!

Who are the shareowners? Who do you think? No, it's not the Government. No, it's not the Queen. It's you, if you were born in the United Kingdom. Your birth created a single share in your name.

How much is your share worth? The total viable assets of the United Kingdom as a whole, divided by the number of shares. The maths have not (at this time) been done (yes they have), but it is a fairly safe guess that the value of each share is in the millions of £s.

Because you have never asked for it, your share is held in trust for you. It is held in trust by the Government of the day. This means that the quarterly dividends on the share are sent to the shareholder i.e. those who are actually holding the share (as opposed to those who actually own the share), together with the voting right it carries.

When the Government votes to create a Corporate Merger with the other Corporations constituting the EU, it can use its Trustee Status to direct your vote to "Yes".

Claim your own share, become the holder of your share, and you enjoy the quarterly dividends and retain your own voting right to say "No".

Well, how are people prosecuted, fined and imprisoned, then????

Simply because they didn't know the truth. They did not know their rights. The courts will not tell them. And, more to the point, if they did not realise that the initial Summons was simply the invitation defined above then, by attending that 'place of business', tacit consent can be lawfully assumed. In other words - going back to "... by the consent of the governed" - attendance = consent to abide by Company Policy, and to plead guilty or not guilty to violating said Company Policy. Putting it another way they agreed the Statute applied to them. They accepted that the Statute carried the force of law upon them.

But what about Lawyers!? They must know, surely!?

Maybe they do, and maybe they don't. Who knows what Lawyers know (except other Lawyers)? However the facts are that, if someone realises they can simply ignore a Summons (knowing the situation, how to deal with it, and what to actually say, of course!) then Lawyers would be reduced solely to Common Law cases. And that law has already been decided over hundreds of years. There is very little scope for adversarial argument. And, of course, it is the preparation for, and the time spent voicing, adversarial argument that Lawyers can charge for. Take away the adversarial part, and what is left?

Consequently, even if Lawyers know, they have no incentive to tell anyone else. Lawyers thrive on adversary.

Remember: Everything stated herein is capable of being verified with reference to Black's Law Dictionary. Lawyers must have access to copies.

So, what can I do about this?

Put simply you can establish your own 'Self-employed-style' law. You can state your own terms for existence. Provided that your statements do not violate any aspect of Common Law, then this must be accepted by all other parties (by law!).

This is achieved by means of a legal instrument called a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right.

You state your understandings. You state your intent to live peacefully. You claim rights accordingly. You allow for objections during a reasonable period. You state that objections can be negotiated peacefully. You place the initial document in the hands of a Notary Public (and pay their fee). They will notify any relevant party with a copy of your Notice of Intent.

After the time period has elapsed, and any objections resolved, the rights you claimed are yours until the day you die. You have created your own law, your own rules, and thereafter it is the law-of-the-land. It is the highest law possible. It trumps all other law.

Oh, for heaven's sake! No, you can't just claim anything and everything! You can only claim your rights under Common Law.

What's the good of that? You become more powerful than the Monarch, plus any Government, plus the Police, plus the Military plus the European Union combined!

What has that achieved? That you didn't have before? Actually more than you can probably imagine at this point.

I'll give you one example. Do you mind if the police Taser you (for whatever reason)? You do? You mind? OK. Well, I certainly do. You can claim the right to compensation in the sum of, say, £500,000 per person involved in Tasering you. You can make that amount whatever you like. £5,000,000 per person if you wish.

And the court of law (Common Law, a court de jure) will uphold this under your Claim of Right. You just wave it under their nose.

So, explaining to a Police Officer that if he Tasers you, or tows your car away, or handcuffs you, or any non-peaceful action against you, is going to cost him his house, his job, etc. is likely to achieve ... what? What do you think? He won't believe you? Let him try it. He'll soon find out! It's pretty safe to say that, once he's lost his house and his job, his remaining colleagues will think twice about the way they go about their business.

How is this possible? Simply because the police are not doing their job. When becoming officers they swore to "... keep the peace and uphold the law of the land".

Common Law is the law-of-the-land. And "keeping the peace" is what Common Law is all about. And that is their job. And that is only their job.

But, by and large, they don't do that on a day-to-day basis. What they do instead is to 'enforce Statutes' i.e. 'enforce Company Policy'

They are paid to be Peace Officers. They swear to be Peace Officers. In practice they operate as Policy Enforcement Officers and Tax Collectors for most of the time.

Their job is not to enforce policy. Their job is not to collect taxes. Their job is to keep the peace. Tasering someone (or even shooting them in the head 7 times on Stockwell Station) is seriously disturbing that person's peace. The police are the ones breaching the peace they solemnly swore to prevent. The police are the ones thoroughly breaking their own solemn Oaths of Service, and Common Law at the same time.

Personally I think it is about time this was stopped. And possession of a Claim of Right can achieve that. The more people who do it, the better. Everyone should do it, for their own protection.

Of course, there is nothing stopping any policeman from making his own Claim of Right. In doing so he will realise its full meaning, how it ensures peace all round, and he would fully realise what was meant by his Oath of Service. And, of course, the very real difference between Statute and Law.

No! A policeman couldn't make a Claim of Right to be able to Taser you!. A Claim of Right is only acceptable if it defines peace, no harm, no injury, no loss to anyone else. A Claim of Right cannot violate Common Law. It is Common Law.

At the end of this document I append my own version. You can personalise it by substituting your own name in place of mine. But I suggest you stick to the format of the name. There are legal reasons for this. If you have more than one Given Name run them together, hyphenated. Make sure they terminate with a colon and leave a space immediately before your Surname, e.g. John-James-Arthur: Smith. It is also possible to write it as 'John-James-Arthur: of the Smith family'.

Orders

If you go into a shop that sells curtains, and place an order for some curtains, do you expect to pay? The answer is "Yes".

If you place an order with a Mail Order firm, do you expect to pay commensurate with receiving the goods? The answer is "Yes".

An 'order' is chargeable! The amount to charge is dependant on the one who carries out the order. The Mail Order firm, and the shop, set their rates. You decide whether or not you are prepared to pay that amount before you place any order.

If someone gives you an order (e.g. a PCSO, policeman, or a magistrate), you can say "Is that an order?". The answer will be "Yes". Therefore you can say "In that case, since an order is chargeable, I will charge you £50,000 for carrying it out. Are you prepared to pay?". I leave you, dear Reader, to guess what the answer will be. (Direct them to this WebSite, if necessary. That's why I reduced the Domain Name to five letters. FMOTL.com, in a Browser Address Bar, will get them here)

Remittances

A remittance is legally equivalent to a sum of money. It is just paper and ink, of course, but then so is a cheque and more-or-less a banknote. In the united States of America a Dollar Bill is nothing more than paper and printing ink. Even in the UK a banknote is worth nothing like the sum printed on it.

A Remittance Note is therefore equivalent to the sum of money printed on it.

Consequently whenever you may receive a bill, which includes a pre-printed Remittance Advice, or Note, you can send it back to pay the bill. (If the amount of the bill is not pre-printed, then just write it in the box provided). Do not send an accompanying cheque. If you do the company will be being paid twice. They love that!

More Grand Deception.

They will probably write back saying "You forgot to enclose your cheque". You can reply "No, I didn't forget. I sent back the remittance to pay you the amount demanded". Stick to your guns. A remittance represents the sum of money written on it (just as does a cheque), so the bill is discharged by sending back the Remittance Slip. The company's Account Number will be on the slip. They can either use their own account to pay themselves, or they can deduct the amount from your Company Share (see above - your share in the UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION).

If they continue to argue, you can write to them ("WITHOUT PREJUDICE") saying "Under the rules of commerce he who creates the LIABILITY must also create the REMEDY. You created the liability, therefore you must create the remedy. If you wish to do it via cheques, then send me your cheque, and I'll send it back to you".

Legal Fiction

It is important to distinguish between words. 'Legal', for example, does not have the same meaning as 'lawful', and 'lawful' is the only thing to worry about.

Similarly, 'understand' can have the legal meaning 'stand under'. Whenever a policeman cautions you, and adds "Do you understand?" s/he is asking you whether or not you "agree/consent to stand under ... the Statute law". (S/he doesn't actually realise that, of course. But the courts do). You will have been told that ANYTHING you say WILL be given in evidence. Say nothing whatsoever. (It may be possible to reply "No, I do not stand under", but this has not - at the time of writing - been tested)

And this all adds to the Grand Deception.

Another thing that adds to this melting pot is the word 'person'. For example 'Any person' is nothing like the same as 'Any one'.

Confused? No need to be. It is all very simple.

There is a sleight-of-mind played to use the word 'person' in a special, legal, context. Now, you may have been led to believe that you are a person and, in common parlance, of course you are - but legally speaking 'a person' is not what you think it is. Legally 'a person' is considered to be a 'single-individual CORPORATION'. To whom Corporation (i.e. Admiralty) Law can be applied. (Check back, that's 'the law-of-the-sea').

The law-of-the-sea applies to SHIPs. That's where ownerSHIP, citizenSHIP, LordSHIP, LadySHIP, etc. comes from. (Hey! courtSHIP, leading to a court-enforceable contract - marriage - between two people?) And, once a ship has docked, it can be pinned down (It's hard to pin down a ship while it is sailing).

The legal fiction called a PERSON associates a human being, for legal purposes, as a CORPORATION, a legal entity, visualised as a SHIP. That's why, in court, they put you in the Dock. You are docked. You can be pinned down. Once pinned down, Statutes (Corporate Policy) can be brought to bear upon you.

It is no accident that the word 'birth' (as in Birth Certificate) and 'berth' (a place where SHIPs are moored) is pronounced in exactly the same way. You were awarded a Berth Certificate when born. However, in reality, you weren't 'birthed' ... you were born.

Do you see how important the correct word can be? That over-the-counter pharmaceuticals for colds & flu only ever claim to RELIEVE the SYMPTOMS ... not to 'cure'? That doctors only ever claim to TREAT you ... not to CURE you? There is a careful choice of words occurring all around you.

The important thing is to recognize that the Summons refers to a legal fiction. A straw PERSON. That's why it will contain your name in CAPITALS or partially in all-capitals. If you respond normally, by tacit consent you become the legal fiction.

Well, that's the idea, anyway. Here is a more detailed explanation.

But, if you've read this far, you might get the idea that you don't want Company Policy Statutes to apply to you.

So, you received a Summons because you didn't pay a Parking Fine, what do you do?

The invitation to go to their place of business to receive their offer (the Summons) will appear most draconian. What is necessary is to respond in a polite and peaceful manner which fully indicates that you know the score, and that you have not fallen for the Grand Deception.

At the time of writing I am not is possession of a Summons but, should I receive one in the future, I would respond like the example below:

To: The Clerk of the Court

Brentford & Feltham Magistrates Court

Hanworth Road

Feltham

TW13 5AF

Dear Sir/Madam,

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The enclosed paperwork was delivered to the address at which I reside.

It was addressed in the name VERONICA CHAPMAN.

I have been led to believe that the usage of capital letters references a legal fiction known as a PERSON, which is, in point of fact, the name of some CORPORATION.

I would be most grateful if you would kindly confirm or deny my understanding in this respect.

Being a sovereign human being, a living soul, and consequently (as I understand it) under Common Law jurisdiction (i.e. the law of the land, as opposed to Corporate Law, namely the law of the sea), I'm not entirely sure why I have received this paperwork, and I would be grateful for any clarification in this matter, because I have no wish to dishonour any valid and lawful obligation on my part.

Article 45 of the Magna Carta 1215 states: "We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only those who know the law of the realm and who wish to observe it well", and this cannot be repealed or voided in any way because it pre-dates all Parliaments, and furthermore the document itself says so in other Articles. And said document bears the Royal Seal. In consequence of this I assume you can clarify, in lay terms, the points I have raised.

According to Dunn & Bradstreet there is a registered company known as FELTHAM MAGISTRATES COURT. Since I am able to obtain a D&B Credit Report on said company, it seems reasonable to assume that it is actively trading. Please confirm that your good selves have no connection with said Trading Company, and that said paperwork was not an issuance from it.

Yours faithfully,

Veronica: Chapman

(Please use this name, exactly as printed above, in any subsequent communications to my direct self the human being and living soul)

Enc: Original paperwork received.

"WITHOUT PREJUDICE" means that whatever the text of the letter it should never, under any circumstances, be considered as waiving all the rights I possess. In other words "All Rights Reserved". Strictly: "I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement"

It is always a good idea to include this. But be careful. They may try to trip you up by asking what it means. If you say, for example "It means that I'm not prejudiced against anyone", they will know you don't really know what you are talking about.

I would add: "In care of: " prior to my address that the top of this letter. I would place the Postcode in square brackets and add the word "Near: " prefix to my Postcode, viz [Near: MY POSTCODE]. (And let them wonder why I had done that, if they did not already know)

However, if you had already established a Claim of Right similar to mine (see below), you could simply respond with your Claim Reference and say "I have the established right to ignore this paperwork. Yours faithfully ..."

Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right

This is my version. It is lengthy because it needs to set the scene. I can only suggest you study it carefully but - if you do - I'm sure it will all become clear to you. The long explanation of a Statute is embodied within it, leading up to how I can claim a right to ignore all Statutes.

Fundamentally it is in two parts. I set out my understandings (they can be objected to, but provided they all remain within Common Law, objections fail), and then I set out my claims based on my understandings. Again my claims can be objected to. Within my claims I set my terms for peaceful co-existence with all others in my Country, including the police, but I do make provision for being able to shoot any foreign troops on sight should they attempt to police or govern me (even though, personally, I abhor firearms. However I see no other practical way). I also make provision for creating a court of justice to try 'people in high office' for treasonous acts against my Country. I consider all this to be my indisputable patriotic duty.

Other countries? Remove the bits about the Queen and ECA1972 if they do not apply. Change the "United Kingdom", "England", "British Constitution", POUNDS STERLING" etc appropriately. You can up or down the amounts of compensation you will accept to suit yourself. Nothing other than Common Law is quoted. You don't know your laws? No need to. Just go for it. They will tell you (by objections) what you can't claim.. If they don't do that, your claim stands.

(Notes:

'de facto' means 'of fact i.e. simply established, and nothing more', de facto courts apply Statutes i.e. the law-of-the-sea i.e. Admiralty Law.

'de jure' means 'of justice, and applying the law-of-the-land, i.e. the law i.e. Common Law')

This Claim of Right may or may not have been established at your time of reading. It may still be in progress, possibly with modifications subject to objections. Nevertheless something very much along these lines will be established)

Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right

I, Veronica: Chapman, a flesh and blood human being in possession of a sovereign and individual spirit, a living soul, do hereby make Oath and state the following is My Truth and My Law:

Whereas it is my understanding the United Kingdom is a common law jurisdiction enjoying the protection of common law, and,

Whereas it is my understanding equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and,

Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law, and,

Whereas it is my understanding a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that for something to exist legally it must have a name, and,

Whereas it is my understanding the only form of government recognized as lawful in the United Kingdom is a representative one, and,

Whereas it is my understanding representation requires mutual consent, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that in the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor governance can exist, and,

Whereas it is my understanding all Acts are statutes restricted in scope and applicability by the British Constitution and common law, and,

Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a rule of a corporation, and,

Whereas it is my understanding rules of a corporation are limited in applicability to those who are agents of said corporation, and,

Whereas it is my understanding those who have a National Insurance Number are in fact employees of the government and thus are bound by the statutes created by the said government, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that it is lawful to abandon one’s National Insurance Number while at the same time not affecting the right to any pension claim based on National Insurance Contributions previously paid, and,

Whereas it is my understanding people in the United Kingdom have a right to revoke or deny consent to be represented and thus governed, and,

Whereas it is my understanding if anyone does revoke or deny consent they exist free of government control and statutory restraints, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that a claim of right establishes a lawful excuse, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that if one has lawful excuse one may choose to not obey a court, tribunal, statute, Act or order, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that all existing courts and governments are de facto only and not de jure, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that a woman acting as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor did take the throne of England on the Second day of June, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty Three, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that during a Coronation ceremony said woman acting as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor was asked by a man acting in the role of the then Archbishop of Canterbury "Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?" and she responded "I solemnly promise so to do", and,

Whereas it is my understanding that this ceremony did install said woman as Queen of England and the United Kingdom, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that on or after the Seventeenth Day of October Nineteen Hundred and Seventy Two said woman did sign into statute an Act of Parliament known as the European Communities Act of Nineteen Hundred and Seventy Two (ECA1972) which accepted without my consent a treaty known as the Treaty of Rome, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that the terms of the Treaty of Rome are counter in many respects to the “respective laws and customs” of those nations of which said woman is Queen including England which is my Country of birth, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that anyone who participates in allowing or by culpable neglect enabling my Country to be governed in any way by any foreign power is an act of treason as defined by the British Constitution, and,

Whereas it is my understanding, therefore, that by signing of the ECA1972 as opposed to dissolving by Royal Prerogative the Parliament that created the treacherous Act was in itself by collusion an attempted act of treason against my Country, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that as a Freeman-on-the-Land in this common law jurisdiction that I have the duty to stand in defence of the United Kingdom and its people against foreign armed troops who attempt to invade, govern or police me or my Country, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that this duty is not affected by agreements made by treasonous and de facto government agents, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that agreements made on behalf of the United Kingdom by traitors to the United Kingdom do not bind the people of United Kingdom, and,

Whereas I do firmly and truly believe the aforementioned agreement is an overt act of treason, and,

Whereas I honourably refuse to be bound by agreements made by traitors such as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor in collusion with the then Prime Minister Edward Heath, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that any peace officer who co-operates with foreign armed troops to govern or regulate the population is also committing treason, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that historically the purpose of a national armed force was to ensure that foreign powers never invaded and governed under a gun, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that the existence of armed foreign troops patrolling and policing our streets would be evidence of a war fought unsuccessfully, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that agreeing or conspiring to agree to allow armed foreign troops to patrol and police our streets is an act of treason, and,

Whereas a Freeman-on-the-Land has lawfully revoked consent and does exist free of statutory restrictions, obligations, and limitations, and,

Whereas I, Veronica: Chapman am a Freeman-on-the-Land, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that acting peacefully within community standards does not breach the peace, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that any action for which one can apply for and receive a licence must itself be a fundamentally lawful action, and,

Whereas as I not a child and I am a Freeman-on-the-Land who operates with full responsibility and I do not see the need to ask permission to engage in lawful and peaceful activities, especially from those who claim limited liability, and,

Whereas it is my understanding a by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation, and,

Whereas it is my understanding corporations are legal fictions and require contracts in order to claim authority or control over other parties, and,

Whereas it is my understanding legal fictions lack a soul and cannot exert any control over those who are thus blessed and operate with respect to that knowledge as only a fool would allow soulless fictions to dictate one’s actions, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that the UNITED KINGDOM is in reality a corporation in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and thus still allowed to trade, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that by virtue of my birth within the boundaries of my Country England I am a single share owner in said UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that I can use a Notary Public to perform duties found under any Act including thus they have the power to hold court and hear evidence and issue binding lawful judgments, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that a Notary Public can also be used to bring criminal charges to bear against traitors, even if they hold the highest office, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that I have a right to use my property without having to pay for the use or enjoyment of it, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that all ‘public transportation' is in fact and actuality public property to which I have the right of use and access without having to pay, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that a summons is merely an invitation to attend and those issued by the Ministry of Justice or its franchises which are de facto corporations create no obligation or dishonour if ignored, and,

Whereas it is my understanding peace officers have a duty to distinguish between statutes and law and those who attempt to enforce statutes against a Freeman-on-the-Land are in fact breaking the law, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that I have the power to refuse intercourse or interaction with peace officers who have not observed me breach the peace, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that permanent estoppel by acquiescence barring any peace officer or prosecutor from bringing charges against a Freeman-on-the-Land under any Act is created if this claim is not responded to in the stated fashion and time, and

Whereas it is my understanding that the common law right to travel on the highways without license provided one is not engaging in commerce thereupon is lawful and still exists although it does appear to have been deceptively hidden, and,

Whereas the Road Traffic Acts of the United Kingdom do make it possible for peace officers in the role of policy enforcement officers to stop an automobile in order to provide services and demand something of value, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that if they are not providing a service they have no reason to stop any one and if proof of registration, insurance and licence is not valuable they have no need to ask for it, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that I have the right to refuse to interact or co-operate with criminals, de facto government agents or grossly negligent peace officers, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that if I have the power to elect a representative and empower them to appoint peace officers then I also have the power to appoint directly, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that if I have the power to appoint directly or by proxy I must have the power to fulfill those duties my self, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that the United Kingdom Police Force although having an illustrious history has had members recently acting in a grossly criminal manner which does tarnish the previous history and record, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that the Law provides remedy at all times, even against rogue or negligent peace officers and de facto governments apparently hijacked by soulless corporate interests, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that in order to be a peace maker and deal with rogue and possibly armed police officers who fail to act with respect to the code of common law I will need use of and access to firearms of equal or greater power then those people who act criminally have access to, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that the act of registering the birth of a baby creates a legal entity called a person that exists in association with that baby and that the manner in which offspring are registered transfers superior guardianship rights over that offspring to the government, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that this creation of a person and transfer of authority is not fully disclosed to the parents and if it was all good parents would refuse to register their offspring, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that the person and the human being to which it is associated are two very separate and different things and that the people playing roles in government only have the right to act upon the person, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that if I do not exist in association with a person I cannot be lawfully governed by the people playing roles in government, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that I am not obliged to obey the orders of any one claiming to be a Queen or King or those acting on behalf of such an insane entity, as no one who does make preposterous claims that abandon and erode the concept of equality has any authority over me, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that the people in the government are merely playing roles, and,

Whereas I AM NOT PLAYING, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that there may be more of this to follow

Therefore be it now known to any and all interested, concerned or affected parties, that I, Veronica: Chapman am a Freeman-on-the-Land and do hereby serve notice and state clearly specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations, restrictions and that I maintain all rights at law to trade, exchange or barter and exist without deceptive governance and to do so without limitations, restrictions or regulations created by others and without my consent.

Furthermore, I claim that these actions are not outside my communities’ standards and will in fact support said community in our desire for truth and maximum freedom.

Furthermore, I claim the right to engage in these actions and further claim that all property held by me is held under a claim of right.

Furthermore, I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this claim and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or colour of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure.

Furthermore, I claim it is my right and solemn duty not only to keep the peace My Self but also to intervene wherever may be necessary to ensure that the peace is kept in a situation where peace officers are not present or are unwilling for whatever reason to uphold their sworn and solemn duty so to do.

Furthermore, I claim that the identity of My Self is forever possible to establish correctly by my Presence as a living, breathing, human being with a soul together as may be necessary sworn attestations from friends, family, and other associates. Furthermore I claim that this supercedes any necessity to obtain or carry any form of external token such as an Identity Card for any lawful purpose of establishing my true identity for the simple reason that no such token can ever represent the sovereign soul with which I am blessed.

Furthermore, I claim that the courts in The United Kingdom are de-facto and bound by the Law and Equity Acts and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I further claim they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.

Furthermore, I claim all transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties and I do hereby deny consent to any transaction of a security interest issuing under any Act for as herein stated as a Freeman-on-the-Land I am not subject to any Act.

Furthermore I claim ownership of the my single share in the corporation known as the UNITED KINGDOM and demand a copy of said share such that I will become the shareholder and thereby receive the corresponding dividends and be in the position of exercising my own voting rights.

Furthermore, I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING PER INDIVIDUAL reasonably involved if I am ever forced to suffer the effects of what has come to be known as non-lethal weapon such as a Taser, without my express written and Notarised consent.

Furthermore I claim the right to be entirely free to determine my own medication needs at all times and never under any circumstances be forced to ingest or otherwise receive into my body by way of vaccination, electro-magnetic energy, audio or visual energy or any other method any substance or alien energies I choose not to accept.

Furthermore, I therefore claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principles, agents of the justice system, agents of the medical professions, or anyone else, in the event I am forced to undergo any such ingestion forced on me is FIVE MILLION POUNDS STERLING. PER INDIVIDUAL reasonably involved, without my express written and Notarised consent.

Furthermore, I claim the right to use a Notary Public to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way.

Furthermore, I claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants who having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.

Furthermore, I claim the right to fulfill my duty to shoot any foreign troops in the United Kingdom who are armed and attempting to police or govern me or my fellow countrymen without consent and to view them as an invading force which must be lawfully attacked. And I further claim to right to nominate as many deputies as may be necessary who by their own free will and consent are prepared to assist me in fulfillment of this duty to my Country.

Furthermore, I claim the law of agent and principal applies and that service upon one is service upon both.

Furthermore, I claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on video tape said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.

Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within FOURTEEN (14) days of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the Notary Office herein provided no later than fourteen days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service.

Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein and then successfully defeating these claims in a proper court of law will result in an automatic default judgment securing forevermore all rights herein claimed and establishing permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act or regulation against My Self Freeman-on-the-Land Veronica: Chapman for exercising these lawful and properly established rights, freedoms and duties.

Place of Claim of Right: _________________________________

Dated: __________________________________

Claimant: Veronica: Chapman

Notary Public: ____________________________

merlincove

16-07-2009, 07:04 PM

a nice idea disorder, tho i think that you wil need at least three stickies in order to keep items catalogued effectively.

in all truth i think the info available might be generated better in a dedicated link within the freeman threads, i'm not sure what you would call it or how it would work but it might look like (using the link header above something like:

David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land > Freeman Templates

David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land > Freeman Established, Fundamental, Axioms

David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land > Freeman Tried and Tested methods

David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land > Freeman How To's

David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land > Freeman Video's

etc etc

maybe a sub catgory within the freeman threads?

Seems that there is a lot to squeeze into one thread and the risk of losing things and getting the reader bogged down is huge.

Peace

bsmurph83

17-07-2009, 05:00 AM

:)a nice idea disorder, tho i think that you wil need at least three stickies in order to keep items catalogued effectively.

in all truth i think the info available might be generated better in a dedicated link within the freeman threads, i'm not sure what you would call it or how it would work but it might look like (using the link header above something like:

David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land > Freeman Templates

David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land > Freeman Established, Fundamental, Axioms

David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land > Freeman Tried and Tested methods

David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land > Freeman How To's

David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Freeman-On-The-Land > Freeman Video's

etc etc

maybe a sub catgory within the freeman threads?

Seems that there is a lot to squeeze into one thread and the risk of losing things and getting the reader bogged down is huge.

Peace

my tech ignorance is causing me prob's here since i don't know what a 'sticky' even is, but i think i'm erring towards merlin's sentiments. unless this thread can be alphabetised or in some way better organised i think it will be more overwhelming to visitors than helpful...? not meaning to sound 'negative', i think a 'one stop shop' thread is a good idea, but it will need to be extremely well organised. and since i am not someone you'd consult about technicalities involved therein, that's about where my input ends. :)

yozhik

17-07-2009, 09:19 AM

disorder2k8 ... your efforts are to be applauded and your conviction to be aspired to :)

However, my fear is your efforts might be in vain.
Risking being flamed, let me explain that comment.

Over time I have noticed that many members (or dropins) have no notion nor concept of using the search facility.
If the question they have does not appear to be in the first 5 threads on the first page; they start a new thread.
Hence the utter confusion and ball breaking task of finding anything in here (until your attempts to put it together)

Now, its fair to say, this thread/sticky is going to be one text heavy son of a bitch.
Again, for fear of coming across as condescending or insulting; most will avoid it. It will be thrown into the "too hard" basket and another frequently asked question will be launched in a new meaningless thread. :)

On this subject, I also have a suggestion for the regular contributors; don't enable lazy forum behaviour :D
If you answer every thread with a direct answer, you are enabling.
Many times the best answer is simply "use the search function - there is a lot of info on that subject".

Now, back to the Herculean efforts of disorder2k8 and finding a solution so that these efforts are not wasted.
The suggestion of sub-sections within the sticky has merit.
Question is; can it be done?

bsmurph83

18-07-2009, 03:00 AM

if it can't i think we may be fucked...

disorder2k8

18-07-2009, 04:25 AM

look I am volunteering to organise links and text whenever it gets put in here, what I really need is for you to post the fruits of your labours in here so I can sort them (build it and they will come mentallity):p

As for keeping the amount of reading material down, thats fine, I can arrange for longer articles to be hosted somewhere else, such as a blog space.

The main thing I need is materials, which I will be sweeping through the forum for periodically.

thelearner

19-07-2009, 12:43 PM

disorder2k8 ... your efforts are to be applauded and your conviction to be aspired to :)
Here here, i totaly agree.

Over time I have noticed that many members (or dropins) have no notion nor concept of using the search facility.
If the question they have does not appear to be in the first 5 threads on the first page; they start a new thread.
Yes this is so true, i can vouch for this as i am one of those "lazy" forum members, who want "my answere to all my problems" to be on the first page:o:o

If you answer every thread with a direct answer, you are enabling.
Many times the best answer is simply "use the search function - there is a lot of info on that subject".
Again this is "me",:o
If i am left to do my own research on a subject, it free's up your time for more important matters, and also allows me to search more information on a subject.
Ive noticed that the "search facility" holds a wealth of information if used, but i was too lazy to use this and expected everything and everyone to do my work for me.:o

I just wanted to get my 2pence worth in before this "sticky" got too important, it really is an excellent idea though disorder2k8.
I hope it go's ok for you and all who have an input.

biblegirl

21-07-2009, 05:35 AM

EXAMPLE 1

What to say in court when Defendant
Mag: Mr (Name)
You: Sir, I humbly wish to plead guilty to the facts. (this may be sufficient, if
not continue)
I wish to apologise for any dishonours caused by me as a
result of this matter and I wish to tender payment in order to
keep all parties commercially whole, but I have no money, so
I tender my exemption and authorize the court to do whatever
it needs to do to settle and close this matter with prejudice
I also require a full accounting of ALL the Bonds in this
particular matter
(what this says is you want the Bonds so you can settle and close the Bonds once in you
possession but they will do it for you)
Should the Magistrate ask any Q at this point it is ONLY a TEST to see if ya really know who you are if you testify (99% do!) then you will slip back as debtor/slave but if you answer with a –ve averment you will show you are truly the creditor and pass the test. So answer:
Sir, I am happy to answer you Q that blab la bla as long as you can show that it would not be giving me any disability to testify and that you are not now testing me on my standing as a free man on the land and that your intent is not to test nor to injure me by attempting to possibly create a controversy where none exists
You may also say: …… as long as you can show I haven’t already shown my intent to the court to honourably settle and close this matter and give permission to offset the debt and zero the account.
　

(from boots post: http://davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1133168&postcount=84)

biblegirl

21-07-2009, 05:38 AM

"A big thank you to Mark Pytellek for these 3 posts.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to help everyone.

Court case against Police Re: speeding and the guy won.
(I have added some of my material to this)
Judge: Mr Violafed. How do you plead?
V: I am appearing especially, NOT generally and I am reserving my rights, unrepresented, and here to stop and correct and settle this matter and ensure all parties with a real interest in this mater and have been harmed and can verify same are made commercially whole.
Sir is this a court of record?
J: I don’t have the recorder going, but yes it is.
V: Sir, I wish to apologise that this matter is before the court and for any dishonours I may have caused in regards to this matter and I will do my best not to make those errors again. Please forgive me for any errors made by me.
Thankyou.
Sir, do you NOT have an oath of public office?
J: Yes, I do. Why do you ask? (MUST BOND the Judge to get a Melchizedik Judge or you get a delinquent Levite Judge).
V: Sir, are you not sworn to uphold the law and to tell the truth and protect people and to maintain the peace and swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the 2nd, Queen of England, Ireland and her dominions?
J: Yes, what is your point?
V: Sir, do you have your oath with you? May I see it?
J: No
V: Ok, but you say you do have one.
J: Yes.
V: Fine, Sir, I am BONDING you to your oath of public office. Will you and this court take judicial notice of that fact, YES or NO? (silence) I take it by your silence that you and the court does take notice, so for and on the court record let the court records show, you are now bonded to your oath of public office. Thankyou.
Sir, I am reserving all my rights including to any un-revealed contracts. (License is a contract)
I would like to see right now a verified complaint filed by the complainant under penalty of perjury that there is a crime I have committed and I would like to see the witness/complainant. Am I NOT entitled to face my accuser? Do the scriptures NOT evidence that the accused is permitted to face their accuser? I need to see the accuser/complainant and the verified complaint. Do you have one for me to see right now Sir(to prosecutor?).
J: NO, er we do not.
V: Well Sir, therefore there is no valid and lawful claim without a verified complaint. I move for a summary judgment that the matter is dismissed or vacated with prejudice
Immediately, for lack of complaint and claim. (NO COMPLAINT = COURT has NO JURISDICTION)
J: No, I cannot do that?
V: Sir, who filed the complaint?
J: The police officer did.
V: Fine, based on what?
J: He gave you a ticket, Notice to Appear, Undertaking as to Bail, etc
V: Well, I appeared! So what’s the problem? I don’t see any crime over here. If there was a crime, who is the damaged party? Who has been harmed here?
J: Case adjourned for 2 weeks.
(V comes back to court)
J: Come to the bench… (So V went to bench)
Do you see the attorney? Do we have a verified claim for the gentleman?
Prosecutor: Yes, we do…
V: (I was very surprised, couldn’t believe they would have such a document. So I looked at the document and its not signed!)
Sir, this document isn’t valid because it is NOT signed, it bears no commercial liability on the complainant and no-one is taking responsibility for it.
J: Mr V, you are wasting the courts time…
V: You know what, I’ve come over here and I’m NOT getting paid and you guys are and I’m asking for the complainant’s signature to verify their claim…
Attorney: (Laugh’s) I have no problem signing it.
V: (That is a big surprise as he wants to bear commercial liability!). Great, so you have first hand personal knowledge that the facts are true, correct, certain, complete and NOT misleading ey and you don’t mind signing under penalty of perjury. Please do or be quiet and sit down and by the way, what did you say your name was????
Sir, how can HE (point vigorously at Prosecutor) sign as a witness on an alleged crime if he has no 1st hand personal knowledge, is that NOT perjury? Does this court accept hear say as evidence? (silence…….) I thought not.
Ok, so who is pressing this claim?
J: Mr V, do you confirm you have received the verified complaint?
V: Can I read it first before acknowledging it? (so I started to read it, but am thinking, what am I supposed to do now? The first two sentences I read, it clicked.)
‘The attorney testifies that the City of California was damaged by Mr V’s speeding’.
Sir, I want to schedule for a probable cause hearing. (I would have said ‘Sir am I NOT entitled to meet my accuser, please summons City of California to the witness box so I can face my accuser’)
J: No, I cannot do that.
V: Well, if you cannot do that, you will need to dismiss the case(matter is better).
J: Mr V…, were you not going 70mph?
V: Well errr, I don’t understand the charges Sir (see, you don’t have to answer the question’s, I said I don’t understand the charges. If you don’t understand the charges then they can NOT proceed and MUST explain them to you).
J: Why do you not understand the charges, were you going 70mph or not?
V: Well, I don’t know if this a is civil or criminal charge Sir?
J: (angrily) Well this is usually, a traffic citation is criminal (they cannot say civil because it’s the wrong court)
V: Well, if its criminal, as far as I understand, there are two types of criminal charges, one is violating a contract and the other is having a damaged party.
J: and by the way are you an attorney?
V: No, I’m not an attorney, but I am studying various laws.
J: Well, I’m going to assign you an attorney.
V: I object.
J: Over ruled.
V: Exceptions (There are some words that one can use that protect your rights to appeal or prevent judge from over riding you. When Judge says ‘Over ruled’ he is saying ‘are you sure about it, when you have objected. When you say ‘exceptions’ it means I am darn sure about it. So they cannot go forwards but they will try trickery and the Judge told me..)
J: Now you understand that YOU are waiving your right to an attorney.
V: I said ‘I am reserving my right to NOT have an attorney (so I want to make it clear to the court where I am coming from – a sovereign man. It’s NOT a privilege having an attorney. The legal effect is an admission to your incompetency!(my addition) I want to reserve my right NOT to have one because if I have one then I’m DONE! I ca NOT even discuss court jurisdiction. Attorneys are officers of the court and that’s the end of it.
J: I plead NOT GUILTY for you.
V: I object.
J: I over rule.
V: Exceptions.
J: Ok, you objected to my ruling so why don’t you come back…
V: (I waited outside. I wasted 5 hours but was a good experience. It showed that despite all their guns, attorneys, trickery etc if you know what you’re doing, you can stop them and even win. Basically you do everything from there with affidavits). (my reply would have been, ‘Sir, I am happy to accept your offer to come back on the basis you can prove your claim right now that you are not able to settle this matter today and that if you cannot prove that you are unable to settle the matter right now then show you cannot right now dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction, and lack of verifiable complaint and claim, with prejudice.’)
(V came back) Sir I will put a stop to this and have affidavits for criminal charges to file against the Judge, Bailiff and everyone pressing an unsubstantiated claim in this matter including the prosecutor if I walk BACK into this court and there is no verifiable complaint signed by complainant showing their unlimited commercial liability and penalty of perjury, showing they have been harmed by my travelling in a car without a license. I will file criminal charges against all parties in this matter.
J: Dismissed.
V: I said ‘why?’
J: (The judge looked at me with a dirty look and said ‘cops didn’t show up’.
V: Wow, wasn’t the right time for the cops (Judge didn’t have jurisdiction, - no-one admitted to being harmed)
Now, if one has the administrative process done, one can bypass all this and have a legal aid
lawyer or court clerk hand up the mediation certificate for sealing. Your
notary/trustee/arbitrator/prosecutor should be there as the one pressing your four fold counter
claim.
Trustee: Sir, the mediation certificate has been attained, there is no controversy and I do not know why this matter is before the court. I am witness to the dishonour of the counter defendant party and move the private judgment attained is sealed by the court and that the counter defendant is ordered to correct their records. Thank you.
(If any questions)
Trustee: The process is self explanatory. My client, the injured party went privately to the other party with intent to settle the matter privately and that was achieved by writing to them to settle their differences. The other party refused to reply so I was asked to arbitrate and mediate a solution and that was accomplished by providing the other party two further opportunities to correct their dishonour which they chose NOT to do. Is it NOT dishonourable for the respondent party to refuse an offer by the offering party to join in the mutual attempt to mediate a private settlement of a controversy?
Thankyou Sir, my client’s actions show his honourable intent to settle the matter privately. Therefore I move for the sealing of the private judgment attained by mutual agreement and seek the award under the laws of equity for four fold counter claim when a complainant fails to verify their complaint when asked to do so. Is my client NOT entitled to a four fold counter claim for award under the laws of equity Sir?
Say yes when they ask are you Mr Joe Bloggs　 I simply said, 'I am here over that matter, reserving my rights by special appearance ........　 it went ok
　
When appropriate put in your apology and also add the apology for going unwittingly into contract and you are going to　correct the record etc　 yup
Then say 　I move the court to take judicial note that I am here by special appearance etc....... I am the party know as ....... I waive all the benefits.and reserve all my rights
Next say Would the court - complainant/plaintiff is better because we wanna leave the court neutral please provide me with the sworn evidence it relies upon to support the charges against the entity ......
J: We dont have sworn evidence but we will get it for you.
You: Since there is no sworn evidence before the court to support the charges I move to have the matter dismissed with prejudice.
　
In my matter I asked for the sworn evidence at the first mention and they were going adjourn to get it but I did not know all the above to have had it dismissed.
　　　 Sir, I am happy to accept your offer to adjourn on the basis you will sign an affidavit showing you cannot settle the matter today when the plaintiff/complainant has no verifiable complaint and therefore no claim and you can show they have NOT already had sufficient time to provide that information and that by their failure to provide verification of claim, it is NOT their intent to raise a controversy and commit a fraud and perjury. Sir if I have to come back and the complainant has NOT signed an affidavit stating they have been harmed by me then I will have affidavits and application to pursue a claim against all parties that are involved in this matter that are attempting to pursue a fraudulent claim. Are you a party to this or are you now dismissing this matter?
　
Furthermore we need to investigate ways of getting around adjournments as they will adjourn and ask us to agree.　see above 　If we have comeback we can object and move to dismiss. Object = do not consent
　
Rajendra"

from boots' post here http://davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1133175&postcount=85)

biblegirl

21-07-2009, 05:41 AM

"when ya name is called　 you go to the bar and say
I am here on that matter, as Principal and creditor and I am here for 4 reasons
1. to apologize that this matter has come this far when it has been my intent all along to settle it privately but the bank appears to wish to raise controversies and I see no evidence before me to the contrary
2. to make sure all parties at this court hearing do NOT confuse me with the defendant so that if anyone after　today's hearing wishes to pursue my body as surety for the defendant is noticed now that I am not surety for the defendant and that I will hold any party liable that injuries me when pursuing the defendant and I suggest Sir instruct your underlings, as a duty of care to them in order to prevent them from injuring themselves, to make sure I am left alone so that you do not fail your duty in protecting my property, my body.
3. That as I believe I do not have the standing to address this court as a free man unless proven otherwise, that Sir, as the representative for the Crown and state - who are the title holders of the trust are they not,　 please do whatever you need to do to settle and close this matter promptly
4. I have come here also to collect a cheque from the party/ies that have/are trying to　rape, assault, kidnap or otherwise injure me and that I require the cheque immediately. (get an invoice handed up by the prosecutor to the judge with your certificate of Protest/dishonour). Sir, I require a cheque right now, please order the other party to issue one to the value of the damages agreed by all claimant parties in and to this matter. Thank you
　
now, if the Judge doesn't issue immediately the order or asks a question or makes a claim then you have to reply with a conditional acceptance or question -that's what creditors do.
　
SIR why is the bank raising a controversy here today with intent to injure me. The matter is settled already and here’s the agreement (wave it).
May I see the plaintiff's proof of claim, their affidavit in support of the claim. Am I not permitted to have the claim verified? Where is it? If it isn't produced within　10 seconds then I take it that the claim is a fraudulent one. 1, 2, 3 ,4 I am counting, 5 , 6 etc　　　 8,9,10　　 SIR, MAY i HAVE THE ORDER OF　 the court please, there is no verification of claim.
(if they say　 statement of claim)
sir　does a statement of claim have the same commercial energy as an affidavit?　 I take it that it does not
Ok, please with all due respect, may I have the order of the court now.
(if you don't get it now then judgy is obstructing justice)
Sir, why are you now obstructing justice and preventing my remedy?　 Are you working for the banks or are you going toact neutrally and provide me my remedy. Please make the order out now thank you."

(from boots' post http://davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1133158&postcount=83)

bsmurph83

23-07-2009, 08:46 AM

Court strategies that the state hates

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

On one hand it seems there are those who are keen to have their remedy based on common law, hence common sense, and then there are those who choose to approach it from an honour/dishonour/commercial law/admiralty law perspective in using what the system is based on at the moment

I can comprehend where both perspectives are coming from, but at the same time, I am seeing results and successes in using the honour/dishonour side of things. I have also heard good success stories from the sovereignty camp, in abandoning all attachments to the person/personage/artificial entity, but not first hand successes like what I have seen from the honour/dishonour COMBINED ( key word here ) with holding them liable

What seems to be working, and what I think has the greatest potential to work on, is to use the tools of honour dishonour/commercial law and hold them liable at the same time. Casper The Ghost and his friends are having amazing successes, simply because they hold whoever attempts harm on them liable for what they are doing.

I think a strategy that could be very successful is to hold them liable to the full extent of the damages they are doing. They are committing war crimes by denying fair trial, using military subversion, deception and diversion, propaganda, physical and mental torture, assault, kidnapping, coercion to contract at gunpoint, raising funds for terrorist activities, kidnapping, perversion and defeating justice, gaining personal benefit from your detriment, abuse of office, terrorism, and the list goes on. We can provide evidence of these occurences in a simple, straight forward manner, and anyone who plays the "I know nothing" Schulz act can be held liable for knowingly with intent choosing to commit these crimes. Everything they say CAN be used against them, because they are committing terrorism and destroying the country from within with everything they do. Anyone who then covers up their crimes can then be joindered in the conspiracy.

e.g.

Is it not true that you have assaulted me, kidnapped me, deprived me of my liberty and of justice unlawfully and without any evidence or fact in the matter?

Is it not true that under your criminal code act, the offences of abuse of office, assault, kidnapping etc are very serious offences and you can be held liable?

Is it not true that your criminal actions and harm against me, is now your consent to transfer all your assets to me immediately? ( they dishonour ) do we not know have an agreement? Thankyou

Is it not true that the entities calling themselves governments, have murdered at least 250 million in the last 100 years, and anyone who blocks lawful remedy and justice is a war criminal, a terrorist, and supporting genocide? Isnt that the reason why your human rights acts protects rights and liberties, and are you not know committing serious offences against those liberties?

What is your insurance indemnity number? Who is your superior? Can you give me the number of the attorney general, internal affairs, and the federal police immediately?

Have I not agreed to your offer ( fingerprints, DNA, license etc ) upon you me X for my personal property and services?

Do you realize my fee for being interrogated in an attempt to illegally raise revenue is $50 per minute of my time?

Do you deny that you are here to raise revenue, for a corporation not a lawful purpose, and that you are acting with criminal intent?

Do you consent to me placing liens against your property and assets for this harrassment and unlawful coercion?

Are you not committing fraud by forcing and blackmailling me into contracting with you, using fear, intimidation and torture?

If they say NO WE ARE NOT

Then can you sign an affidavit to that effect that you are not committing those acts and that you are acting lawfully

If they refuse

Is that NOT your admission of guilt that you ARE doing those things and now you are covering up your crimes?!

If they say WE ARE ACTING LEGALLY

Then can you sign an affidavit to that effect saying you are not committing those crimes?

If they refuse

Is that not your admission of guilt that you are, especially when I know have evidence that you are committing those crimes right NOW? Is that not a very serious offence and are you not now conspiring with conscious criminal intent? Is that not your consent now to transfer all your assets to me from your harm?

Just keep having fun and use their own weapons against them! They love to quote statute so you quote their statute law and show them how they are now liable hehe!

Of course all these things COULD be raised in a calm, polite but firm manner, in a question or a conditional acceptance form. I also do not see why we could not hold their criminal actions AS their consent to transfer their assets immediately to us, for the benefit of the community. Behaviour is very simple, we will DO ANYTHING to AVOID PAIN and GAIN PLEASURE. If you use the carrot and the stick concept it may do wonders.

I would not be afraid of them just know if they want to knowingly choose to ignore those crimes continue to assault, kidnap and imprison you illegally, you will send them justice with the power of EFT every single day until you are released. You can then give them a powerful soul lesson as they taste the horror they are creating for others and you assist them to mend their ways.

Link: http://loveforlife.com.au/node/5367#comment-686
__________________
One can no more hope to find consciousness by digging into the brain than one can find gravity by digging into the earth – Karl Pribram
Any theory that does not tally with the facts of conscious experience or admit their existence is inadequate - smurph
Belief is the death of intelligence – RAW

bsmurph83
View Public Profile
Send a private message to bsmurph83
Find More Posts by bsmurph83
Add bsmurph83 to Your Contacts

22-06-2009, 05:18 AM #2
bsmurph83
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 241 Another success

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

On Tuesday (before Dural workshop) at 6.45 pm, knock on door and who should be there but local constabulary with summons to attend local court next day at 10.00am.

Item number 310 on list failure to pay speeding fine camera offence.

When the matter was called I appeared, the Magistrate asked was I Mr. Clear

I said “I am the party known as Paul of the family Clear”’

Well Paul! How do you plead?

I said, “I am here by special appearance and I have not come to testify but I do have a question. “As the plaintiff and its representative are claiming aggrieved status by contracting a third party to issue a fine for an alleged offence should we not be hearing from them first”?

A fellow called Archinold from the Crown Solicitors Office represented the State Debt Recovery Office was the Prosecutor. He went through the detail of time of alleged offence; the kms per hour recorded and had a 10x8 photo in his hand. He held it up so the Magistrate could see it and said “This is Mr. Clear's car your worship”.

I said, “I have not been presented with any material facts or evidence that that is my car and the unfinished part of my question is, is the plaintiff in court?

The Magistrate says to Archinold “who is the real plaintiff in this matter”?

Before Arch replies I pipe up and say “Is it not that the Camera is the real plaintiff in the matter and I further ask is the Camera going to testify?”

Arch has a bit of a stutter and stammer and without lifting his head Magistrates raises one eyebrow and looks at me and says case dismissed.

Arch yells out what about costs your worship.

Mag says I don’t think we should pursue this matter any further Mr. Archinold.

He was in the foyer as I went out talking to what appeared to be other solicitors, he pointed at me and they all looked around.

I said to myself checkmate.

Regards
Paul

**SAME LINK AS ABOVE POST
__________________
One can no more hope to find consciousness by digging into the brain than one can find gravity by digging into the earth – Karl Pribram
Any theory that does not tally with the facts of conscious experience or admit their existence is inadequate - smurph
Belief is the death of intelligence – RAW

bsmurph83
View Public Profile
Send a private message to bsmurph83
Find More Posts by bsmurph83
Add bsmurph83 to Your Contacts

22-06-2009, 05:20 AM #3
bsmurph83
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 241 Breaking presumptions

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

FROM: http://www.loveforlife.com.au/book/export/html/5791 - AGAIN

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
__________________
One can no more hope to find consciousness by digging into the brain than one can find gravity by digging into the earth – Karl Pribram
Any theory that does not tally with the facts of conscious experience or admit their existence is inadequate - smurph
Belief is the death of intelligence – RAW

bsmurph83
View Public Profile
Send a private message to bsmurph83
Find More Posts by bsmurph83
Add bsmurph83 to Your Contacts

22-06-2009, 05:25 AM #4
bsmurph83
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 241 Mark p's commentary on the foregoing material

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

MARK P'S COMMENTS IN PARENTHESIS ARE VERY EDUCATIONAL SO GET 'EM IN YA! ENJOY.

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.

18th June 2008

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] - THUS, IT APPEARS WE WANT TO SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF "I CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT YOUR CHARGE/CLAIM/WHATEVER SO LONG AS YOU CAN SHOW THAT I AM A PERSON/LEGAL FICTION AND NOT A SPIRIT WITHIN A MAN - smurph

-------

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...

[facts only come out when the hearing proceeds after de plea is entered but if no plea then there are no facts ta rule on. 'de facts are on de moon' is de court catch cry. so what are they tellin us. DON'T you bring facts into dis court pumpkin head. facts were for de defunct common law jurisdiction, we in admiralty, piracy of de high seas today yeah, coz de system recognises we were under water once, Noah's flood remeber ahahahahaha So if ya plead guitly to de facts and there ain't any established yet yaaaaaahooooooo ya nip em in de bud man.

When ya say de famous words 'I plead guilty to de facts' wot you are in fact saying is 'I am not here to argue with any alleagtions, they ae true, and I wanna maintain the honour of all parties wiff a real interest in this matter and ensure all parties are commercially whole, so Your Honour, I'm here ta settle and close this matter in honour and please issue me all the bonds in this matter so i can accept them for value and surrender them for value to the maker of de instruments who naturlly bear pimary liablity for em unless a course a thirs party dishonours those bills of exchange, but since we aint dishonouring but accepting em for value so they can be tendered thereby using our prepaid account to offset the liablty, the judgy wudgy will settle an clsoe de matter for us, and we have passed the test of being a creditor' Now if he asks ya what it means and ya testify/answer, then ya will have just unravelled ya good work and failed de test. De key of being a creditoris to RESPOND, NOT answer. Did he NOT speak wiff POWER, not as the scribes hee hee hee love it

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

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 (THE STATE IS A CORPORATE ENTITY THAT EXISTS IN FICTION LAND, NOT WHERE REAL, LIVING SPIRITS WITHIN MEN/WOMEN RESIDE - smurph)

'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..........

[Hahah yeah there were none hahhahaha]

-----------

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.

[arms lenghth better at de helm steering as creditor]

----------

If you defend a claim against you,

[(v dangerous in admiralty coz to argue is a grave dishonour that is unecoverable unless one apologises and repeants)]

----------

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.

[yep but they turn it into facts when the protitutor reads it into de court record, the claims/charges as fictional facts]

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

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

[all true though I have cross examined witnesses in the past and they purgered them selves but because I went that route an eliminated the witneses, it was regarded as a dishonour under admiralty to argue with the claims/charges and also I was educating the monkeys/police/lawyers so I got spanked - fined

me learned real quick NOT to argue but conditionally accpet anyfink they said as long as the claimant could prove his claim via affidavit which a cause they refuse to sign which is ok coz they don't gotta sign it but I read it into the court record that by their refusal they admit guilt to making false staements/lies with intent to in jure the party in Q and that they better have a big fat cheque book ready or lots of i nsuance OR withdraw their claim!(is dat not showing our buda mercy for which de judgy wudgy has given me lotsa browny points and even at tmes come to my rescue coz they love me wiff de entertainment me provides em hahahhahahaha )]

merlincove

25-07-2009, 04:08 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE8rfefPQ24&feature=PlayList&p=8F0FA0A7DDFE6675&index=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8XwehIHSnQ&feature=PlayList&p=8F0FA0A7DDFE6675&index=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGHQDquNkro&feature=PlayList&p=8F0FA0A7DDFE6675&index=0

:D

dolores1

05-08-2009, 06:01 PM

These arm us peacfully, using peacful means. Thank you

biblegirl

07-08-2009, 02:42 AM

I asked this question before, but I think it might have gotten lost. At one point Rob gave the criteria for a lawful marriage, but I can't find it now. Can anyone help me find what constitutes a lawful marriage as well as a lawful divorce? Thank you :).

merlincove

07-08-2009, 10:49 AM

hi biblegirl :D

a lawfull marriage in common law is that?

in the uk there is an ancient tradition of Hand Fasting, which goes way back to before the Roman occupation, and survives still today - it is an old Druidical / Celtic bond betwen two people and contracts them to each other for a period of time.

You could google it, i'm sure there is quite a lot about it.

Basically, as far as i understand, and i am being all lay-man here, because i haven't studied it in depth, the bond takes the form of an oath, pretty much like the marriage vow. The vow is for either one year and one day / as long as love will last / forever, and the agreement is then entered that for the period specified the two individuals shall be together and take care for each other for the period.

as far as i am aware there is no signed contract, and after the period of one year and one day, if you like you may go for another one year and one day / as long as love may last / forever :D

The hands are symbolically bound together during the ceremony.

And as for divorse, i guess there is another ceremony that declares freedom from the bondage - but only after one year and one day.

Maybe off topic ^, sorry if you were aware of that - i haven't looked into the concept of mariage any deeper than that, but you could pm rob and see if he has any advice, or if he can point you in the right directions?

futurestar

09-08-2009, 11:59 AM

I posted this for answers to Freeman questions, letter templates, and legal advice to all be in one place.

As info gets added please can it be stickied.

NOTE: If I copy anyone's respective work/ effort and they want the credit let me know. I usually mark stuff as netrual/no credits for the benefit of the whole

Advice please can someone direct me as the best way to contest paying back a loan iam two years into i have one year left which is interest and wondered if i have rights to contest this thankyou for your work so far
Paul

ms hope

10-08-2009, 12:41 AM

yozhik

10-08-2009, 12:58 AM

So why doesnt this common law protect children and families from the state,
child trafficking is out of control but hidden away in secret family courts to protect public servants from prosecution and nobody does a thing about it?

Because the courts deal with public policy and commercial law ... which is contracts.
A civil marriage is a contract in which the "fruit of the loin" is the property of the state.

Also research the doctrine of parens patriae.

[Latin, Parent of the country.] A doctrine that grants the inherent power and authority of the state to protect persons who are legally unable to act on their own behalf.

The parens patriae doctrine has its roots in English Common Law. In feudal times various obligations and powers, collectively referred to as the "royal prerogative," were reserved to the king. The king exercised these functions in his role of father of the country.

parens patriae (paa-wrens pat-tree-eye) n. Latin for "father of his country," the term for the doctrine that the government is the ultimate guardian of all people under a disability, especially children, whose care is only "entrusted" to their parents.

For those on this forum who scream for proof or "case citation" ... the following gems come from Australia.
Given that Australia is in the "Commonwealth", it is also relevant to the UK - in fact, it specifically mentions it in the document.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
No. 12 of 1994
MELBOURNE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY

The above principles are consistent with the statements of this Court in Re Marion. In that case this Court held, inter alia, that the parens patriae jurisdiction "springs from the direct responsibility of the Crown for those who cannot look after themselves; it includes infants as well as those of unsound mind": Re Marion, at p.259 (emphasis added). See also Re Marion, at p.258.

It is probably the case that there is in fact no practical discretion in the courts to refuse to exercise the parens patriae jurisdiction when the child is physically within the jurisdiction given that (1) it is a protection owed (originally by the Crown) to children, and (2) no English court appears to have used its discretion to decline the exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction in these circumstances (as to possible extremely limited exceptions: see Re Kernot (an infant), at pp.222-223).

Link (http://www.hreoc.gov.au/legal/submissions_court/guidelines/submission_zp.html)

dolores1

16-08-2009, 11:28 PM

Has any one ever tried any of these recently?

Freeman on the land
Mortgage get out of jail card, "Where is the consideration"
or
Drawing their GB share money from the UK Chapter 11 bankruptcy?

Is it all talk or do any of you put your money where your mouth is?

the worm that turned

16-08-2009, 11:43 PM

the worm that turned

16-08-2009, 11:51 PM

Because the courts deal with public policy and commercial law ... which is contracts.
A civil marriage is a contract in which the "fruit of the loin" is the property of the state.

Assuming I understand correctly, are you saying that offspring resulting from a married couple in England are the property of the state? Do you have proof of this?

Cheers, Worm

yozhik

17-08-2009, 09:03 AM

Assuming I understand correctly, are you saying that offspring resulting from a married couple in England are the property of the state? Do you have proof of this?

Cheers, Worm

The parens patriae references above show the structure.
Explains a lot, particularly the ability of the state to snatch children from the home.

The "fruit of the loins" reference is hearsay (from a usually reliable source), but one I am searching for confirmation. It makes sense, but may simply be an interpretation of the doctrine of parens patriae, which does exist.

EDIT (additional reading)

[The parens patriae jurisdiction] was traditionally vested in the Lord Chancellor and was later assumed by the British Court of Chancery. source (http://members.shaw.ca/childlaw/archives/topics/cplaw/cp-notes/ppjuris.htm)

The concept of delinquency, as well as special trials and institutions for confining and controlling youth, was established in the mid-19th century in Great Britain, where courts acquired the authority to intervene as parens patriae (Latin: “parent of the land”) to protect the property rights of children. source (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1349207/juvenile-justice)

The common law in England and Wales provides that the responsibility for the care and protection of children is with their parents “as guardians by the law of nature, and on the Crown as parens patriae,” 1 with the powers of a child’s parents somewhat limited in certain areas by law. There are a number of substantive pieces of legislation affecting children and their rights in a number of different areas. The most substantive piece affecting children and their basic rights to a secure and safe environment is the Children Act 1989. This Act introduces the term ‘parental responsibility’ rather than the common law concept of custody. Parental responsibility is defined as “all the rights, duties, powers, responsibilities and authority which by law a parent has in relation to the child and his property.” 2

1. PRINCIPLES OF MEDICAL LAW (Andrew Grubb and Judith Laing, eds., 2nd ed. 2004) ¶ 4.39. “The Crown as parens patriae is empowered and obliged ‘to protect the person and property of … those unable to look after themselves, including infants.’ The Sovereign, as parens patriae, has a duty to protect those of his subjects who are unable to protect themselves, particularly children … the powers of the Crown as parens patriae are exercised by the [courts].” ¶ 4.42.

2. Children Act 1989 c. 41, § 3(1).

source (http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache%3A-IXb_t9YIE0J%3Aloc.gov%2Flaw%2F%2Fhelp%2Fchild-rights%2Fpdfs%2Fchildrensrights-unitedkingdom.pdf+%22great+britain+parens+patriae% 22&hl=en)

This "parental responsibility", as defined in the Children Act 1989, also impacts on other serious issues; (READ THIS CAREFULLY)
Under the Children Act 1989, the term parental responsibility is defined to include the parents’ right to consent to medical treatment. 27
An individual that does not have parental responsibility for the child, but has them in his or her care, for example a doctor or a teacher, “may do what is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the child’s welfare … though it will presumably only be reasonable to act without first obtaining the consent of the child’s parents … in an emergency or if the treatment is trivial.” 28

27. Children Act 1989 c. 41, §§ 2-3 and PRINCIPLES OF MEDICAL LAW (Andrew Grubb and Judith Laing, eds., 2nd ed. 2004) ¶ 4.49.
28. Children Act 1989 c. 41, § 2 and PRINCIPLES OF MEDICAL LAW (Andrew Grubb and Judith Laing, eds., 2nd ed. 2004) ¶ 4.51.

source (http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache%3A-IXb_t9YIE0J%3Aloc.gov%2Flaw%2F%2Fhelp%2Fchild-rights%2Fpdfs%2Fchildrensrights-unitedkingdom.pdf+%22great+britain+parens+patriae% 22&hl=en)

In early England, the parens patriae jurisdiction was confined to mental incompetents, but its rationale is obviously applicable to children and, following the transfer of that jurisdiction to the Lord Chancellor in the seventeenth century, he extended it to children under wardship, and it is in this context that the bulk of the modern cases arise. The parens patriae jurisdiction is ... founded on necessity, namely the need to act for the protection of those who cannot care for themselves. source (http://books.google.com/books?id=n2EliI4vd1sC&pg=PA543&lpg=PA543&dq=%22great+britain+parens+patriae%22&source=bl&ots=9iKLz_R5m_&sig=jWzlTA7yNtrUvy_d86jFgxXKs24&hl=en&ei=PxGJSruHC5DT-QbFvYm7CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

For reference, compare the above with the following;
In civil law the phrase sui juris indicates legal competence, the capacity to manage one’s own affairs (Black's Law Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary).

ATTORNEY. One who acts for another by virtue of an appointment by the latter. Attorneys are of various kinds.
2. Attorney in fact. A person to whom the authority of another, who is called the constituent, is by him lawfully delegated. This term is employed to designate persons who act under a special agency, or a special letter of attorney, so that they are appointed in factum, for the deed, or special act to be performed; but in a more extended sense it includes all other agents employed in any business, or to do any act or acts in pais for another. Bac. Ab. Attorney; Story, Ag. Sec. 25.
3. All persons who are capable of acting for themselves, and even those who are disqualified from acting in their own capacity, if they have sufficient understanding, as infants of a proper age and femes coverts, may act as attorneys of others. Co. Litt. 52, a; 1 Esp. Cas. 142; 2 Esp. Cas. 511 2 Stark. Cas. N. P. 204.

boots

17-08-2009, 09:13 AM

I got this from Mark Pytellek the other day and I thought it would be good to post it here.

MP: Before we begin Sir, I have no idea to what I am pleading to but am happy to plea. I require some answers to a few questions if I may, now would you like me to expose what is happening here before all the good wards of the state or should we adjourn to a private chamber? Your call Sir.
Firstly Sir, what is your name so I know who I am speaking with?
J: Don’t have to give that.
MP: Sure, that’s right Sir, however we don’t have a contract if you do not provide your identifying name do we? Your choice. And Mr Prosecutor, what is your name so I know who to go after should the court rule this is a fraudulent claim and you are enjoindered by now being aware of the risk associated.
Pros: Don’t have to do that.
MP: That’s true, and therefore there is again no contract here is there?
Therefore is there any claim against me here today? Going once, going twice, better speak up or forever hold your breath, going, going …. Thrice.
For and on the court record Sir, let the records show there is no claim/complaint against me or complainant before the court. Sir, I move the court for a Summary Judgment and for the claimant and plaintiff to vacate for lack of complaint/claim and damaged/harmed party. (SILENCE and WAITE)

Sir, is there any law that shows a man, NOT a person, is required to be licensed in order to travel freely and privately on the King’s Highways and Byways commonly called roads, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that show a man does NOT have the reserved right to free passage over the land and highways in his automobile, particularly in a
private and non commercial capacity, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

If one is neither licensed, registered, a citizen, resident or person and is foreign to any corporation, is that NOT evidence there is NO CONTRACT with the parties/authorities that govern the use of roads, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that compel one to accept an offer of contract from any one including a Police man, woman or Officer, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is a forced contract, completed/effected under duress, legal and lawful and can it be lawfully and legally enforced without the consent of all parties, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is there any law that evidences a man can be COMPELLED to provide his personal property, including name, to a third party, including a Police man, woman or Police Officer without their consent or against their will, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is there a law that shows, if a man or woman, under duress and threat of physical or other force of law, in order to force said man or woman to ‘comply’, provide their name to a Police man or woman or Police Officer, a contract signed under duress, threat and fear for personal safety, is lawful, legal and/or enforceable, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence to ask a question sincerely and respectfully, in order to ascertain or verify a claim to authority, is an obstruction in the performance of a Police Officer’s duty, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence a Police man, woman or Officer has authority to direct a man behind the wheel of his private automobile to pull his automobile over and stop without any reasonable cause, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence a Police man, woman or Officer have authority or authorization to conduct breathalysers along the King’s Highways and Byways called roads, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that permit a Police man, woman or Officer to trespass one’s property without one’s consent or/and against one’s expressed will, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence a Police man, woman or Officer is permitted to make an arrest without evidence of a crime and in the absence of a warrant, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence the act of stopping an automobile without cause is not a false arrest or imprisonment, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence for a Police man, woman or Officer to arrest a man, they do NOT require a warrant supported with an affidavit, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is a written contract valid without the signatures of all parties addressed in that contract?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence if a summons is not signed by the summons party that the summons is NOT invalid, and if so could it please be produced in evidence.

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence it is NOT a perjury or fraud by a court to participate in a case where a summons to appear or Notice to Appear is unsigned by the summons party, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence one is NOT permitted to resist, with as much force as required, a false arrest, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence a Police man, woman or Officer is permitted to use a breathalyser” , and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence a Police man, woman or Officer is permitted to use a breathalyser on a man and woman without their consent?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence a man or woman is compelled to accept an offer to participate in a breathalyser test without their consent or against their will, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence it is NOT assault and battery and trespass by a Police man or woman or Officer forcing a man or woman to participate in a breathalyser against their will or expressed consent or with the threat of a gun at their head or other ‘inducement, incentive or other encouragement’ in order to comply, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence a man or woman is compelled to answer or engage a Police man, woman or Officer without his/her consent or against his/her will/wishes, and if so could it please be produced in evidence?

JURISDICTION

Is Queensland Police Service operating within the Commonwealth of Australia?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is Queensland Police Services a corporation?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

If so, is Queensland Police Services a private corporation and if so, who owns them?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

If the men and women who act as Police men, women or Officer’s are employed by a private corporation, are they therefore NOT enforcing private corporation ‘policy’ of Queensland Transport, Queensland Police Service (and perhaps other corporations) and NOT State of Queensland’s common law upon the people of the land called Queensland?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is it true that statutes are NOT laws but private corporation policy?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

If the men and women who act as Police men, women or Officer’s are employed by a private corporation and NOT public servants with a foresworn Public Oath to serve and protect the people, is this NOT evidence of a fraud and treason against the people of Australia, against the Constitution Act 1900 (UK) of the common law created Commonwealth of Australia, their public Oath of Office and against the woman acting as Queen Elizabeth 2 of Great Britain.

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is the Uniform Civil Procedure NOT private policy rather of the corporation called Commonwealth of Australia?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

If so, is the enforcement of private police by the men and women acting as Police men, women and Officers against the living souls called people of Australia NOT in breach of the common law derived Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK)?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

If so, is the enforcement of private police by the men and women acting as Police men, women and Officers against the living souls called people of Australia, NOT in breach of their Oath of PUBLIC OFFICE (NOT Oath of private corporation office) to protect the living souls called people of Australia and to uphold the law, NOT policy, as well as maintain the peace, NOT declare war on people?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Does contract law govern when one wishes to ‘drive’ a ‘car’ and one attains a ‘license’ to do so?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are Queensland Transport Policies NOT enforceable by virtue of a breach in the use of their road rules/private policies by those people who freely chose to attain a ‘license’ from Queensland Transport and thereby subrogating themselves to the standing of serfs/drivers/corporations.

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are there any laws that evidence a man or woman can NOT rescind an autograph and contract when they discover the contract was not transparent and if so, could it please now be produced in evidence?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is the lack of transparency by Queensland Transport, Queensland Police Force and other private interest controlling corporations NOT evidence of certain private interests, through the use of private corporations, to harvest the people of Australia?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is the lack of transparency by Queensland Transport, Queensland Police Force and other private interest controlling corporations NOT evidence of certain private interests, through the use of private corporations, to commit genocide and apartheid against the people of Australia?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Does Queensland Transport Operate within the Commonwealth of Australia?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is Queensland Transport Operate a corporation?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

If so, is Queensland Transport Operate a private corporation and if so, who owns them?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Who owns the land commonly called roads over the land called Queensland?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Does the corporation called Queensland Transport claim to own the land commonly called roads over the land commonly called Queensland?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

If so could a certified copy of the Title Deed and Bill of Sale please by produced in timely manner, so I can witness and evidence the claim?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

If NOT, is their claim to be that only they can regulate the use of the land called roads NOT a false claim in the absence of a contract with those who use the land area called roads?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Under the insolvency and bankruptcy laws, is it NOT an offence to own property or Title to property when in bankruptcy?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Which Commonwealth of Australia do both these corporations operate within, the common law created Commonwealth of Australia or the corporation that is listed on the United States of Americas Securities and Exchange Commission as a USA listed corporation?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are the two in reality one and the same Commonwealth of Australia?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

If point 35 is correct, is this NOT evidence of breach of the Constitution Act 1900 (UK) of Australia, fraud and treason against the people of Australia on multiple counts including theft of Title from the woman acting as Queen Elizabeth 2 of Britain.

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________
Is the Commonwealth of Australia corporation NOT a bankrupt corporation?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Therefore do the Bankruptcy and Insolvency laws NOT evidence that it is a fraud for ANY CORPORATION to conduct business while in bankruptcy?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Therefore any business conducted by Queensland Police Service and any other corporation, Sir, is a fraud and is NULL AND VOID is it NOT?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Therefore any party assisting any corporation to conduct business knowing that corporation is bankrupt is also committing fraud and perjury is it NOT?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Sir, what is the term of imprisonment under your laws for perpetrators of such a fraud and perjury?

JURISDICTION OF JUDGE (LAST RESORT – AIM TO GET MATTER DISMISSED WITH HIS CREDIBILITY INTACT IF POSSIBLE UNLESS HE HARMS YOU)

Questions 24 – 29 are relevant.

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Do you NOT swear an Oath of Office to Queen Elizabeth 2, the Queen of England?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Which Queen do you swear an allegiance to, is it the corporation Queen Elizabeth 2, Queen of England or is it the woman who heads the Royal family of England?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

If it is the corporation Queen Elizabeth 2, Queen of England, do you uphold the Constitution of the corporation called Commonwealth of Australia, the one listed on the USA securities and exchange commission as a USA corporation?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

If not, do you uphold the Constitution Act 1900 (UK) of the Commonwealth of Australia that was created under the Common Law by our forefathers – the people of Australia, for the benefit and protection of the people of Australia, then and for the future?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is failing to uphold the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution, created under the common law, while in public office a Treason crime?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Do you, while in public office, serve the people, the living souls, of Australia or do you serve a different master namely a foreign corporation?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is, to remain silent to question 37 or any other question in this document, NOT your admission of guilt and agreement to working against the interest of the living souls called people of Australia and working for foreign interests?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is the aforesaid woman acting as Queen of England NOT the head of a foreign country?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is the Commonwealth of Australia NOT an independent nation state?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Therefore have you NOT sworn an allegiance to the head of a foreign country or corporation?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution created under the common law, is that NOT a crime of treason?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

What is the penalty under your laws today or under the Constitution created under the common law for the penalty of treason?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are you operating under admiralty law?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is that NOT in defiance of the original common law created Constitution Act 1900 (UK) of the Commonwealth of Australia and therefore treasonous?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

When the first white folk and those thereafter docked their vessel by the land today commonly called Australia, or Commonwealth of Australia, did they attain a treaty with the incumbent owners/stewards/guardians of this land, called Aborigines (Originese) in order to dock their vessel?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

When the first white folk and those thereafter docked their vessel by the land today commonly called Australia, or Commonwealth of Australia, did they attain a treaty with the incumbent owners/stewards/guardians of this land in order to use the land?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

When the first white folk and those thereafter docked their vessel by the land today commonly called Australia, or Commonwealth of Australia, did they attain a treaty with the incumbent owners/stewards/guardians of this land in order to possess the land?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

When the first white folk and those thereafter docked their vessel by the land today commonly called Australia, or Commonwealth of Australia, did they attain a treaty with the incumbent owners/stewards/guardians of this land in order to purchase the land?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

When the first white folk and those thereafter docked their vessel by the land today commonly called Australia, or Commonwealth of Australia, did they attain a treaty with the incumbent owners/stewards/guardians of this land in order to invade the land?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

When the first white folk and those thereafter docked their vessel by the land today commonly called Australia, or Commonwealth of Australia, did they attain a treaty with the incumbent owners/stewards/guardians of this land in order to commit genocide and apartheid against the original and incumbent owners/stewards/guardians?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Without evidence of a treaty with the incumbent owners/stewards/guardians of the land of Australia, are subsequent visitors NOT invaders and intruders?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Without evidence of a treaty with the original incumbent owners/stewards/guardians of the land of Australia, is any claim to ownership, title and use and possession of the lands of Australia by any party other then the original incumbent owners/stewards/guardians of the land of Australia, NOT a frivolous, irrelevant and false claim?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Without evidence of a treaty with the original incumbent owners/stewards/guardians of the land of Australia, is it NOT evidence the subsequent ‘establishment’ – Commonwealth, State and Municipal Governments are incumbents by virtue of illegal conquer, genocide and apartheid of the original incumbents, the Aborigines (Origines)?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are genocide and apartheid NOT war crimes?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Are the existing National, State and local Governments NOT a defacto governments?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Without evidence of a treaty with Aborigines, is a court of law NOT operating by fraud and deception, without jurisdiction, in breach of the common law established Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, in breach of International law and committing high treason?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Does an unrebutted Affidavit NOT stand as truth in commerce?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is scriptural law NOT superior to man made law?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is there any law that evidences a man or woman is compelled to follow or be obedient to a man made law without his consent and against his will? If so please provide the legal references.

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Is there any law that evidences, if an un-revealed contract upon discovery by one party is repealed-revoked by the same party, that the same party can be compelled to perform to the repealed-revoked contract by another party to the same contract? If so please provide legal references.

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Do you have more than one Oath of Public Office or other Oaths and if so, what and to whom the Oaths are?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

If so, is it NOT your admission of treason?

ANSWER____________________________________________ _______________

Add anything relevant to your country.

dolores1

19-08-2009, 08:51 PM

I have had my Notice of Intention stamped, witnessed and accepted by a Notary Public to day, I was not asked who he was to serve it, on can anyone help me this this please.

Who do I send copies to.

As Mary says there will be causualities but I think it is better if someone who is older, like me, helps lead the way and finds out the pit falls.

pleasuredome

28-08-2009, 12:18 PM

here is a good website for our Irish brothers, Tir Na Saor

http://freemanireland.ning.com/

Link for Maxims of Law

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/maxims.html

Mark Stevens video "Adventures in Legal Land". Ways of conducting yourself in court

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7238921269249750961

pleasuredome

28-08-2009, 12:22 PM

Excellent resource site from Australia...

http://www.loveforlife.com.au/

Law resource site...

http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/foundation.htm

deckard666

13-09-2009, 08:41 PM

Is anybody from Germany around who has information concerning Germany on this topic?

deem

13-09-2009, 09:37 PM

Excellent thread people.

zhenshanren

28-09-2009, 07:32 AM

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

pleasuredome

01-10-2009, 06:14 PM

RETURN TO SENDER - refusing offers to contract

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84582

tien an

01-10-2009, 11:12 PM

Is anybody from Germany around who has information concerning Germany on this topic?

Gruß Dich, deckard666, wenn ich mich nicht irre hast Du schon mal diese Frage gestellt.
Eine hervorragende Website kannst Du hier (http://www.claimyourrights.eu/index.php) finden.

Hi deckard666, unless I'm mistaken, you've already asked this question.
An excellent website can be found here (http://www.claimyourrights.eu/index.php).

Zhoutian.

deckard666

02-10-2009, 12:55 AM

Gruß Dich, deckard666, wenn ich mich nicht irre hast Du schon mal diese Frage gestellt.
Eine hervorragende Website kannst Du hier (http://www.claimyourrights.eu/index.php) finden.

Hi deckard666, unless I'm mistaken, you've already asked this question.
An excellent website can be found here (http://www.claimyourrights.eu/index.php).

Zhoutian.

Forgive me. I *really* have a bad memory sometimes. If I asked before and you already answered - I am sorry. I must have oversen it.

I just registered at that site. Very interesting. Thanks (again)!

merlincove

02-10-2009, 12:58 AM

RETURN TO SENDER - refusing offers to contract

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84582

i was gonna post that :D

zhenshanren

03-10-2009, 06:38 AM

Yes, thank you for letting us revisit that thread. Very useful!

dolores1

05-10-2009, 07:58 PM

Every statute in force in the UK - Including Magna Carta & Bill of Rights 1689
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/

Right to Silence upheld Tuesday, 2 May, 2000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/734018.stm

I found Cestui Qui Vie Act 1666

Brilliant.

dolores1

06-10-2009, 12:55 AM

Excellent resource site from Australia...

http://www.loveforlife.com.au/

Law resource site...

http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/foundation.htm

Any sites available for the UK please?

Ta, D.

spoonogsback

24-10-2009, 02:57 PM

www.freemanireland.ning.com

www.tnsradio.com (skype room tirnasaor) add to your contacts and join in live on the on air chat

Tir na Saor is Irish for .... Land of the Free........

www.freedomainradio.com excellent site

www.khanacademy.org excellent site how to educate yourself on all sorts of topics Maths geometry physics etc.........

Peace and Freedom guys

comma berenices

29-10-2009, 11:12 PM

Cestui Qui Trust = The Strawman
Rule of Grammar for the use of CAPITAL LETTERS used in a NAME: when CAPITAL letters are used anywhere in a NAME this always refers to a LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION, COMPANY or CORPORATION no exceptions.
e.g. John DOE or Doe: JANE (PASSPORT, DRIVER LICENSE, MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE and BIRTH CERTIFICATE)
C’EST TUI QUE TRUST: (pronounced set–a–kay) common term in NEW ZEALAND and AUSTRALIA or STRAWMAN common term in USA or CANADA is a LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION created and owned by the GOVERNMENT whom created it.
“Legally, we are considered to be a FICTION, a concept or idea expressed as a NAME, a symbol. That LEGAL PERSON has no consciousness; it is a juristic PERSON, EN LEGIS, a NAME/word written on a piece of paper” – Jason Whitney, Presenter & Researcher: The Occult World of Commerce.
When you are born, (your Mothers’ WATER broke) your Parents Name you, for example John or Jane DOE. The Nurse or Doctor along with your Parents sign your Record of Live Birth (Title of Deed to Real Property) so your BIRTH CERTIFICATE could be created (a “certificate is a negotiable instrument; see Certi & fi-duc(e) iary & fi-cat(e) iary) for the purpose of “creating the LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION (this LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION is regulated and works in commerce as GOVERNMENT can only regulate that which it creates and it didn’t create the living breathing Man or Woman – God did). The LEGAL ENTITY/FICTION is registered by the Department of Commerce, under the ADMIRALTY MARITIME LAW/JURISDICTION (LAW of the WATER) – JURISDICTION of Commerce and War.
You (the baby) are what is called a “C’est tui Que (pronounced “Set–a–kay”) Trust, the STRAWMAN, or rather the COLLATERAL or the CORPUS (body) of the Trust. Your LABOUR is the energy you generate as a Living Being. However, as a baby, you are deemed “Invalid (in–valid/dis–abled) and Incompetent, and even though your Mother Birthed you, she agrees to be the TRUSTEE of the Trust (by her SIGNATURE) which was SETTLED (created–Settlor) by the Federal Government, so you (your body) are ENTRUSTED to her for safe keeping until the age of eighteen.
Under Biblical Law: WOMEN are incapable of entering into binding agreements/contracts, their Husband or Father must be present when making agreements or the contract is void. In most cases both parties are present during birth or manifestation of a MARITIME product. Unless prior written consent and approval by the male representative exists, the Mother who would not DREAM of “giving” her newborn baby to the Government, does so unknowingly, by the undisclosed conditions of the signed Contract” Submission of an Application for Registration for a BIRTH CERTIFICATE e.g.
You’re Parents “agree/consent” to be the Trustee and sign your BIRTH CERTIFICATE. (BIRTH CERTIFICATES were only for “slaves” prior to women becoming “equal” to men). Usually the Mother is the ONLY one required to sign, because she is deemed to be the direct blood more so than the Father. She has the higher “claim” to the living baby.
Once the negotiable instrument (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) is transferred to the Dept of Commerce, they “pledge” your “Labour for your Lifetime” as its “secured” asset, and proceeds to “assure” (different from insure) YOUR Labour against it’s (the government’s) DEBT, and it subsequently gets an “underwriter” to insure your Labour.
The underwriter determines a lowball figure from your Labour to be valued at $1 Million dollars, and it takes out a “Bond” which is held at the Bank, the numbers on your BIRTH CERTIFICATE are the tracking numbers for your LEGAL ENTITY/FICTIONS Bond. $1 million FEDERAL RESERVE notes are then issued with that same number and put into circulation.
On the LEGAL ENTITY/FICTIONS BIRTH CERTIFICATE, the one with your name in ALL CAPS (which represents an ENTITY/FICTION, CORPORATION) there is a “Bond” tracking number. That number has 7–9 digits with a “letter” in front of it. Get a 1 dollar bill and compare that “serial” number with the number on it. You will see the similarity. On the face of the dollar bill, is a letter inside a symbol with the words “FEDERAL RESERVE Bank of (State Name)” That is the letter designation of the State Bank which holds that Bond. example “E” is the Bank of Virginia. The letter of the number on the BIRTH CERTIFICATE is the Bank that is holding a Bond which represents your “labour” for your lifetime. Your “labour” has been “insured” and “assured”, and money has been borrowed against it. This is HOW people have been turned into collateral for the FEDERAL RESERVE Bank(s).
Legal Definitions
• Person: A human being is not a person because he is a human being, but because rights and duties have been ascribed to him
• The ‘person’ is the legal subject or substance of which rights and duties are attributes Black’s Law Dictionary Not a human being, but the human being invisible coat
• Application: Means to ‘beg, plead, petition, implore, entreat or request
• Must: Legally can be synonymous with ‘may’. Has two senses; Imperative or a directive. One creates obligations, the other defines conditions. Always a ‘directive’ when used with ‘apply’
• Submit: To agree to another’s will or to leave to another’s discretion. Form of surrender. Always voluntary. Implies lawful right to fight.
• Registration: To sign over all chattel content for safe keeping. always voluntary. Abandons complete ownership for partial.
Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status through the use of capitalization) – In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man’s status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.
Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man’s family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.
Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John DOE) – A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.
Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) – The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

I found this today,i thought it may be of interest for reference.

I have no idea who the author is though.

cjellwood

14-12-2009, 10:59 AM

Cestui Qui Vie Act 1666 is very interesting although I dont understand a word of it. Apparently it was passed during the great fire of London giving literal meaning to the phrase 'smoke screen' lol.

Here are a couple of interesting things I noticed about this act...

1. The date 1666 i.e 666

2. The fact that the act only acknowledges persons that are known to be overseas rather than persons in general. Why does a person need to have disapeared overseas for 7 years in order for their trust to be set up? Whats wrong with people that are not overseas that have disapeared?

3. The title is French. So not only is the law confusing enough, it is now written in french lol How many people in 1666 spoke French in UK

I was sceptical abuot the teachings of Winston Shrout and Robert menard until I see this act.

Chris

nwo2010

28-12-2009, 07:49 PM

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S_4efuOs4l0

link http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S_4efuOs4l0

It says film removed by user?

passer by

02-01-2010, 12:53 AM

Using God's Law to fight, pulls the rug right out from under the New World Order, because God's Law strictly forbids men from legislating, under pain of death, and the New World Order's power-base is its ability to legislate.

Check out:

http://bornagainfreeman.ning.com/

alternativemedia

12-01-2010, 05:34 PM

http://www.nomoredebts.me.uk

http://www.thetruthwillout.com/common_law.html

http://www.lpuk.org/

Also Coming Soon

http://www.freemanontheland.tv

karl j

22-01-2010, 08:19 PM

This is a link to a website with videos of almost any subject you can think of, a Veritable Cornucopia of information on many subjects.... hope you all find it useful..!!!

http://bit.ly/1skv0s

mark1963

22-01-2010, 08:28 PM

Wow, thanks for that - it's brilliant.

karl j

22-01-2010, 09:47 PM

Wow, thanks for that - it's brilliant.

:):):) Yep thought it was pretty cool myself, could keep you occupied for days...

sindakit

26-01-2010, 01:46 AM

http://www.4shared.com/dir/28376043/1d063c57/Law_Dictionaries.html

Black's dictionary electronic list :)

girlgye

26-01-2010, 02:06 AM

Aw thanks Sindakit much better than trying to work out how to download torrent seeds. A kind of reference download for simpletons like me. cheers.

anyways i think this thread will kinda grow over the next 2 weeks.

This is a brilliant site.

http://www.stoptherobbery.com/Videos.html

Wayne Dwyer and George Carlin in the Philosophy section - brillo.
Check out George's vids on you tube. Sooooh funny. What a GIFT TO MANKIND HE WAS.

girlgye

26-01-2010, 02:24 AM

you can store and save your vids here.

http://keepvid.com/

Sounds like a very clever snooping site but hey. I'd rather keep them on my hard drive.

hunger

26-01-2010, 08:51 AM

Sorry wrong thread maybe...can anyone suggest a simple beginning to the freeman/maritime law "movement" It's for a friend who knows nothing about it he's 50 & spent time inside & I would rather he didn't suffer anymore by thinking the world is against him :) My research on freeman stuff is I guess what I've learned from you guys here & My own basic common sense ;) I was thinking maybe Theantiterrorist on youtube? Any suggestions would be most welcome

Thank you in advance

:)

girlgye

26-01-2010, 09:08 AM

girlgye

26-01-2010, 09:12 AM

oops meant to post here. Her one of her vids is in the anti terrorist sticky. God knows where the others are. If you find them be sure to post em eh!

bush doctor

04-02-2010, 07:36 PM

I have been given some pdf links that may interest you guy's I did a search on this thread and didn't find any so I thought I would share, first one is a survival guide for the courts.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:PSXAh7u2RtAJ:api.ning.com/files/bnJSKgCEBQxXL70Ed6VyvU4Sew*2UtGdHkLCvVwxa7-AQFOMCVE8j4qymyYHFJF0Uk57tJs-aAW8aAEzQ4WUA4vNbxmjllEq/courtsurvivalguide.pdf+court+survival+guide&hl=en&gl=uk&sig=AHIEtbSZExH-YhiVQRR5Pd44GMZDo8xNuw

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:fZn6S2Pl2v4J:api.ning.com/files/CtyW7YBi6gqGENfsC-P6hAzUF5x9ZCltMeX-BRbXSfyY0VLebNsTPzQQ0Igs3UAqxTXNLBKEDHF8ZbT9KJHwjI O6aD8RKc*J/GuidetobeingaFreemanFinalv2.pdf+freeman+court+guid e+pdf&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:Sq69v8VV974J:api.ning.com/files/Ocr0aZtxmf6Th06MZug2nnIaYTRwPlwrxjLuQi9x7AoXlytog7 dNFdhMniUu*lDeFaqx1H0bVgPwkjtLXz9USPWwUwvnHrzV/The20Redmption20Manual.pdf+the+redemption+manual+4 th+edition&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nl

I couldn't attach the pdf link:o so have got it in HTML

Apologies if these are already in the resource thread

bsmurph83

05-02-2010, 08:17 AM

Irene is really simple. If you go through the threads section on here she should be here otherwise there are plenty of vids in the general section just do a search on Irene Gravenhorst Maus.

I'm thinking in terms of freeman/maritime that you suggest. She explained admiralty quite well to me and she is a freeman on the land, driving around free on the land unencumbered unfettered with her own sovereign nation.

So it works.

Affidavits work.:cool:

gye, i think you meant to say that irene "TRAVELS" around on the land, because as a freeman (on land), she would have no reason to "drive" since it's a commercial activity. that'd put her back in admiralty-maritime on the "sea"... (i know you know this, but it's good to maintain good habits, especially for newbies...)

also, i was going to post that link to the Black's Law dictionaries but was beaten to it evidently! if you can't open the files, download this jzip here: http://www.jzip.com/index.php?bt=c&r=502&gclid=CMa634e82p8CFRAeDQod0XhQGg

it'll extract them to be read as PDF... if a tech retard like me can do it, anyone can...

girlgye

06-02-2010, 08:15 PM

Not if you put a clause in your affadavit stating that legalese is nonsense and that does not apply to you as a freeman on the land. :)

death

15-02-2010, 02:35 AM

A couple HUGE questions!

I live in the USA, exactly WHO do I file this claim with?

This is where I'm getting lost. I have a very in depth understanding of law linguistics and the judicial process on all levels. What I want to know is, where do I file this claim and, is it filed on a Federal level?

Once filed, does it mean I offer up my driver's license and social security registration then in the national database, my human being identity is associated with Freeman on the Land status and by "No charges filed unless at the expressed consent of the attorney general" refer to that state's or by the Attorney General of the United States?

I'm assuming it's the AGUS since you wouldn't be filing your freeman status solely in your state. You want to be subjected only to common law rather than statutes acting as law imposed by local corporations empowered by the government to represent them. I'm understanding that common law is that imposed by the Federal Government and the only law violations these local corporate governments can use to persecute you with the intentions of prosecution.
Any claim based on corporate statute should never make it beyond the point of persecution.

thetonic

16-02-2010, 09:01 PM

Who do I send copies to.
.

Everyone and their mother!

death

21-02-2010, 08:30 PM

Everyone and their mother!

I suspected this might be the case but there has to be a specific entity that you register this claim of right document with so that under your lawful name, it comes up that you are a Freeman on the Land.
I found a video on youtube of a chick in California that received confirmation of her Freeman status. I'm assuming it's a Federal branch of our government, likely the AGUS or at least your state's Attorney General.

I suppose if you DO have to send that many claims of right though, you better be sending them certified mail!

janedoe

07-03-2010, 02:25 AM

hi there!
I am from Romania.
In my country , the judicial system is of Napoleonian inspiration, like the majority of the countries in the EU.
I asked some lawyers here, and they said that all these principles of Freeman of the Land and Common Law are not applicable here, because our judicial system is not one of anglo-saxon inspiration.
they told me that In the Napoleonian Law system , the state decide what is good and what is bad for the citizens, the common law is not aplicable in the courts.
Is that true?
This make me very frustrated, and I feel it have to be a way to avoid all this non-sense in our judicial system.
Can be applied the principles of Freeman of the land everywhere in the world, despite we are not on using the common law like UK, USA, and The Commonwealth?
I hope someone knows about that issue.

I know this thread was designated for links only but seeing as some questions, comments etc and that the above is a very good question that I share as I find myself now living in Costa Rica where civil law is the name of the game. I have gone over its constituition etc. If anybody has any imput/information/resources/solutions as to how one might proceed as a sovereign in such a country it would really be welcomed. Thank you

ninny

16-04-2010, 07:37 PM

thank you for providing the links. since someone is transporting the german ideas into the freeman on the land stuff. i have to study it. it sounds quite interesting and it seems i could work with that very well. thank you guys.

afreeman

04-06-2010, 11:02 PM

I have a lot of links, so if I repeat any I am sorry. Some of these are Canadian Based.

-http://www.natural-person.ca/
A good site describing the difference between "persons" (though I personally hate that terminology) Also explains Drivers Licence and SIN/SSN Cards

-http://loveforlife.com.au/node/6170
Security Agreement and other Private/Public Forms. Very informative

-http://loveforlife.com.au/content/08/10/28/video-are-you-sovereign-yet-johnny-liberty
A Video Series

-http://jim.com/rights.html
A huge article on natural law/rights

-http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2009/05/whats-it-all-about.html
A blog about Freemanism, good for newbies

-http://www.lawofpeace.org/Affidavit.html
A good example of an Affidavit of: DECLARATION OF SOVEREIGNTY,REMOVAL OF UNQUALIFIED SIGNATURES AND POWER OF ATTORNEY, etc etc

-http://c3po.ca/Canadian_Common_Corps_of_Peace_Officers/Welcome.html
C3PO!

-http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/comliens.shtml
A great article on commercial liens. Though I warn you, these are dangerous, so please exercise extreme caution before use!

-http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/technology/watch/v14630883FEPn9KSr
Dealing with Authority Figures. Pretty informative

-http://www.says-it.com/seal/circle.php
Seal Maker (This is a personal preference, I like to seal my documents)

-http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-deprogram.html
Great article on deprogramming your mind of preconceived notions.

-http://www.cyberclass.net/decision.htm
An interesting Case Decision on "Natural Person".

-http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/debt-elimination-tools/debt_elimination_tools_index.htm
Debt Elimination Tools, I know this is popular

-http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/01/01/filing-ucc1-financing-statement-explanation-steps-ucc1-filing-process-use-agreement
UCC-1 Filing Guide

-http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/business-finance-law-issues/15869-bonded-promissory-note-private-offset-bonds.html
A Forum on Promissory Notes and UCC Laws Governing Such

-http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=3275
Lots of "legal" templates, Please don't use these if you don't know what your doing!

-http://www.statusisfreedom.com
A pretty decent content with Sam Davis, including Intros for newbies

-http://www.marcstevens.net/
Great for Americans Seeking Remedy

-http://www.iloveulove.com/psychology/univlaws.htm
Other laws you should be aware of (Spiritual, Laws of Nature) :)

-http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=806&theme=home&loc=b
Article on "The Decline of Common Law Constitutionalism in Canada"

-http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/search.html
Search Warrants and Good Knowledge. The main site (hackcanada.com) also has lots of interesting information

-http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/MYBOOK.HTM
Enforceable Rights, Background, very good read.

-http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/charter_digest/index.html
This is an excellent website for Canadians studying law. It has all the laws, court decisions, and this particular page dives into the Charter and what it means to you.

-http://www.duhaime.org/legaldictionary/c/commonlaw.aspx
Another good legal website and dictionary

-http://www.canadiansincommerce.ca/
(Speaks for itself)

Tax Information and History:

-http://www.detaxcanada.org/detax1.htm
-http://www.detaxcanada.org/filingT1.htm
This page is interesting, it talks about Filing T1's and 1040's so you "stay" within the law, but you file it on YOUR TERMS. :D
-http://www.ownlife.com/tax/dmcsherm.htm
Taxes are Unconstitutional?
-http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/myths/menu-eng.html#m1
CRA's Opinion on tax Myths (to get both sides of the story)

-http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html
Constitution Act of 1982

-http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC832130
Law of Fiduciary Obligation

-http://erasingdavid.com/
This site is interesting for UK residents, about a guy playing "keep away" from Big Brother

-http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/bouviers.html#s
Bouviers Law Dictionary

-http://www.creditorsincommerce.com/audio-los-angeles-2009.php
Audio Tapes (Kinda Boring)

-http://www.reddit.com/r/CLVideos
A Bunch of Videos

-http://secret-teachings.blogspot.com/search/label/Law
A Bunch of Videos, Some of them are UK Related

-http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/230098/000095012310022820/0000950123-10-022820-index.htm
CANADA, Listed on the S.E.C

Freedom-ish Related:
-infowars.com
Good for news, kinda depressing

-educate-yourself.org
A bunch of info

Oh, and for those of you who read about it, please stay away from Monoatomic Gold. It is not your friend.

Hope these links help some people.

-Peace

gynet

10-06-2010, 02:58 AM

http://gynet.co.uk/sites/default/files/sky_logo.png

East Anglia Freeman Community

shed7628

17-06-2010, 11:42 AM

What is giving consent by in-action mean please can someone explain . Thank you

merlincove

17-06-2010, 01:29 PM

What is giving consent by in-action mean please can someone explain . Thank you

You’d need to understand acquiescence and what it means to acquiesce to something, ie a notice or implementation, authority or rule that is given to you and needs a direct response from you - and without a direct response rebutting or questioning a notice or order given, the law will deem that you agree to that notice or order.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/acquiesce

http://www.blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/2/a.htm

5418

If you acquiesce to something, ie: consent or comply passively or without protest, then in the eyes of the law you consent to the notice given.

Ie, if a notice arrives at your door, saying that a bailiff will call in seven days, and you ignore that notice, sure enough a bailiff will call, because you have agreed to the contents of the letter by your none action, ie you have acquiesced.

If you do not voice your right, or your opinion to the contrary - basically, then it is deemed that you are in agreement with any formal notice / letter / order given and as such will stand under it.

shed7628

17-06-2010, 02:50 PM

Merlincove Thanks for the time and effort put into that reply.

I have a list of questions and understand that nothing offered by you constitutes legal advice.

I am new to this and just curious about some issues, just to help me if the need ever arises.

Do I have to give my name and address to a police officer/man/women just on their request?

If the say I have broken a statute can I still refuse to give my name and address, obviously taking this to a police interview down the station. Helpfull or not?

Obviously on arrest they will ask me if I understand can I continually say I do not understand? Would this be helpful if they say I have broken a statute?

Further to that can I refuse to answer anything until I get to police interview?

Can I ask for evidence to be produced where I agreed to stand under the act or statute they claim I broke?

Will a lawyer provided be able to tell me if I have broken common law or statute?

Is there some common law they can use against me just for failures to co-operate?

I guess what am really saying how can I stand up to authority in a reasonable way when I think I have been treated unfairly.

I am not out to hinder police or break common law, cause harm or loss to others.
I just want to have people in authority not just the police, realize that some people do not just accept their authority without question.

rosix

23-06-2010, 02:26 AM

where did all the smart ones go, little birdie told me a private forum, PM info my way pretty please

wakeupworld

24-06-2010, 08:57 AM

FREEMAN GUIDEBOOK

http://freemanireland.ning.com/page/tir-na-saor-freeman-guidebook

boots

06-07-2010, 12:10 AM

For useful quotes when in court.

Please see this thread

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123110

Courtesy of Marc Stevens.

.

micklemus

14-08-2010, 10:31 PM

lesactive

15-08-2010, 12:03 AM

For a better understanding of why freeman consent theory is bullshit -

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=127213

Maybe that thread will be made a sticky at some point. Then again, I get the feeling that rose coloured specs are generally the preferred visual aid here.

Useful, but only in the sense that it will give those who have an interest in the subject a peek at the kind of responses to expect when asserting your right or duty to say, "NO, thank you."

The thread is laid bare by answering for yourself a simple question: Do you know the basis for the governments claim to authority over YOU?

Hint: it starts at your entrance to this plane.

lesactive

22-08-2010, 12:29 AM

FOR CANADA ONLY - Ontario in particular

Untangling the Procedural Web in Litigation Against the Crown
At common law, the Crown could not be sued
because of the feudal principle that the Crown could not be sued in its own court.1
Complaints could, however,
be brought against the Crown using a petition of right
but this procedure was cumbersome and time-consuming.2 The use of a petition of right in this context
was not abolished by the federal and provincial governments in Canada until the middle of the 20th
century. The general rule in modern Canadian Crown proceeding statutes is that the Crown is sued by the
same procedure that is used against other parties.3 However, some special procedural rules still exist that
are necessary to consider when bringing a proceeding against the Crown. In addition to these special
procedural rules, the Crown is still subject to residual common law immunities. This paper will examine
some of the special procedural rules and residual immunities that are applicable in bringing a proceeding
against the Crown. The paper will specifically focus on the rules that are applicable when bringing
proceedings against the Crown in right of the Province of Ontario (Provincial Crown) in the Courts of
Ontario and proceedings against the Crown in right of Canada (Federal Crown) in the Courts of Ontario
and the Federal Courts.

http://www.torys.com/Publications/Documents/Publication%20PDFs/AR2008-54.pdf

merlincove

01-09-2010, 01:10 PM

Now...
Before you ask any questions I suggest you download a copy of Ballentine's Law, Bouviers Law and a decent financial terms dictionary i.e. Investors Terms.

Then read the letters and ALL of the accompanying instructions.
Then go through every word/term that you do not understand and the ones YOU THINK you understand using the dictionaries you now got free of charge.
It will take you a week at 4-5 hours a day to even begin to grasp what it is you are thinking of doing.
Then think about what questions you need answering.
There should be none
Additional material in relation to this is in the Books and PDFs titled 'Natural Commerce".

Dealing with Bankers….

The following 5 letters have been successfully used by a great many people over the past few years to effectively deal with creditor difficulties. We make no representations to the effectiveness of this strategy and we strongly advise interested parties to seek independent professional or competent advise when
utilizing such strategies.

Letter Number 1:

For use with just about any type of financial obligation issued by a licensed financial institution mortgage, credit card, bank loan etc. (Does not work
if the loan is from a “private” source.)

From: ____________________
Date: ____________________
To: ____________________
Re: ___(Credit Card, bank loan, mortgage,
etc.)
Account Number:___________

To Whom it may concern:

I would like to make arrangements to settle the above referenced matter.
Please provide me with your statement of the amount owing as of ___(pick date 2 weeks out for example)___, together with your assurance that you will accept payment in direct and immediate exchange for the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form.

Thank you very much.

___________________________
by: authorized party

Letter Number 2A:

For use with adjustments in most cases when
you receive the initial response from Letter 1 above,
where they confirm an amount owing and provide
some comment that the “statements” or some other
lame documentation they provide are evidence of the
obligation.

From: ____________________
Date: ____________________
To: ____________________
Re: ___(Credit Card, bank loan, mortgage,
etc.)
Account Number:___________

To Whom it may concern:

Thank you for your letter of __date______, wherein you confirm my outstanding balance as requested.
Also, you have confirmed that the
“statements that _____(name of institution here)____
sends are your evidence of your indebtedness to the
Bank”. (This is a quote from actual bank letter and
wording may vary slightly, but should where possible
be quoted from their letter.)

Accordingly, would you please confirm that the Agreement that exists between us which ratifies this specific application of these “statements” and confirms me as the party obligated to the Bank will be delivered to me as the original instrument of
indebtedness in its original form, in exchange for payment in full of my obligation as may be referenced by these “statements”.

Sincerely,

__________________________________________________
by: authorized party

Letter Number 2B:

For use with adjustments in other cases when
you receive the initial response from Letter 1 above,
where they confirm an amount owing and simply
ignore the second part of the request.

From: ____________________
Date: ____________________
To: ____________________
Re: ___(Credit Card, bank loan, mortgage,
etc.)
Account Number:__________

To Whom it may concern:

Thank you for your letter of ________, wherein you confirm my outstanding balance as
requested.
It is apparent that you have overlooked or ignored my request to confirm that you would accept full payment of the alleged obligation from me in consideration of your delivery to me of the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form.
Accordingly, unless I receive your written confirmation that you will accept payment from me in consideration of your delivery to me of the original
instrument of indebtedness in its original form on or before ____(pick a date like 15 days from sending the letter)____, I will conclude that you are either unable or unwilling to comply, and I will thereafter consider the matter between us to have been legally and
financially settled.

Sincerely,

________________________________________________
by: authorized party

Letter Number 3:

For use with adjustments in other cases when
you receive NO response from Letter #1 above.

From: ____________________
Date: ____________________
To: ____________________
Re: ___(Credit Card, bank loan, mortgage,
etc.)
Account Number:__________

To Whom it may concern:

I have sent you my request as of ___(date)___ for you to confirm the balance owing
on the above referenced matter and for you to confirm that you would accept full payment of the alleged obligation from me in consideration of your delivery to me of the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form.
It is apparent that you have overlooked or ignored my request. Accordingly, unless I receive your written confirmation that you will accept payment from me in consideration of your delivery to me of the original instrument of indebtedness in its original form on or before ____(pick a date like 15 days from sending the letter)____, I will conclude that you are either unable or unwilling to comply, and I will thereafter consider the matter between us to have been legally and financially settled.

Sincerely,

__________________________________________________ ____
by: authorized party

NOTES:
1. The concepts outlined in these documents
will also work for most Court Orders to pay. Simply
change the wording such that you are requesting
confirmation that the court will accept payment in
consideration of their delivery to you of the Original
Order, as duly executed by ___(Judge name)___ and
in its original form (which is the original instrument
of indebtedness).
2. This process will not work with private
lenders because in most cases they can and will
produce the original instrument of indebtedness.
3. If you receive any communication from a
collection agency or lawyer representing the financial
institution, you should follow the concepts outlined
in the above letters but ONLY in direct
correspondence with the financial institution.
NEVER respond to a lawyer or collection agency
with anything other than the concept outlined in
Letter 4 that follows.

Letter Number 4:

For use with when terminating
communication from financial institution’s lawyer or
collection agent.

From: ____________________
Date: ____________________
To: ____________________
Re: ___(Credit Card, bank loan, mortgage,
etc.)
Account Number:___________

To Whom it may concern:

I confirm that I have received a written communication from you dated ___(date)___
wherein you make reference to the above captioned matter.
It is apparent that you are acting on the presumption that some relationship that you may
have with ___(name of bank)___ , is in some way related to me. I am not a party to this implied relationship you have with ___(name of bank)___, either directly, indirectly or by means of any tacit consent.
Accordingly, I do not understand how to respond to you inasmuch as I am unaware of any contractual relationship between us.
As a courtesy and because you may find it helpful, I have attached recent correspondence
between myself and ___(name of bank)___, wherein I have repeatedly offered to settle the mater between myself and ___(name of bank)___.

Sincerely,
___________________________
by: authorized party

c.c file

Letter Number 5:

Alternate for use with when terminating
communication from financial institution’s lawyer or
collection agent.

From: ____________________
Date: ____________________
To: ____________________
Re: ___(Credit Card, bank loan, mortgage,
etc.)
Account Number: __________

To Whom it may concern:

I confirm that I have received a written communication from you addressed to
_____________ and dated ____________ wherein you make reference to the above captioned matter.

It is apparent that either:
i) you are acting on the presumption that some relationship that you may have with
__(name of bank)__, is in some way related to me, which if such presumption is the case, I confirm that I am not a party to this implied relationship you have with __(name of bank)__, either directly, indirectly or by means of any tacit consent, and accordingly, I do
not understand how to respond to you inasmuch as I am unaware of any contractual relationship between us; or
ii) you have entered into a contractual relationship inclusive of evidence of consideration
paid to or agreed to be paid to __(name of bank)__, which contractual relationship has caused you to become the legal holder in due course of an alleged
obligation between ____________ and __(name of
bank)__.
If indeed you have entered into such a contractual relationship with __(name of bank)__, as set forth in clause ii) above, then I hereby confirm that I accept your offer to reduce the amount of the alleged obligation from $______ to $______; and I confirm that I would like to make arrangements for settlement of the above referenced matter immediately upon you providing me with your written and legally binding assurance that you will
accept payment in full settlement of this alleged obligation in direct and immediate exchange for the original instrument of indebtedness in its original
form that you must now be holding pursuant to the aforesaid contractual arrangement between you and __(name of bank)__.

Sincerely,

_____________________________________________
by: authorized party

NOTE: underlined portion in last paragraph
may be omitted if not applicable.

What is right and wrong DOES matter in life:
All the money in existence in our monetary systems has been borrowed at interest from a bank. When all currency in the system is borrowed at interest, there is NO MATHEMATICAL WAY to pay one penny of interest without pushing some people off the table via cancellation of their obligations to pay principal through bankruptcy, or through the kind of cancellation programs offered.
Reform must come from the side of dissatisfied customers, because the lenders have NO
motivation to move away from their current position of power and influence. If people who favour the customer over the lender are able to use the law to stimulate change, any imbalance created by giving people their real estate for free will best correct itself
through a change in banking laws and practice, NOT through perpetuation of the present system of GRAND THEFT of the entire wealth of society by the banking cartels.
Under the present system, someone HAS to get something for NOTHING. There is no other way.
Either the bankers continue to get interest payments for NOTHING at risk, or customers get free real estate after "borrowing" money that was created out of NOTHING and having the "loan" either canceled for fraud, or discharged in bankruptcy, or the lender
gets the real estate from the customer for NOTHING, following a foreclosure on the loan that was created out of NOTHING.
The answer is to stop basing bank lending on NOTHING.
The federal courts in Canada have stated that either the common man wake up and use the common law, the rights and freedoms available to him....or lose it for ever.
That is your choice.

quotting for prosperity - and because it took me ages to find the thread lol :D

ipso facto

01-09-2010, 02:31 PM

quotting for prosperity - and because it took me ages to find the thread lol :D

The following 5 letters have been successfully used by a great many people over the past few years to effectively deal with creditor difficulties. We make no representations to the effectiveness of this strategy and we strongly advise interested parties to seek independent professional or competent advise when utilizing such strategies.

I'm sorry but how can this information be credible when the disclaimer is actually a bloody lie. The bit I have highlighted in red says it has been used successfully - then (in blue) you are making no representations as to its effectiveness but above you said it was successful :eek::eek::eek: and then give them the advice to see independent professional advice (in orange) I would presume a solicitor - who they could have bloody seen in the first instance. BUT the information is still given quite freely which is totally irresponsible because SOME people will not seek independent professional advice - that is why they come here asking the goddamn question.

In fact, I think this is reportable and could get DI sued!!

ms hope

02-09-2010, 07:30 PM

There is some very interesting information on these websites that someone very kindly forwarded onto me, which may be of use.:)

http://famguardian.org/

http://www.jcapsasl.org/

visioner

07-09-2010, 10:26 PM

In the USA you can place a UCC1 lean against your self or someone you trust can do it for you. say $1,000,000.00 for services rendered.

Nothing can trump a UCC1 lean. NOTHING

You become what debt collectors call "judgment proof ".

really pisses them off.

Peace

Dan

merlincove

08-09-2010, 04:13 AM

why does that make you judgement proof Dan - can you give any further info?

:D

steven1

08-09-2010, 01:57 PM

UCC1 lean

Whats a lean???

You claim to know this to be a success , yet you cant even spell "lien".

:rolleyes:

he said it was brasso

08-09-2010, 04:59 PM

The following 5 letters have been successfully used by a great many people over the past few years to effectively deal with creditor difficulties. We make no representations to the effectiveness of this strategy and we strongly advise interested parties to seek independent professional or competent advise when utilizing such strategies.

I'm sorry but how can this information be credible when the disclaimer is actually a bloody lie. The bit I have highlighted in red says it has been used successfully - then (in blue) you are making no representations as to its effectiveness but above you said it was successful :eek::eek::eek: and then give them the advice to see independent professional advice (in orange) I would presume a solicitor - who they could have bloody seen in the first instance. BUT the information is still given quite freely which is totally irresponsible because SOME people will not seek independent professional advice - that is why they come here asking the goddamn question.

In fact, I think this is reportable and could get DI sued!!

Don't banks ask people to get legal advice on the understanding of a mortgage before signing them? Isn't it more sensible for this person to advise people not to just take their word for it but actually gain independent advice?

P.S. I advise you to seek independent advice if you wish to answer this

ms hope

16-09-2010, 12:19 AM

http://tnsradio.ning.com/

ipso facto

16-09-2010, 12:40 AM

Don't banks ask people to get legal advice on the understanding of a mortgage before signing them? Isn't it more sensible for this person to advise people not to just take their word for it but actually gain independent advice?

P.S. I advise you to seek independent advice if you wish to answer thisIt's standard practice to employ a solicitor when purchasing a property and you would be foolish if you didn't it's a huge undertaking. No one should sign on a dotted line for a loan of any sort unless they fully understand it, if they don't get advice - that is being responsible. Surely if you are mature enough to undertake such a commitment you are mature to take responsibility for your own actions and exercise due diligence (as Lennie would say). Isn't this what its all about - taking responsibility, not being nannied, not be told what to do? Come on, surely this premise of the FMOTL should apply to everything not just things you choose.

realview

30-09-2010, 04:50 PM

http://www.lawversuslegal.com/links/favorite-links

has a lot of useful links and general information related to sovereignty.

freedom from within

19-10-2010, 11:56 PM

Just came across this and thought it worthy of sharing very,very interesting.

http://issuu.com/darrellstuff/docs/blank_of_ireland____this_way_out_

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

love and light to all

http://issuu.com/darrellstuff/docs/blank_of_ireland____this_way_out_

Also the link above is the ebook The Blank of Ireland a very worthy read...
..
...
..
.
.
.

freedavep

20-10-2010, 04:38 AM

George Gordon is a worthwhile listen. Especially his Common Law series on pg. 55 of his radio library. There's probably a thousand hours on being a Common Law Freeman. Enjoy. http://library.georgegordon.com/audio

ktlight

07-11-2010, 02:39 PM

There is an extremely helpful site called http://one-heaven.org/. The approach is thorough and deeply researched.

Below is copied from Mary's site:

This is from Frank O’Collins, in Australia:
His websites are: http://one-heaven.org and http://ucadia.com

The history of the RC Church, the Pope, and Canon Law is fascinating.

Specifically, go to:

http://one-heaven.org/canons_positive_law/article_1330.htm

in order to write an Ecclesiastical Deed Poll for your particular situation.

It is time for people to stand up and stop being frightened.
We are not slaves, we are not damned, we are not condemned.
Each man and woman must make the choice to stop being fearful, to stop being sick, to stop their suffering.

We must give public notice about who we are.
When each of us does this, there IS a cure and remedy.

ktlight

08-11-2010, 05:27 PM

http://www.omega432.com/freeman.html

The above link should be studied. I am presenting it any senior member.

ktlight

24-11-2010, 11:00 AM

Can anyone explain what the actual process is to becoming a freeman? I have searched and searched and cannot find a list of things to do and the order in which they should be done anywhere.

yass

28-11-2010, 10:12 AM

The Tom Hyland Story

One Citizen's Quest to Travel Free and Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights and Now, Alert His Fellow Citizens into Awareness

http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/tom_hyland_story.html

micklemus

30-11-2010, 07:55 AM

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059467282&postcount=48

rumpelstilzchen

30-11-2010, 07:24 PM

yass

30-11-2010, 09:32 PM

Hyland's story has been debunked on this site a few months ago.

Oh really? Didn't know that. I wouldn't mind taking a look at that debunking. Got a link?

rumpelstilzchen

01-12-2010, 11:31 PM

Oh really? Didn't know that. I wouldn't mind taking a look at that debunking. Got a link?

It's here:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53371&page=20

If you read it through you will see the details of Hyland's subsequent court experiences.

yass

05-12-2010, 02:28 AM

It's here:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53371&page=20

If you read it through you will see the details of Hyland's subsequent court experiences.

Wow, I'm impressed.

OK. Hyland's cases are here:

http://www.nmcourts.gov/caselookup/app

You have to do a name search under Hyland Thomas and it lists the cases with all the details.

It appears that the reason one case was dismissed was because the prosecution failed to appear. Another instance the police failed to appear. But ultimately Hyland was threatened with jail and registered and insured his motor car.

So, it appears to be yet another non story.

skywalker42

07-12-2010, 05:53 PM

girlgye

29-12-2010, 03:26 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUq_pS7U-Hk

1st of all well done mate. I understand your nerves.

Word of caution. NEVER OPEN THE WINDOWS. Ever. Much as they like to hide it the common law still exists for these men and women and some know it some don't.

Speak through them, fine.

He says he isn't going to speak to him unless it is with a solicitor. That would be wrong because you then contract with your strawman and allow a public Equity servant to apply the Road Traffic Act. No solicitor not even Nick Freeman can negotiate the Road Traffic Act. You say no corporate govt has power of you and then give consent.

You try and ask a Solicitor to serve as a witness and see what happens. He/she won't. They will merely walk away from you as they have sworn an oath to allegiance to the Queen and given she has sworn an oath to uphold a PLC you can pretty much figure what the outcome of that is.

He has others if you want to look up his name. A vehicle, a name and a licence, is contract.

We are still at the stage where they are using thuggery by using the fact that they believe the Earth is Defacto and they have all rights to bully who ever walks upon the UK.

girlgye

29-12-2010, 03:45 PM

Thanks to new DIF member Gawp for his contribution on this.

Ex solicitor, of particular use to Aussies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aKBbEZciKk&feature=related

exford

31-12-2010, 01:09 AM

The 7 Arts of Freedom / Living in the Light of Value

http://peacerevolution.podomatic.com/entry/2010-12-30T13_35_24-08_00

girlgye

03-01-2011, 02:40 PM

If you should ever wane in your resolve watch this.

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/42875-david-icke-v-for-vendetta-speech-for-humanity-the-movie

Three star review. Watch anything by jay4Louise on Youtube.

girlgye

09-02-2011, 07:56 PM

Aw. I can't really believe this...

soooo proud. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mMrxn0OFNI

grndslm

14-02-2011, 12:09 AM

Recently, SuiJurisClub.net was taken down by "The Man", using a DDoS attack. The owner of the forum is nowhere to be found and the information is, at minimum, temporarily lost.

Before the host took is down for good, the attack let up enough for me to warn a few others I had an alternate site -- Freemen.Freeforums.org (http://freemen.freeforums.org).

Maybe you guys could bookmark it in case The Man comes attacking your site, and you need a backup form of communication??

We are geared toward Law & Economics on American soil, but as most of you know, these concepts are mostly universal... so ALL are welcome.

You should be able to search just about any forum that you find a "grndslm" on, and I should have Freemen.Freeforums.org (http://freemen.freeforums.org) linked in my signature, so you'll know it's not like I just created this name and forum to steal information on users. As I mention in the terms & conditions on my forum, no information is collected, and never would I turn that information over to anybody even if it was collected.

Now for the shameless plug...

Learn how to truly exercise your freedoms at... Freemen.Freeforums.org (http://freemen.freeforums.org)!

Common Law -vs- Statutes
Rights -vs- Privileges
Debt relief
Lawful Notices
Court process
Constitutional oaths
Who has the supreme power in a Constitutional Republic?
State Citizens -vs- U.S. Citizens
Are you a National? .. or an employee of THE UNITED STATES?
Do you need to have a legal name?
Do you need to have a SSN?
Do you need to carry Identification?
Don't you already have the Common Law "right" to travel, so why turn that right into a privilege by asking for a license?
Does the government issue licenses for unlawful activities?
Why would you register your automobile if you're not "in commerce"?
Do you truly own your property? Or did you register it?
Do you know what "to register", "to apply", and "to submit" actually mean??
Isn't "the Law" actually found in the Bible? ("love the Lord God & love your neighbor as yourself")
If a Statute is a rule of society, are you obliged to remain in a society?
Are there words lawyers use that confuse you or don't jive with common English?
Do you have the right to possess military weapons, or drugs, even?
(HINT: Your rights extend to where another man's nose begins.)
Does "the government" have authority over you, without your consent?
Does "the government" have its constituents' best interests in mind, or are they just trying to make a buck?

Learn the Truth at... Freemen.Freeforums.org (http://freemen.freeforums.org)!

Ask a question there and you're guaranteed to find an answer in no time.

Or if you have no questions, just browse the forum. The "Service Providers" (http://freemen.freeforums.org/service-providers-f22.html) sub-forum is my personal favorite for right now. If you want to take the Red Pill, then stop here first.

Think Free!

girlgye

07-03-2011, 11:16 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz2sVcWus9Y

The Mighty crew at Lawfulrebellion.org.

Peace.

girlgye

07-03-2011, 11:17 PM

angelthecat

15-03-2011, 11:53 PM

posted by moretell on ucadia site
According to Jean Keating when the bank sells and securitizes the loan it changes the contract into a security rendering the Deed Of Trust null & void
securitization_1011.pdf (http://university.ucadia.info/e107_files/public/1300227090_206_FT0_securitization_1011.pdf)

I have not read it yet so I am not making comment on its content but it looks interesting

vajradhatu

18-03-2011, 04:35 PM

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Freetheplanet.net/ (http://www.freetheplanet.net/). It's my first port of call for inspiration in terms of documents. The guy who writes the website knows his stuff.

girlgye

29-03-2011, 08:59 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAu4O8hOXX0

girlgye

14-04-2011, 09:58 PM

The Magnificent Deception
1..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzxMakuIjtE&playnext=1&list=...

2..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFn6lUsVJIo&feature=related
3..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba5G3VNI4P0&feature=related
4..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGHwN15sTbs&feature=related
5..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ror6tc1UX8&feature=related
6..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdqjpYvOfAk&feature=related
7..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y97Tv9B2cT0&feature=related
8..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBzgjBBm7zo&feature=related
9..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdp4sK4pqT8
10..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mVJYz6NLjc&feature=related
11..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzkteCxPRWA&feature=related
12..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS83iiQB65Y&feature=related

Bursting bubbles of government deception.
1..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3SLwp_2bHg
2..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bItL-DfdKGY&feature=related
3..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6zMaCEYWIc&feature=related
4..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m34BvGSahK0&feature=related
5..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg8Z0Pgu7zM&feature=related
6..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crF1qBrCVpQ&feature=related
7..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PayFjY4CQSE&feature=related
8..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2PcOI18gXw&feature=related
9..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2PcOI18gXw

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:01 PM

Your Human Rights and the Illusion ariainvictus.110mb.com
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3217921377956329335#

Robert Menard's YouTube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/mrmitee

The Anti Terrorist's YouTube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAntiTerrorist

World Freeman Society
http://www.worldfreemansociety.org

The Project for New, Natural, Autonomous Citizens
http://www.pnnac.org/

The world freman society
http://worldfreemansociety.org/Welcome+Page

Think Free, Be Free
http://www.thinkfree.ca/

The Cause of Effect
http://www.thecauseofeffect.com/

Hijacking Humanity
http://hijackinghumanity.com/

'The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude' by Etienne
de la Boetie
http://mises.org/rothbard/boetie.pdf
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=116

'How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash-Confiscatory Agency Known to Man'
by Mary Elizabeth: Croft
http://documents.scribd.com/docs/2cxlk5yn233zbqhpr9h7.pdf

Winston Shrout: Solutions in Commerce
http://www.winstonshroutsolutionsincommerce.com/

Common Law For Free & Sovereign Men and Women
http://www.reddit.com/r/CommonLaw/

Introduction to the Common Law Subreddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/CommonLaw/comments/7erku/introduction_overv...

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:03 PM

Commission - Bureaucracy AMOK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YGsGhrbn7c&feature=related

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:05 PM

Here is the archive for all of Sam Kennedy's shows for the year 2008
http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=archives.year&...

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:07 PM

Security of the Person:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=436798682226252164&ei=pS...

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:07 PM

Deceptions Demise - 'with lawful excuse':
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXbBYrAfjXo
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OqmwIL6jyU&feature=related
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8JuKQq2kzU&feature=related
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h_HV2vJfZk&feature=related
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcTa5qga2uk&feature=related

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:09 PM

Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class
1. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4944712480955285875

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:12 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1338165539518441611

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:13 PM

3. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1188997773661725985

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:14 PM

4. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5743392260531647132

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:17 PM

5. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5876221484028664477

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:18 PM

6. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5747171386852909946

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:19 PM

7. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4730862921455924966

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:20 PM

Winston Strout: talks about courts, law, the legal person, commerce, ect.
1. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4530677045081966522

girlgye

14-04-2011, 10:26 PM

With Lawful Excuse
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6487575410193274157

girlgye

01-05-2011, 10:52 PM

eeeh Dejavu. Does this remind me of somebody.

Top man our Daniel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ7qHQroDlo&feature=player_embedded

girlgye

01-05-2011, 10:58 PM

tinyint

01-05-2011, 11:09 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMfWYzQ9tdI&feature=related
Daniel again on the Census part 2.

Note the Terrorism crap laid on. pst mr European Security wanna be police nobby bobby, it's a public HOUSE.

Quoted to show.

He did excellent census calls. Very informing for non UK people as well.

They don't even ask us here, they simply ordered the house-owners to hand over data.

love_is_all

12-05-2011, 09:46 PM

I saw the heading of this subforum. Freeman like Gordon Freeman, right? I am coming with you Dr Freeman, you lead the way.

angelthecat

14-05-2011, 12:41 AM

THE LAW AND YOU By Bill Turner NZ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFykQwImGwM)

dont know if this is already posted but I put it here for genuine newbies

girlgye

07-06-2011, 05:12 PM

Why are all the links disappearing? :confused:

merlincove

07-06-2011, 09:42 PM

Why are all the links disappearing? :confused:

i see the links on page #18.....

it's a forum bug - vids etc sometimes do that.

if they vanish, simply use the refresh option - or quote them, they will show up in the quoted text.

girlgye

09-06-2011, 04:24 PM

I'll have to put the title on next time. I can't remember what I posted.

Veronica Chapman - THE GREAT DECEPTIONS ON spyTOOB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqh-0rQ9yNk&feature=related

Money's too tight to mention.

girlgye

30-06-2011, 01:23 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE-3AhfGnvw

Your Rights and How to enforce them by Dean Clifford

Just incase the link goes missing.
Please file those of you who know how to store youtube vids. As this is good for beginners.

girlgye

08-07-2011, 06:30 PM

TITLE OF YOUTUBE CLIP - SEASON OF TREASON - Mr Woodeye Channel. 1HR AND 50 mins long

U.S Constitutional History. How the person and banks set up the Federal Terrorities in the USA.

Can anyone tell me what bookstore this is and what state?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LxY_H5V0Kw&feature=feedf

Thanks to Ceylon for this. :)

afan

26-07-2011, 09:16 AM

http://sovereign-citizen-blog.blogspot.com

The sovereign citizen /Freeman on the land Blog

Are you a State Sovereign Free Man or A UNITED STATES CITIZEN? All of us are originally born a natural ‘sovereign free man.’ As soon as you sign the Social Security SS-5 form, you start your very own trust account in the Corporation of the UNITED STATES. This is where you officially separate yourself from your original status as sovereign born free man. :D

micklemus

26-09-2011, 10:57 AM

David – Andrew: of the family Bark's freeman council tax failure (http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/Christmas-prison/story-12658775-detail/story.html)

It is "Bark" isn't it and not something similar?