Admiralty Law

[cacadores]

'I refuse to be subject to statute, which is Admiralty Law. I am in a common law jurisdiction'

The mantra of the 'Freeman' myth.

So, wake up chaps, let's get the information out:

Admiralty law (also referred to as maritime law) is a distinct body of law which governs maritime activities, private entities which operate vessels on the oceans, marine commerce, marine navigation, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea.

Application of English Admiralty law:

It is a distinct body of law which governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of private international law governing the relationships between private entities which operate vessels on the oceans.

Application of American Maritime Law:

X. Classic Civil Law Principles Found in American Maritime Law

1) Shipowners' limitation of liability and abandonment

2) The attachment

3) Proportionate fault

4) The codification of maritime lien law

5) Maritime liens are rights

6) Wrongful death

7) Liens on cargo for demurrage without contract

8) Equity

9) Marine insurance

10) General average

11) Salvage

12) Maintenance and cure

XI. Classic Common Law Principles Found in American Maritime Law

1) The ship mortgage

2) The collision lien

3) Arrest in rem

4) No cure/no pay in salvage


Modern admiralty law is based upon the laws of Wisbey, the laws of the Hansa Towns, and the laws of Oleron. All refer to disputes with ships.

Historically, the American interest in Admiralty courts came about because the English Parliament passed a 'Stamp Act' to pay for the army, whereby certain goods imported by sea had to have a pre-paid stamp affixed to them. Because colonial juries became less likely to convict a colonist for not paying, the British parliament determined that trials be organised under Admiralty jurisdiction, where there was no trial by jury. Protests against this were one development in the American rebellion.

Now, even Admiralty courts have trial by jury. Admiralty courts in both countires have jurusdiction just over sea and ship matters only since March 18, 1766. If you want to know if you're looking at an Admiralty court, then look at the law it's practicing. If it's not using Admiralty law, then it's not an admiralty court.

'Legislation is Admiralty law'? Shall we see how many people fall for it?:eek:

[rob menard]

'I refuse to be subject to statute, which is Admiralty Law. I am in a common law jurisdiction'

The mantra of the 'Freeman' myth.

Actually, that is not our 'mantra' and I am not even aware of one. "Mantra" sounds like a catch phrase the ignorant use to be able to dismiss their opponents perspective without examination. It is the embrace of ignorance as a means of logic.

If you want to know what the closest thing to a mantra or mindset that describes the Freeman perspective it is this: 'I cannot be lawfully governed without my consent by another, as we are all equal.'

Based upon cacadores stated positions, it would seem he does not agree. But lets check.
Cacadores, do you agree or disagree with the statement:
'I cannot be lawfully governed without my consent by another, as we are all created equal.'
Simple yes or no cacadores. Do you claim the right to govern others without their consent?

Rob

[number_6]

'I cannot be lawfully governed without my consent by another, as we are all created equal.'
Rob

But, if that were true, even common law would have no jurisdiction over you.

[bsmurph83]

number 6; Common Law jurisdiction - where we (once we are of age) only answer to 'God' - is what we are born into. We are then deceived into admiralty - where we are FORCED and tricked into becoming subject to the statutes of the criminally insane and just plain stupid (Gov/international bankers).

If you're not under one jurisdiction, you'll be operating under another. it is a matter of choice ultimately. do you choose to be legally considered as a vassal of the State (statute/admiralty) and subject to its ludicrous endless taxes and controls, or do you choose to have a backbone and grasp your rights and responsibilities as a mature, thinking freeman-on-the-land, away from the control and interference of a government that seeks merely to enslave?

pay no mind to cacadores, his shallow and clearly uneducated comments would make a government disinfo agent proud. one wonders what cacadores is hoping to achieve here with this baseless hearsay and innuendo...

[bsmurph83]

'I refuse to be subject to statute, which is Admiralty Law. I am in a common law jurisdiction'

The mantra of the 'Freeman' myth.

So, wake up chaps, let's get the information out:

......

'Legislation is Admiralty law'? Shall we see how many people fall for it?:eek:

myth? what myth? Rob's question above it designed to test your basic knowledge of law, what is your answer, cacadores? your little list of admiralty tidbits is pretty much irrelevant. can you, or can you not answer Rob's question?

cacadores does not seem to be able to distinguish between different jurisdictions; i.e, the law of the seas (admiralty) and the law of the land (common law). cacadores appears to be under the jurisdiction of 'the law of the too lazy to actually research what common law is' or something similar perhaps.

he/she also does not demonstrate any knowledge of the LEGAL meanings of the terms he/she uses. they have red flagged their ignorance on this topic in a big way and I second Rob's sentiments above. cacadores, already I can see you becoming a quaint sideshow attraction here soon. noone will bother paying you any attention if you keep this up. correcting you or just observing your ignorance will only entertain people for so long. contribute something constructive, eh?

are you honestly unaware that consent to be governed by the corporations masquerading as governments under admiralty can be revoked? do you seriously believe the governments have the right to assert authority over a freeman on the land under common law who has completed the relevant paperwork? well? please do not post any more irrelevant lists eh? how about something that contributes to the general understanding of our rights under common law - the law that gives us standing ABOVE AND BEYOND the reach of the governments you appear to be so fond of.

finally, in what way exactly do the contents of your post here 'debunk' the freeman philosophy? 99% of it is irrelevant and the rest is just hearsay from what I can tell...

[number_6]

number 6; Common Law jurisdiction - where we (once we are of age) only answer to 'God' -
...

Well, I don't believe in a god.
My point is, that if you refuse to be governed, then any behaviour is possible, including murder. However in reality, there is no point because society will administer the justice it sees fit by force.
Why would you suggest that I pay no attention to cacadores? Am I not able to form an opinion myself who should obtain my attention? Or are people that put forward a contrary view considered not worthy?

[yozhik]

Well, I don't believe in a god.
My point is, that if you refuse to be governed, then any behaviour is possible, including murder. However in reality, there is no point because society will administer the justice it sees fit by force.
Why would you suggest that I pay no attention to cacadores? Am I not able to form an opinion myself who should obtain my attention? Or are people that put forward a contrary view considered not worthy?

number_6 ... you are basing your argument on a false premise.

All Freemen, or those that adhere to the Freeman ideology, believe and give their consent to be governed by Common Law; i.e. not to cause harm, injury or loss.

So, if you "refuse to be governed", as you assert, then your argument is not pertaining to a Freeman; you are referring to an anarchist.

A Freeman still subscries and belongs to a "society"; the Freeman Society, which has as its foundation a common belief and standing on Common Law. Respect. Peace.

So again, before you start blowing your "all dissenting views are cried down" bugle, please ensure your argument is relevant and on a solid foundation ... otherwise your usually top-notch contribution may risk becoming the same poor standard, meaningless tripe as Kakadores serves up. :D

[dharmic one]

What an interesting thread!!!! Whether they realise it or not, cacadores has highlighted much of the ignorance of many of the people who I share this island with. For it is an island cut off from the european land mass by the english channel. A small but significant body of water.

But, if that were true, even common law would have no jurisdiction over you.


Good question number 6.....

For me, this is where law becomes very very significant. Law and jurisprudence were not and never were a monopoly held by the rich or the dominant few. Over past centuries a body of law called the law of the land came into existence to differentiate between the merchant rules of the sea and the common man's interactions on land.

Law is not reserved as a power to be wielded only by those who have the guile and luck to be in a fortunate enough position to have it. For in the eyes of the law we are all equal.

Therefore a set of precedents has evolved from the C17th onwards where parliamentary sovereignty was accepted by the judiciary at the time of Cromwell in exchange for the acceptance of the need for recognition of the independence of the judiciary in england. This system, despite government attempts exists today if the people have the same will as those in Cromwell's day.

ie, it is for the satisfaction of the people that the courts were originally designed for and staffed by.

It is the application of a corporate legal statute structure that overlays all of these precedents that leads to much debate over jurisdiction.

A judge cannot act unless jurisdiction over "the defendant" is established. This is not automatically created, as many believe, by statute, government mandate or otherwise. For the identity of "the defendant" is never on the original claim in the court unless the claim is specifically raised by a man or woman against another. This is the common law. Almost all other cases are raised by corporate institutions settling disputes with other corporate bodies,

ie R V FORD

or

Ford V UK.


But to state that common law would not apply to me without my consent is to misunderstand the source of common law. It is not of the government it is of the people. It is well established by precedent and follows three main themes....

Do not harm others,

Do not steal from others,

Do not infringe on the rights of others.

would you argue against us all having god-given or natural birthrights?

Or that there exists no such thing as natural law?

Or that there is no basis for the common law in the natural law?

Or that this basis is no longer applicable because of the predominant use of statutes?

To sum this lengthy musing up....

I was born into england. A common law jurisdiction with an already well established law of the land already in place based mostly on the three above stated principles. If I am to be accepted by my peers as a man of honour and someone to be trusted, I will naturally follow the customs of the common man in my peerage - out of respect and a hope that I may live prosperously and honestly.

My natural tendency to be at peace with my common man is disrupted by my parents' registry of my birth with the government. From this point on a person is generated upon which falls the responsibility as a citizen to adhere to all of the laws on the statute book of the country in which the now operative legal fiction "resides".

Why would I choose not to consent to the law of the land/ common law? It is the proper law upon which the people of this land operate. Me refusing to consent to this is like me coming round to your house for tea and pissing on your bed because I refuse to follow the "customs" of your crazy toilet use. I could do this but I wouldn't be able to stay in your house for ver long would I?

When I come to your house I behave by your rules or you kick me out. Common law is the same.

So if I go round pissing on people's beds I'll be removed from the society. Just because the government now does this on your behalf so that you do not have to personally kick me out of the house (instead of the kings soldiers coming to protect the king's subjects), this does not derogate anything from the fact that the rule I broke in your house was your rule.

Because we're now all too terrified or weak or fearful to get together and protect our common local customs government steps in with a top down system of control that attempts through criminal law, which is still civil procedure by the way, via statutes that enforce a standard of behaviour over the masses.

To quote Slapper and Kelly in their book " The English legal system"...pg

"some judges at least, saw their role in maintaining the rule of law as providing protection for human rights. In attempting to achieve this end, they faced a particular problem in the way in which the unwritten english constitution was understood, and understood to operate.The freedom of individual action in English law was not based on ideas of positive human rights which could not be taken away, but on negative liberties: that is , individual subjects were entitled to do whatever was not forbidden by the law. This was particularly problematic when it was linked to the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, which, in effect, meant that Parliament was free to restrict, or indeed remove, individual liberties at any time merely by passing the necessary legislation"

Furthermore, would you confirm your view as to what democracy is? Is the idea at least not based on our ability to choose what sort of society we want to live in by choosing it's leader?

Are you prepared to state that we actually live in a dictatorship under which we have no choice but to obey the myriad statute laws for which ignorance is no excuse? Cos that sounds just like the roman empire to me........

[yozhik]

To quote Slapper and Kelly in their book " The English legal system"...pg

"some judges at least, saw their role in maintaining the rule of law as providing protection for human rights. In attempting to achieve this end, they faced a particular problem in the way in which the unwritten english constitution was understood, and understood to operate.The freedom of individual action in English law was not based on ideas of positive human rights which could not be taken away, but on negative liberties: that is , individual subjects were entitled to do whatever was not forbidden by the law. This was particularly problematic when it was linked to the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament, which, in effect, meant that Parliament was free to restrict, or indeed remove, individual liberties at any time merely by passing the necessary legislation"

Furthermore, would you confirm your view as to what democracy is? Is the idea at least not based on our ability to choose what sort of society we want to live in by choosing it's leader?

Are you prepared to state that we actually live in a dictatorship under which we have no choice but to obey the myriad statute laws for which ignorance is no excuse? Cos that sounds just like the roman empire to me........

Nice post dharmic one ... I particularly enjoyed the quote above :)

[chesterd]

It matters not which "law" you are being accused of breaking.Be it Admiralty,Trust,Commercial,Statute ect ect.The court will be using Lex Mercantorium or as it is known nowadays Mercantile Civil Law.Which came into being with Edward the First. Mercantile Civil Law was commonly referred to as STATUTE MERCHANT and that is Bond of Merchant or Bond of Record.Statutes themselves are Bonds.If you want to know what the law really is look for a book called Clerk's Praxis.The Clerk's Praxis was a clerk of the court for registrar "Arches Under the King's bench". The Court of Arches is a PROBATE court.
EVERYTHING going on in any court , be it murder, parking ticket anything, is being "pro se cuted" under Civil Mercantile Law (the law of money instruments).Nothing is "CRIMINAL" as all crimes have a monetary value.It's all CIVIL (a breach of contract).
if you can find either Clerk's Praxis or another book written on the same subject "Jurisdiction and Practice of the law of Admiralty" by John E Hall.

So in a nut shell EVERYTHING and EVERY LAW IS A CONTRACT OR RESULTING TRUST.IF YOU AGREE TO RE- PRESENT YOUR "STRAWMANIUS HOMO" YOU STAND AS SURETY FOR THE DEBT INCURRED BY THE BREACH OF CONTRACT WHICH YOU AGREED TO WITH YOUR AGREEMENT OR SILENT ACQUIESCENCE.

So Rob is 100% correct "no one can force you into a contract or trust be it Statute Law, Admiralty Law or any other kind of law"
Hence the Roman Maxim "consensus facit legem" CONSENT MAKES THE LAW.

Peace Chester

[chesterd]

One more interesting Maxim that seems to be applicable to our country as we have a myriad of so called laws is the following:
"corruptisima re publica plurimae leges".....which means "In the most corrupt state are the most laws"
kinda fitting I think.

Peace

[chesterd]

One more thing that I'm sure most here are aware of.Cacadores you are right in saying Admiralty law applies to vessels are you not aware that you have a vessel, that allows to to sail the seas of commerce? It's called your "person" or to give it it's latin name "Strawmanius Homo" which is berthed just like a ship when a Birth Certificate /ships manifest was issued.
The definition of which is....An irresponsible bondsman or surety.One made to appear as the owner of record (your body) who in fact holds title for another.
This "person" had to be created so the flesh and blood man/woman could operate in bankruptcy.The dead can't deal with the living or the real can't combine with the fictitious.
Oh the rabbit hole is deep and you won't see the light until all the rabbit poo is removed.:D
BANKRUPTCY I hear you say???? In the u.s of A HJR 192 June 5th 1933 in the UK Bill 277 the repealing of the Gold Standard Act Sept 21st 1931.
Peace Chester

[bsmurph83]

Well, I don't believe in a god.
My point is, that if you refuse to be governed, then any behaviour is possible, including murder. However in reality, there is no point because society will administer the justice it sees fit by force.
Why would you suggest that I pay no attention to cacadores? Am I not able to form an opinion myself who should obtain my attention? Or are people that put forward a contrary view considered not worthy?

Thanks to yozhik for the usual lucid input and for clarifying certain points.

Number 6! I don't "believe in a God" either. The term "God" in this context does not necessarily denote some kind of religious deity. Rather, it refers to who - or what - ever created the universe and caused us to be here. You can put a pantheistic spin on this, a materialistic-reductionist spin, a funda-christian spin, a mystical spin, and so on. 'God' = who or whatever the hell 'created' you and I. Now if that ain't suitably generic for us, then what on earth is?

The beauty of C.L. is that, in the heirarchy, after 'God', next in line is us! Within this framework/jurisdiction, we answer to noone but the 'creator'; not governments, not police or any other corporate entities. WE are in control of ourselves and take responsibility for ourselves rather than having the Government/nanny/big brother hold our hand and think our thoughts for us.

I mean really, who's business is it if, for instance, you want to get married for heaven's sake?! As if it is the government's business! Under admiralty, you need permission to do these things (like a child asks to go play outside), whereas, under C.L., you are not reduced to the legal status of a child and can choose to do these things or not do them as you see fit. You ARE an adult, are you not?

Don't make the mistake of equating Freemanism for Anarchism, they are worlds apart. The freeman seeks not to harm, nor take advantage of noone.

Yes, if you murder, there will be repercussions and consequences, under ANY jurisdiction. Were you planning on slaughtering anyone tonight? I didn't think so. Should you do so, you will suffer penalties and do time, like any other criminal. Do anarchists get away with murder? No? Would a freeman? No, but the point of freemanism is to try to hold to a minimum standard of hnour and decency. I don't think murder comes under these somehow. :)

Let me ask a question for any sceptics that may pass by:

How would you be put out by following these rules under C.L.:

1. harm noone
2. defraud noone
3. damage noone's property

I don't know about you, number 6, but I wouldn't find this much of an inconvenience. In fact, it's less of an inconvenience, because while you're going about your business as a freeman, you won't have to worry about breaking any rubbish statute laws that are basically just there to raise revenue to pay back the government's debt to the bankers. If you enjoy taxes and fines that go to paying back a debt that can never be repaid then be my guest. I don't, and the beautiful part is that I don't HAVE to. I can revoke consent to be governed, taxed, tolled, etc, etc...

As for cacadores, I don't mind if someone offers some kind of insight and thoughtful rebuttal, but the glib debunking type stance that he/she has taken is something I view dimly. I have learned nothing from their posts other than that they do NOT seem to have the slightest grasp on what freemanism or common law is. Referring sarcastically to longtime researchers and pioneers like Rob Menard as "gurus" (from another thread) is childish at best, and, frankly, worthy of nothing but contempt (or pity?) in my view. Put it this way, if you can make any sense of his/her posts in future, take it with a grain of salt. As for my posts; question everything, but don't argue mindlessly as part of a preconditioned reflex action merely to protect one's most cherished assumptions, like some people do (not necessarily you).

PS - what is this society you speak of? Does it have a name? :D

[bsmurph83]

to clarify any comments relating to murder (or any crime for that matter), see chester's posts. :D

[rob menard]

point of freemanism is to try to hold to a minimum standard of honour and decency

I would argue this point, claiming anyone can achieve the minimum. Our goals should be higher, and we should I feel strive for the highest standard of honour and decency. I would throw in dignity too, just for flavour and justice for texture. I am Rob, Freedom Chef!:D

[lizzy]

I would argue this point, claiming anyone can achieve the minimum. Our goals should be higher, and we should I feel strive for the highest standard of honour and decency. I would throw in dignity too, just for flavour and justice for texture. I am Rob, Freedom Chef!:D

Hi Rob, I have watched your presentations, the 'freeman of the land' is necessary and well overdue. It has made so many people think about themsleves ( and their children , as in shall I sign for my childs Nat. Insurance # ect. ) in a new way . I hope tptb will not quash this movement, I read that steps are already underway to forstall those who wish to claim this status in court. But I just had to post a reply here.....your answer was dead on.

Keep Cooking. :)

[chesterd]

I would argue this point, claiming anyone can achieve the minimum. Our goals should be higher, and we should I feel strive for the highest standard of honour and decency. I would throw in dignity too, just for flavour and justice for texture. I am Rob, Freedom Chef!:D

To quote Bill hicks......The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors and hide yourself away...The eyes of love however see everybody as one.
To me the whole point of being free is to see everyone as equal.If you start from that point why would you want to subject anyone to anything other than love and respect.Conduct yourself as you would like to be treated.
Peace:)

[dharmic one]

So Rob is 100% correct "no one can force you into a contract or trust be it Statute Law, Admiralty Law or any other kind of law"
Hence the Roman Maxim "consensus facit legem" CONSENT MAKES THE LAW.

Peace Chester[/QUOTE]

Really enjoying your posts!! I reckon you've nailed this thread on your own....it's all gone quiet over on the debunking side......

I would argue this point, claiming anyone can achieve the minimum. Our goals should be higher, and we should I feel strive for the highest standard of honour and decency. I would throw in dignity too, just for flavour and justice for texture. I am Rob, Freedom Chef!:D

I think Rob's accurate in describing the potential within all of us to help the cosmos unfold in a way that benefits each and every one of us. I'm trying to generate some interest in a very simple trading system that isn't centered around a lazy medium of exchange.

I'm trading my labour in the community in any way that can help my fellow beings, in a fair exchange system based on value - not debt. It's early days but the more people I talk to the more effective it seems. The key is trying to encourage people to think outside the box with regard to what they can trade. I am keen to donate my time to learn new skills to further my skill set that I can then use to generate more and more value per hour - as should be the privilege of anyone willing to contribute to their community with love and compassion rather than making profit and hoping the world just gets better.

It's time for me to put what I've learned into practise so I'm mad for all this info.....seems I can't absorb it fast enough!!!!!

Loving Rob's simple and to the point posts as usual!!!!

I also love the way that the psuedo debunking gig that some of these folks are peddling is being destroyed quicker and quicker these days......:D


a⋅poc⋅a⋅lypse –noun

1. (initial capital letter) revelation (def. 4).
2. any of a class of Jewish or Christian writings that appeared from about 200 b.c. to a.d. 350 and were assumed to make revelations of the ultimate divine purpose.
3. a prophetic revelation, esp. concerning a cataclysm in which the forces of good permanently triumph over the forces of evil.

1125–75; ME < LL apocalypsis < Gk apokálypsis revelation, equiv. to apokalýp(tein) to uncover, reveal (apo- apo- + kalýptein to cover, conceal) + -sis -sis

we can get off this ride any time we want and make a much better one!!

peace and love ......

[chesterd]

Btw not wanting to start a riot Common Law really isn't a Law so to speak.It is a CUSTOM hence it's not written down like Statutes.In saying that it is kinda customary not to KILL,STEAL or DAMAGE (unless you are a banker or MP).Everything else be it Statute,Trust or any other kind of Law is in fact a "USAGE". The word USAGE can be found in the Judge's Oath.
USAGE is the ruling of CONSENSUAL AGREEMENTS.
Peace :)

PS. Usages can be whats called "COLOURABLE" in other words they can lie and if you don't spot the lie or rebut it ,guess what??? they just screwed you.No wonder there are so many different types of law.
But hey it doesn't matter just know you are not a PERSON/VASSEL you are a living, breathing ,sentient being and you don't deal with fictions (MP's JP's PC's or any other title bearing buffoon).It's all a mind trick and when you see the deception the illusion disappears quicker than a file of H1N1 from a Baxter lab.

Peace Chester

[bsmurph83]

I would argue this point, claiming anyone can achieve the minimum. Our goals should be higher, and we should I feel strive for the highest standard of honour and decency. I would throw in dignity too, just for flavour and justice for texture. I am Rob, Freedom Chef!:D

hehe, ok, this is splitting hairs a bit methinks, as far as my overall post was concerned, Rob... I was trying not to crap on too much (fail.) and get my post done, but you're absolutely right. what little dignity humanity is afforded is rapidly ebbing away, and it makes me sick.

dignity. dig. :cool:

[foobar]

Excuse the stupid question, but there's still so much I don't understand about the Freeman movement. I've asked a similar question before, but the answers just left me confused and with more questions. First off, I'll state my understanding of the movement, and you guys can correct me where I've got it wrong.

i) Many statutes exist to allow an essentially parasitic class to feed off us economically, but most of the people involved in enforcing them don't realise this and are just trying to apply what they believe to be the law, in good faith.

ii) Statutes only apply to people who consent to it, by entering into a contract.

iii) Many current enforcement and judicial techniques actually involve trying to trick you into entering into contract. If you're careful with what you do and say, you can refuse to accept the contract and you are then only bound by common law. Common Law is what has been established by judicial precedent (with the final judgement resting with a jury of peers) over centuries and is generally simple and freedom-supporting in nature.

iv) Acting in a peaceful and honest manner, treating others as your peers, is all you generally need to do in order to obey Common Law. The complexity largely comes in when you have to be careful about how you reply to attempts to enforce statutes upon you so as not to accidentally enter into a contract.

Am I getting it so far ?

Here's what I don't understand at all:

What's making the parasitic class in question obey common law? How come refusing to contract with them doesn't just produce a forceful response which they then justify to the rest of the public by saying that you were comply with 'the law' (i.e. a statute which most of the rest of the population will just see as 'the law' ?)

Are recent instances of surveillance culture and brutality by certain police forces an indicator that this is already happening? That the parasitic class no longer feel bound to use sophistry to trick freemen into contract and are simply acting outside common law knowing that most people will not know the difference (and even be supportive, along the lines of 'I paid my automobile tax, why shouldn't that freeloader pay his? I'm not surprised he got jailed')

Thanks in advance for clearing up my confusion about this.

[yozhik]

What's making the parasitic class in question obey common law? How come refusing to contract with them doesn't just produce a forceful response which they then justify by saying that you refusing to comply with a statute (which most of the rest of the population will just see as 'the law' ?)


They don't; this is exactly what they do.

Imprisonment doesn't cause loss?
Being tasered doesn't cause injury?
Even being stopped and searched, for no reason, under the Anti-Terrorism Act, isn't a "loss" of rights?

Common Law is based on not causing harm, loss or injury.
Policy Enforcers break Common Law any time they enforce corporate policy upon us ... judges break Common Law any time they enforce a financial fine or judgement upon us due any form of statutory instrument.

Are recent instances of surveillance culture and brutality by certain police forces an indicator that this is already happening? That the parasitic class no longer feel bound to use sophistry to trick freemen into contract and are simply acting outside common law knowing that most people will not know the difference (and even be supportive, along the lines of 'I paid my automobile tax, why shouldn't that freeloader pay his? I'm not surprised he got jailed.

You answered your own question :)

[foobar]

They don't; this is exactly what they do.

Imprisonment doesn't cause loss?
Being tasered doesn't cause injury?
Even being stopped and searched, for no reason, under the Anti-Terrorism Act, isn't a "loss" of rights?

Common Law is based on not causing harm, loss or injury.
Policy Enforcers break Common Law any time they enforce corporate policy upon us ... judges break Common Law any time they enforce a financial fine or judgement upon us due any form of statutory instrument.

Well, that's what I thought. So the thing I'm confused about is how some freemen are managing to make this work by carefully avoiding entering a contract, and it certainly seems that they are.

Is it just that some judges still respect the common law (once properly invoked) and some don't?

[john white]

View Post
'I cannot be lawfully governed without my consent by another, as we are all created equal.'
Rob
But, if that were true, even common law would have no jurisdiction over you. But, if that were true, even common law would have no jurisdiction over you.

Absolutely false

Common Law deals with resolving harm... consent to be governed is not dependant on the individual causing harm in order to be governed

Absolutely a free human has to be able to say no to be free. However if a free human causes harm to another, they are removing freedom from another, and common law then applies

[dharmic one]

ii) Statutes only apply to people who consent to it, by entering into a contract.


I would like to suggest you look at John Harris's work on lawful rebellion, he suggests that enforcement officers are trained to react to violence. They will try to trick or harass or attempt to entangle you any way they can in THEIR SYSTEM. Their entire system focuses on the existence of a PERSON. Something that exists in form only, not substance. If you use their language to describe who you are they will waste no time in establishing their authority, be it through trickery, deceit or brute force. On the street, in writing or "in person" at court.

I would never encourage anyone to fight the police. As peace cannot be achieved through these means.

But what you can attempt to do is disarm them by being polite, peaceful and respectful. Establish the presence yourself of a police man/woman - the human being with family and people that love them who are there to keep the peace and uphold the common laws and customs of the people of this land sworn in their oath to the queen who swears her oath to us.

Know who you are and what your rights are and CLAIM AND PROPERLY ESTABLISH THEM CLEARLY SPECIFICALLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY as soon as you feel able to articulate what you have learned to them.

Learn as much as you can with your own eyes and get your head around the fact that no one should be able to tell you what to do without your consent

I see it as an endless game of chess and the only way to get better is by playing a smarter opponent........:D

[number_6]

Absolutely false

Common Law deals with resolving harm... consent to be governed is not dependant on the individual causing harm in order to be governed

Absolutely a free human has to be able to say no to be free. However if a free human causes harm to another, they are removing freedom from another, and common law then applies

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My point is about the question of consent to be governed. What if I, number_6, choose not to give consent to be governed by statutes and I do not consent to be governed by common law, or is it suggested that I have no choice about the latter?

[john white]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My point is about the question of consent to be governed. What if I, number_6, choose not to give consent to be governed by statutes and I do not consent to be governed by common law, or is it suggested that I have no choice about the latter?

Neither statutes or common law govern anyone

Human's govern, not pieces of paper

But statutes absolutely require the consent of the governed, as does any form of government itself if it is not tyranny

You deny this?

If so your entire presence on this forum consists of nothing more than an expression of "you are enslaved, accept it"

Meanwhile common law provides the judgement of one's peers: and statutes are not involved in that

Now you may wish to assert you can do whatever you like with no concern or consideration for anyone around you,but I feel it likely that it would merely be a foolish and contrary frippery simply for the purpose of "debate", for the reality is: just try it, see how far you get

[number_6]

Now you may wish to assert you can do whatever you like with no concern or consideration for anyone around you,but I feel it likely that it would merely be a foolish and contrary frippery simply for the purpose of "debate", for the reality is: just try it, see how far you get

I feel that I really cannot be expressing myself clearly. When you say "see how far you get" this is exactly my point. To operate under stautory law it is considered here that consent by the individual is necessarry for statutes to apply, you give no consent, then the statutes are meaningless. My argument is that if all that is required to prevent any action against an individual is their consent to be governed is not given, then any behaviour would be possible. But in reality it will not work. Just because I withdraw my consent to be governed by another the "see how far you get" scenario would soon kick into action. I feel that the concept of "given the force of law by consent" needs to be scrutinised more carefully than has been done here. My understanding of it does not mean that an individual may opt out of statutes that they themselves choose without the consent of all.

[oghene]

I feel that I really cannot be expressing myself clearly. When you say "see how far you get" this is exactly my point. To operate under stautory law it is considered here that consent by the individual is necessarry for statutes to apply, you give no consent, then the statutes are meaningless. My argument is that if all that is required to prevent any action against an individual is their consent to be governed is not given, then any behaviour would be possible. But in reality it will not work. Just because I withdraw my consent to be governed by another the "see how far you get" scenario would soon kick into action. I feel that the concept of "given the force of law by consent" needs to be scrutinised more carefully than has been done here. My understanding of it does not mean that an individual may opt out of statutes that they themselves choose without the consent of all.

Are we sure this consent/contract is not between the govt who proposes the bill and the members of parliament who are our representatives that accept the bill and sign on the behalf of their constituents.

[john white]

I feel that I really cannot be expressing myself clearly. When you say "see how far you get" this is exactly my point. To operate under stautory law it is considered here that consent by the individual is necessarry for statutes to apply, you give no consent, then the statutes are meaningless. My argument is that if all that is required to prevent any action against an individual is their consent to be governed is not given, then any behaviour would be possible. But in reality it will not work. Just because I withdraw my consent to be governed by another the "see how far you get" scenario would soon kick into action. I feel that the concept of "given the force of law by consent" needs to be scrutinised more carefully than has been done here. My understanding of it does not mean that an individual may opt out of statutes that they themselves choose without the consent of all.

Yes,your having trouble because you don't understand the difference between the person and the human,and therefore don't understand the difference between legal fiction and lawful conduct in reality

Furthermore, you are apparently unable to comprehend the importance of being able to say no in order to be considered free and not enslaved... or to understand that the ability to be free and able to say yes or to say no is independent entirely of the consequences of doing harm to others

However your lack of comprehension doesn't directly impact on anyone else's potential to comprehend, so is simply your personal problem to work with

Good luck with that

[number_6]

Yes,your having trouble because you don't understand the difference between the person and the human,and therefore don't understand the difference between legal fiction and lawful conduct in reality

Furthermore, you are apparently unable to comprehend the importance of being able to say no in order to be considered free and not enslaved... or to understand that the ability to be free and able to say yes or to say no is independent entirely of the consequences of doing harm to others

However your lack of comprehension doesn't directly impact on anyone else's potential to comprehend, so is simply your personal problem to work with

Good luck with that

So, you have completely ignored everything I have said, and given the stock reply here implying that I misunderstand everything and have a lot of learning to do. I can read that on almost every FOL thread.

[1694]

I have explained this so many times.

NONE of what you call LAWs are laws. They are rules, given force of law, or the so called rule of law.

Laws cannot be broken. You will find them in physics books, or the law of nature, law of the jungle etc.

A lion is goverened by law, it has no "rules" to govern its behavior it is bound only by what it can and cant do.

So if you start giving it the "its unlawful" you will quite quickly find out what "Force of law" actually means.

There is no inside way out.

You have no inalianble rights, you have no rights, only privilidges granted to you that can be withdrawn.

The authority over you was not given, it was taken.

The US government regularly violates its constitution, why? because the constitutiion in itself is a piece of paper, a statute, it has no force of law unless people consent to it. The unconsenting on the other hand have co opted the force of the state aperature to enforce their rules, and their rules are either consented to, or enforced by the enforcers.

I turn up from time to time to bang my head on this seemingly very dense stone wall, but the one thing we can all take away from this is.....Beware those SELLING what you want to here.

[yozhik]

I have explained this so many times.


You have no inalianble rights, you have no rights, only privilidges granted to you that can be withdrawn.

The authority over you was not given, it was taken.



Excuse me???

So you assert and believe that a man has no unalienable rights?
That a man is only given benefits and privileges, that another man has the authority to give and take?

Is this your standing?

[1694]

Excuse me???

So you assert and believe that a man has no unalienable rights?
That a man is only given benefits and privileges, that another man has the authority to give and take?

Is this your standing?

That is not my standing that is the way it is.....if it wasnt we wouldnt be here would we, everything would be fine.

Also you dont have me quite right, I dont believe another man has the authority to give and take, another man who takes then has the authority to give.

Yes you have no unalienable rights, if you did then those rights wouldnt be violated and we wouldnt have a problem.

Your looking at it all backwards, how does the legal system give you rights? Did you invent the legal system, do you enforce the legal system? No it is an abstract you were born blindly into. So you have not given yourself any rights, where have they come from...a legal system someone else created,.....ipso facto they (another man) gave you any rights you do have, and thus they are a privilidge they can withdraw.

[yozhik]

That is not my standing that is the way it is.....if it wasnt we wouldnt be here would we, everything would be fine.

Also you dont have me quite right, I dont believe another man has the authority to give and take, another man who takes then has the authority to give.

Yes you have no unalienable rights, if you did then those rights wouldnt be violated and we wouldnt have a problem.

Your looking at it all backwards, how does the legal system give you rights? Did you invent the legal system, do you enforce the legal system? No it is an abstract you were born blindly into. So you have not given yourself any rights, where have they come from...a legal system someone else created,.....ipso facto they (another man) gave you any rights you do have, and thus they are a privilidge they can withdraw.

I disagree with everything you have stated as your truth.
However, do not have the strength to go over old ground with you, nor to repeat all posts I have already authored on this forum.

This is your opinion and your truth.
It most definitely is not mine; not in any way, shape or form.

The fact that the "unalienable rights of man" is an internationally accepted truth, speaks volumes.
Or ... your truth is superior to the International Conventions of man, around the globe.

Maybe you would like to rewrite The Hague Convention, Human Rights and all other International treaties and conventions that recognise the "unalienable rights of man"?

[vladmir]

I am loving the responses in this thread!
I just let the sentences marinate in my mind, and i get high!
oh what a feeling!!:D

[rjl9332]

scenario would soon kick into action. I feel that the concept of "given the force of law by consent" needs to be scrutinised more carefully than has been done here.

No Problem. Look at this http://www.tpuc.org/content/closer-look-statutes-1

Work by Matt White to show where the definition used at the minute actually comes from.

And my two cents on this thread? It is excellent. I wish to make a contribution. 1) Anyone attempting to live life as a 'Freeman' will encounter difficulties, because there are quite a few things in place upon realisation that you wish to be a Freeman, and I speak of a registered Car / House /Children / You, that will make your life a challenge from the get go. Why? Because it is assumed that you are a citizen that you are your person, that you are subject to every single bullshit 'law' that gets spewed out, and those in 'authority' are hounding their own sub-ordinates to forget their own sense of right and wrong and make that f*ing arrest / PCN STICK DAMMIT!!

Even proceeding to the commercial realms sat over and above statute 'law' is proving to be of little impact as the boys on the street and in the government agencies have no f*ing clue what you are up to. I am of the belief that there are few if any remedies to be achieved by submitting paperwork. It has taken me about a year of living life as a 'Freeman' to know that I am a man, and when it comes down to it the only way to deal with the breathtaking lawlessness displayed by our corporate authorities that we are living under is to say NO. We will not go along. However, you must be prepared, as many will say, to lose everything.

The equation as I see it comes down to how desperate the people get before they will realise that Ghandis / Harris (I never thought I would mention those two in the same breath) and those who demonstrate peaceful resistance is the only way to go. I respect the paper warriors' work, it has been enlightening and inspiring. But it does not stop the ignorant tyranny of modern day 'law enforcement'.

Peace to all.

[oghene]

No Problem. Look at this http://www.tpuc.org/content/closer-look-statutes-1

Work by Matt White to show where the definition used at the minute actually comes from.

And my two cents on this thread? It is excellent. I wish to make a contribution. 1) Anyone attempting to live life as a 'Freeman' will encounter difficulties, because there are quite a few things in place upon realisation that you wish to be a Freeman, and I speak of a registered Car / House /Children / You, that will make your life a challenge from the get go. Why? Because it is assumed that you are a citizen that you are your person, that you are subject to every single bullshit 'law' that gets spewed out, and those in 'authority' are hounding their own sub-ordinates to forget their own sense of right and wrong and make that f*ing arrest / PCN STICK DAMMIT!!

Even proceeding to the commercial realms sat over and above statute 'law' is proving to be of little impact as the boys on the street and in the government agencies have no f*ing clue what you are up to. I am of the belief that there are few if any remedies to be achieved by submitting paperwork. It has taken me about a year of living life as a 'Freeman' to know that I am a man, and when it comes down to it the only way to deal with the breathtaking lawlessness displayed by our corporate authorities that we are living under is to say NO. We will not go along. However, you must be prepared, as many will say, to lose everything.

The equation as I see it comes down to how desperate the people get before they will realise that Ghandis / Harris (I never thought I would mention those two in the same breath) and those who demonstrate peaceful resistance is the only way to go. I respect the paper warriors' work, it has been enlightening and inspiring. But it does not stop the ignorant tyranny of modern day 'law enforcement'.

Peace to all.


The we must break all assumptions/presumptions.

Number 1

Is there any act or statute that orders a man to have a name?
If there is no obligation to have a name, why do these enforcement officers assume a man has a name.

I bet we could all think of assumptions/presumptions they make, and once we learn to rebut those assumptions/presumptions then the foundation of their chicanery fades away.

Number 2

We are all constituents.
CONSTITUENT. He who gives authority to another to act for him. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 893.
     2. The constituent is bound with whatever his attorney does by virtue of his authority. The electors of a member of the legislature are his constituents, to whom he is responsible for his legislative acts.

Are you a CONSTITUENT or a Freeman/Woman?

[bsmurph83]

good post, oghene. we have unwittingly consented to the authority of the State and our so-called representatives. to rise above it we need merely claim our understanding and intent to live free of statutory obligations as freemen on the land. (we also gotta learn to walk the walk)

number 6, can I ask for clarification on something?

earlier in the thread you said, "My understanding of it does not mean that an individual may opt out of statutes that they themselves choose without the consent of all."

I don't understand what you mean here... Are you saying that we all have to deny consent to be governed by statutes as a whole for it to be considered valid or for it to work? I don't think I quite get what you're asking here... cheers

[signalnorth]

It comes down to this does it not?

I don't remember signing up for any rules or laws and I wasn't a party to making them.

[bsmurph83]

It comes down to this does it not?

I don't remember signing up for any rules or laws and I wasn't a party to making them.

well yeh, technically, we AREN'T contracted to the State because we never WILLINGLY consented or entered into any agreement. Conscious consent is a requisite of a valid contract, so really, the system largely gets by on the APPEARANCE of legality, whilst of course trying to keep us ignorant of wee topics like Common Law...

[rjl9332]

good post, oghene. we have unwittingly consented to the authority of the State and our so-called representatives. to rise above it we need merely claim our understanding and intent to live free of statutory obligations as freemen on the land. (we also gotta learn to walk the walk)

Whoah whoah whoah

I have just said quite clearly that paper work, notices, etc doesn't work. At least not in my experience! I am in close contact with a number of guys who are more advanced than me with their commercial processes also and they are still getting shat on! Commercial Law is higher than statute - does anyone rebut that? It is private law, whereas Statute is part of public policy. So, when we go about 'breaking presumptions', whose are we breaking? It seems not those of the goons who will actually throw you in a cell for a few nights, or the big bad bailiffs from the sheriffs office. 1694 may be a gruff asshole but he has a point. The pricks on the street know NOT of what you say in paperwork - know this. Integrate it with your overall demeanor because they are the danger. Don't go about shouting 'claim of right' 'common law jurisdiction' etc etc. It's not bullshit, far from it, HOWEVER to those goons out there who dont know the LAW, It is!
As I said guys, talk to these people like a man, identify the common ground, be still in your own heart and don't rely on paperwork because it does not apply to real life. Geddit?

[dharmic one]

Even proceeding to the commercial realms sat over and above statute 'law' is proving to be of little impact as the boys on the street and in the government agencies have no f*ing clue what you are up to. I am of the belief that there are few if any remedies to be achieved by submitting paperwork. It has taken me about a year of living life as a 'Freeman' to know that I am a man, and when it comes down to it the only way to deal with the breathtaking lawlessness displayed by our corporate authorities that we are living under is to say NO. We will not go along. However, you must be prepared, as many will say, to lose everything.

The equation as I see it comes down to how desperate the people get before they will realise that Ghandis / Harris (I never thought I would mention those two in the same breath) and those who demonstrate peaceful resistance is the only way to go. I respect the paper warriors' work, it has been enlightening and inspiring. But it does not stop the ignorant tyranny of modern day 'law enforcement'.

Peace to all.

I agree with many if these views you have posted. Peaceful resistance is the only way that I believe anything of true value to us as people can be achieved. I agree that we must be prepared to lose many things that we see at the moment as valuable - e.g our "property" or even our freedom temporarily. But though I am prepared to lose everything I feel that this empowers me as the people who are willing to give up the most in the name of peace generally achieve more than the people fighting for it. In being so prepared I believe we all have the chance to do the opposite - gain something that is more valuable than any commodity or ego driven desire -
our freedom. It is also good to remember that while you may not see the value in the paperwork side of things, pleasuredome's success with the DVLA and many others have had some real results with this understanding, but the key is that they have submitted the paperwork, as has John Harris with his Affidavit.

That is not my standing that is the way it is.....if it wasnt we wouldnt be here would we, everything would be fine.

Also you dont have me quite right, I dont believe another man has the authority to give and take, another man who takes then has the authority to give.

Yes you have no unalienable rights, if you did then those rights wouldnt be violated and we wouldnt have a problem.

Your looking at it all backwards, how does the legal system give you rights? Did you invent the legal system, do you enforce the legal system? No it is an abstract you were born blindly into. So you have not given yourself any rights, where have they come from...a legal system someone else created,.....ipso facto they (another man) gave you any rights you do have, and thus they are a privilidge they can withdraw.

I can empathise with some of 1694's frustration here as there are many things that go amiss on these threads re definitions and misconstrued points of view. I agree with your stance that obscene tyranny in effect is what governs the country, force, while universally condemned in all so called civilised societies is used daily around the world by the elite to control the masses. I think you are correct in stating that that is the way it is. But I feel that view only holds from the perspective of a subject of a realm. When you act upon your understanding and no-one lawfully refutes this, any violence you do encounter at the hands of these people can be countered by the fee schedule should you wish to pursue it. Obviously, the more we all do to counter these actions by the state the better....

I found this statement intriguing..."Also you dont have me quite right, I dont believe another man has the authority to give and take, another man who takes then has the authority to give."

Though I believe this to be an accurate statement in the context of the status quo, i think the finality of many of your statements fail to take into account what my position would be should I take back the responsibility for my life and effectively sack the nanny government that controls my life at this stage. For then it will be I who has the power to give, as I do at the moment with my acquiescence with the status quo ( as assumed by the state that is - which at the moment is binding)

The man who takes without consent is a thief. His actions can never be in my view justifiable or honourable. This is the very tyranny many speak of and it is an age old battle between the people and the state. This is the foundation of the seeking of freedom. We do not as many assert just have to bow to their will. For if it were true any attempt at freedom you make is therefore futile making any claim of such an attempt at freedom whilst simultaneously stating that none of us have any choice but to bow in subservience would be an oxymoron.

Also, you stated "Yes you have no unalienable rights, if you did then those rights wouldnt be violated and we wouldnt have a problem."

Again I cannot fault the factual basis of your statement, except to say that none who are registered births in this country have inalienable rights. I believe none of us are in opposition of this point. But the Freeman perspective is about properly claiming and establishing those rights clearly and unequivocally in law.

to quote Chesterd earlier in the thread, post #10....."consensus facit legem" CONSENT MAKES THE LAW.



I have explained this so many times.

NONE of what you call LAWs are laws. They are rules, given force of law, or the so called rule of law.

Laws cannot be broken. You will find them in physics books, or the law of nature, law of the jungle etc.

A lion is goverened by law, it has no "rules" to govern its behavior it is bound only by what it can and cant do.

So if you start giving it the "its unlawful" you will quite quickly find out what "Force of law" actually means.

There is no inside way out.

You have no inalianble rights, you have no rights, only privilidges granted to you that can be withdrawn.

The authority over you was not given, it was taken.

The US government regularly violates its constitution, why? because the constitutiion in itself is a piece of paper, a statute, it has no force of law unless people consent to it. The unconsenting on the other hand have co opted the force of the state aperature to enforce their rules, and their rules are either consented to, or enforced by the enforcers.

I turn up from time to time to bang my head on this seemingly very dense stone wall, but the one thing we can all take away from this is.....Beware those SELLING what you want to here.

When you state that "NONE of what you call LAWs are laws. They are rules, given force of law, or the so called rule of law.", I feel I must ask what your interpretation of the actually quite ambiguous term "rule of law" actually is?

Are you equating the term "force of law" with the term "rule of law"? as in my experience these are two very different things. I feel you are actually trivialising the actual legal definitions of these statutes or rules to suit your objective in denouncing some of the ideas shared here without examination. Out of context your statement rings true, yet when viewed in the legal context of the language you are using I feel that your statement does not stand to reason.

"So if you start giving it the "its unlawful" you will quite quickly find out what "Force of law" actually means."

I sense frustration here that I empathise with as you insist that force will ultimately always win the day. This idea, if I am correct in my observation, is based in fear and is actually quite naive. We outnumber these guys considerably, co-ordinated peaceful non-cooperation and resistance can and will achieve more than most people ever give it credit.

Would you therefore be prepared to state that claiming something to be "unlawful" is not and will not be recognised as valid language in court or by the authorities? I agree that it is possible yet I have not heard of someone follow the process only to be permanently ignored and forced to cooperate. (see pleasuredome's result with the DVLA) For all the trouble he is causing the canadian authorities, Rob Menard remains a free man. Mark Pytellek, though having been through some bad experiences, remains a freeman in Australia I believe. So it's not all doom and gloom my man!!!!

"You have no inalianble rights, you have no rights, only privilidges granted to you that can be withdrawn."

Again I believe that this is based on the assumption that the being you are addressing holds a notional insurance number based in the registry of their birth. Again this would not aplly if the process had not been begun by the being's parents, effectively nullifying any claim to rights the being may wish to make so long as they are still a vassal of the state.

The only thing to counter this argument would be to assert that at no stage is it possible to revoke consent to be governed by such agencies of the state. I do not believe this is true. For the only information I have heard that reinforces this view is opinion.


I feel that I really cannot be expressing myself clearly. When you say "see how far you get" this is exactly my point. To operate under stautory law it is considered here that consent by the individual is necessarry for statutes to apply, you give no consent, then the statutes are meaningless. My argument is that if all that is required to prevent any action against an individual is their consent to be governed is not given, then any behaviour would be possible. But in reality it will not work. Just because I withdraw my consent to be governed by another the "see how far you get" scenario would soon kick into action.

I feel that there is a certain amount of confusion here. i must point out that number 6's assertion that I have emboldened has been present in more than one of their posts and I feel it is important to the debate.

Whichever behaviour is "possible" under whichever system you view yourself as living in is countered and controlled in the present system of Statutes by a top down system of control based on negative liberties: the individual is allowed to do whatever is not forbidden by the law.

This is not a system based in genuine freedom. The ruling class of elite still make the laws - the Statute law that is. It is also not a system that is overwhelmingly effective, for as 1694 states, if it was we wouldn't really be having this discussion....but to quote Chesterd again from post #11

"["corruptisima re publica plurimae leges".....which means "In the most corrupt state are the most laws"]"

Put simply, all negative or destructive behaviour is possible under both the statutory system and the freeman perspective, in fact all systems of law or government everywhere. No statute or perspective ultimately guarantees you protection from anyone meaning to harm or mislead or defraud you - only you can do this!!!!!

But possible does not mean probable or certain. The beauty of the freeman perspective is that the empowerment of the individual and the education about the self will ultimately lead not to endless war and greed as the status quo does but in fact the opposite. Where each and every one of us has the opportunity to say NO and replace the status quo peacefully with a system based in very simple principles and dejure not de facto justice. Individual responsibility and accountability with honour, instead of the cesspit of a society that limited liability is the very foundation of at the moment. In this system the higher the crime, the easier it is to perpetrate with impunity if you own and control the entire system, or have the right friends.......

This is what the freeman perspective changes, and none of it will make sense until we are prepared to shift our point of view from the idea that the government or any government are benefactors of humanity ( as they have lead us to believe) to the point of view that they are in fact taking us all on a very long and painful ride. If it is your assertion that us all stepping of the ride of our own free will will ensure chaos, then you are no closer in your journey away from the fear of the ego and towards bliss and peace in your life.

I wish you all all the best,

Peace and love to all my brothers and sisters of the world.......

[bsmurph83]

Whoah whoah whoah

I have just said quite clearly that paper work, notices, etc doesn't work. At least not in my experience! I am in close contact with a number of guys who are more advanced than me with their commercial processes also and they are still getting shat on! Commercial Law is higher than statute - does anyone rebut that? It is private law, whereas Statute is part of public policy. So, when we go about 'breaking presumptions', whose are we breaking? It seems not those of the goons who will actually throw you in a cell for a few nights, or the big bad bailiffs from the sheriffs office. 1694 may be a gruff asshole but he has a point. The pricks on the street know NOT of what you say in paperwork - know this. Integrate it with your overall demeanor because they are the danger. Don't go about shouting 'claim of right' 'common law jurisdiction' etc etc. It's not bullshit, far from it, HOWEVER to those goons out there who dont know the LAW, It is!
As I said guys, talk to these people like a man, identify the common ground, be still in your own heart and don't rely on paperwork because it does not apply to real life. Geddit?

I actually agree with a lot of what you say here, rjl. I don't agree with the part about the paperwork not applying to real life though. in fact, it would be stupid to attempt the 'freeman way' without the supporting paperwork, so that said goons can actually see it with their own eyes and know you are serious about suing the living daylights out of them if they screw with you. yeh, there are guys more expert getting shat on and thrown in jail (pytellek for 11 days for instance), but getting the goons and thugs to recognise the validity of what we are doing AS WELL AS the supporting paperwork is a process that will not be easy.

then there is the small issue of enforcing one's fee schedule and suing said goons for damages so the precedent is set and they know what they can and can't get away with. this also will not happen easily. all of this is a process and I wouldn't advise doing anything without supporting paperwork.

a cop is less likely to issue you a fine on the road, for instance, if you can actually present him a copy of your Copyright Notice/Agreement (whatever it's properly called) that states in plain English that it will cost him $500 grand for writing your name on a ticket, thus violating your copyright. I wouldn't go making absolute statements like 'paperwork' doesn't apply to real life because it absolutely does. and YES, we ARE breaking the goons' presumptions, that's one significant part of the whole process. Why would you choose to NOT make the effort to do that?

for sure, I agree it won't work every time, but it's a process of educating them. not all cops/bailiffs, etc, etc are thugs, some are happy to talk and learn a thing or two. others aren't. real life is a combination of all the above. the available evidence gathered so far illuminates that quite clearly.

I understand where 1694 is coming from, it's a cynical, pragmatic sort of place wherein he/she observes that brute force has a tendency to override law and decency. noone here will argue that, and certainly not me, but it is my belief that the effort is well worth making.

I SHUDDER TO THINK WHAT MAY EVENTUATE IF WE DON'T. it would be irresponsible NOT to try at all, or even to try this without the supporting paperwork. further discussion/clarification welcome here as far as I'm concerned :)

[rjl9332]

Further discussion I agree with!

My absolute standing (at the minute):

Whatever paperwork you've done if/when you get approached by the goons means nought. It may mean something after the fact, hence my suggestion to be prepared to lose your freedom temporarily and frequently thereafter if you intend to seek remedy.

Claim of right / liens / estoppel / copyright on your name are great and worthy of your own individual pursuance if you feel its right for you. But, none of them, absolutely none, will stop you being carted away if that is what the powers that be have decided. Hence, Ghandi was right and achieved a billion times more than any 'Freeman' ever has so far. I am not detracting from the actions of 'Freemen', I wish them every success because I want out of this ignorant tyranny just like everyone else. Only peace will do now.

[micklemus]

And a post I agree with.

Very much with your sentiments rjl9332, which is one of the reasons why I rarely dip into this forum now.

Finding peace has naturally taken me in a different direction.

Good luck to all anyway. The truth is that there is no truth...

[rjl9332]

Micklemus

I understand!

It makes me a little sad to know that the hope offered by Freeman, Commercial Processes, knowledge, can be so damaging when the results don't match what was promised or inferred. I offer this as a cautionary tale to budding freemen, all may not be what you had hoped within this 'movement'. It is not 'wrong', but maybe the world isn't ready for it yet. Connect with the universe directly and see what advice comes forth! Peace to all.

[bsmurph83]

Further discussion I agree with!

My absolute standing (at the minute):

Whatever paperwork you've done if/when you get approached by the goons means nought. It may mean something after the fact, hence my suggestion to be prepared to lose your freedom temporarily and frequently thereafter if you intend to seek remedy.

Claim of right / liens / estoppel / copyright on your name are great and worthy of your own individual pursuance if you feel its right for you. But, none of them, absolutely none, will stop you being carted away if that is what the powers that be have decided. Hence, Ghandi was right and achieved a billion times more than any 'Freeman' ever has so far. I am not detracting from the actions of 'Freemen', I wish them every success because I want out of this ignorant tyranny just like everyone else. Only peace will do now.

I agree with those who will state that if someone with a gun wants to throw you in the slammer for a day or two then you won't be able to stop them (without resorting to extremes) if they have absolutely made their mind up. that is just an everyday simple observation.

i just take exception with the hard core cynics and the odd debunker type mind who just derides the whole concept without stopping to delve into the nuances of the topic. let's not oversimplify things too much here ay folks?

[yozhik]

I agree with those who will state that if someone with a gun wants to throw you in the slammer for a day or two then you won't be able to stop them (without resorting to extremes) if they have absolutely made their mind up. that is just an everyday simple observation.


Absolutely correct.
Reality is, if a uniformed Policy Enforcer threatened me with a taser, in plain view of my daughter, I'd probably dance naked with lit candles up my butt, if so commanded, under duress and threat of injury.

However ... the difference between being an enslaved citizen and a Freeman would be the repercussions of the events.

The consequences, in this hypothetical example, would define the difference.

[bsmurph83]

yes, exactly. and certainly, your daughter would forever view candles very differently....

[1694]

Yoz, our moral compasses point in roughly the same direction. Take a step back for a moment if you will, dont look at what should be, look at what is.

Thou shalt not kill. - Sound like a law?

Do killings occur - Yes.

"Thou shalt not kill" is therefore not a law, it is a just a rule a rule that can be broken. If everyone consents to the rule, then no killings occur, the rule gets its "force of law" the rule is not broken.

This is not "my truth" it is the truth, it is the truth because that is how it is. That is why we are here, we have seen the truth and we dont like it.

The unalianable rights, the world is littered with examples of them being alienated, right now. How can something unalianable be alienated? It wasn't unalianable to start with it.

Actual laws cannot be broken.

Animals live by laws, as humans we live by a myriad of rules we have concocted for ourselves, some we call laws, but they are still just rules. This is why rules require your consent, if you dont consent they can be broken, they have no force on their own.

So if you find a statute offensive you can easily break the rule and do what you think is right, be prepared however to face the wrath of the rule makers.

Those human rights you refered to are just rules that you want to apply to yourself too, you didnt write them though, they were handed down from on high. When someone tries to violate you human rights you will have to defend them, you can try appealing to the "rights" that were given to you by rule makers, but it is the rule makers who make and change the rules, (US Constitution>Patriot Act). I doubt they will care.

So do not view the Freeman "legal" techiniques as a shield to protect you before or claim compensation after, you will find much better results using the existing legal framework. You can sue for wrongfull arrest already, why do you need a your own mythical "fee schedule?"

If you want statutes changed, or revoked, set your letter writing to that, why not change the rules for the good of everyone instead of following a deulsion that you can somehow exempt yourself.

Alternativly move to somalia, there is no government, each man is soverign, though even there there are cultural rules.

[girlgye]

It matters not which "law" you are being accused of breaking.Be it Admiralty,Trust,Commercial,Statute ect ect.The court will be using Lex Mercantorium or as it is known nowadays Mercantile Civil Law.Which came into being with Edward the First. Mercantile Civil Law was commonly referred to as STATUTE MERCHANT and that is Bond of Merchant or Bond of Record.Statutes themselves are Bonds.If you want to know what the law really is look for a book called Clerk's Praxis.The Clerk's Praxis was a clerk of the court for registrar "Arches Under the King's bench". The Court of Arches is a PROBATE court.
EVERYTHING going on in any court , be it murder, parking ticket anything, is being "pro se cuted" under Civil Mercantile Law (the law of money instruments).Nothing is "CRIMINAL" as all crimes have a monetary value.It's all CIVIL (a breach of contract).
if you can find either Clerk's Praxis or another book written on the same subject "Jurisdiction and Practice of the law of Admiralty" by John E Hall.

So in a nut shell EVERYTHING and EVERY LAW IS A CONTRACT OR RESULTING TRUST.IF YOU AGREE TO RE- PRESENT YOUR "STRAWMANIUS HOMO" YOU STAND AS SURETY FOR THE DEBT INCURRED BY THE BREACH OF CONTRACT WHICH YOU AGREED TO WITH YOUR AGREEMENT OR SILENT ACQUIESCENCE.

So Rob is 100% correct "no one can force you into a contract or trust be it Statute Law, Admiralty Law or any other kind of law"
Hence the Roman Maxim "consensus facit legem" CONSENT MAKES THE LAW.

Peace Chester


Now that is a quote. Instead of being pompous it is almost academic. That is, you name your sources for your ideas. Those of us who don't wish to be patronized but seriously DO need to learn can go and READ, with a view to really teaching and instructing the ignorant.

THANX.

[1694]

Hence the Roman Maxim "consensus facit legem" CONSENT MAKES THE LAW.

Of course, dont consent to the speeding limit and it can be broken, it happens all the time.

[girlgye]

To quote Bill hicks......The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors and hide yourself away...The eyes of love however see everybody as one.
To me the whole point of being free is to see everyone as equal.If you start from that point why would you want to subject anyone to anything other than love and respect.Conduct yourself as you would like to be treated.
Peace:)

I'm finding that very hard to achieve quite frankly.

[girlgye]

Whoah whoah whoah

I have just said quite clearly that paper work, notices, etc doesn't work. At least not in my experience! I am in close contact with a number of guys who are more advanced than me with their commercial processes also and they are still getting shat on! Commercial Law is higher than statute - does anyone rebut that? It is private law, whereas Statute is part of public policy. So, when we go about 'breaking presumptions', whose are we breaking? It seems not those of the goons who will actually throw you in a cell for a few nights, or the big bad bailiffs from the sheriffs office. 1694 may be a gruff asshole but he has a point. The pricks on the street know NOT of what you say in paperwork - know this. Integrate it with your overall demeanor because they are the danger. Don't go about shouting 'claim of right' 'common law jurisdiction' etc etc. It's not bullshit, far from it, HOWEVER to those goons out there who dont know the LAW, It is!
As I said guys, talk to these people like a man, identify the common ground, be still in your own heart and don't rely on paperwork because it does not apply to real life. Geddit?

ah ah ah. Not so fast.
Just because they aren't getting any where means either a. They are just copying other people's templates (as I did at first) or b. giving up too easily.

Every process I have used so far is being ignored. I've used questions. (one approach ie FOL) and A4V. Neither which I am familiar with (ignorant) well boohoo. I just have to get on with it. I swear that ultimately when I have written to the ultimate authority they weasle out and send junior staff to do their bidding. So... I know I am right. It's whether I want to instigate my threats.

Now given I want my fee schedules to be paid, I have to go to court against them. Guess what. They want me to pay fees for that too. Meanwhile I'm busy trying to make myself less ignorant and try and put food into my stomach and maintain a roof over my head whilst at the same time deal with more impending doom coming through the mailbox at the rate of knotts.

I somehow sense that they saw us coming.

Hence the 2012 predictions.

[number_6]

number 6, can I ask for clarification on something?

earlier in the thread you said, "My understanding of it does not mean that an individual may opt out of statutes that they themselves choose without the consent of all."

I don't understand what you mean here... Are you saying that we all have to deny consent to be governed by statutes as a whole for it to be considered valid or for it to work? I don't think I quite get what you're asking here... cheers

The point I am making is that it is not possible for an individual to state that he doesn't give consent to be bound by any particular statute that he should choose because it doesn't suit him. If that were the case we could all as individuals pick and choose the statutes that do suit ourselves. But then there would be conflict. I may break a statute that you agree with and I don't or vice versa, and what would happen then? You could not argue that the statute has force of law because you agree with it, because at the same time it doesn't have the force of law because I do not give consent. It is not an individual choice.

[dharmic one]

The truth is that there is no truth...

I agree with this up to a point, the point being that I think truth is relative, like time, gravity, even our very experience......

[girlgye]

The point I am making is that it is not possible for an individual to state that he doesn't give consent to be bound by any particular statute that he should choose because it doesn't suit him. If that were the case we could all as individuals pick and choose the statutes that do suit ourselves. But then there would be conflict. I may break a statute that you agree with and I don't or vice versa, and what would happen then? You could not argue that the statute has force of law because you agree with it, because at the same time it doesn't have the force of law because I do not give consent. It is not an individual choice.

If you were studying this stuff you would have an answer to your question. If I want to pick and choose what statute I agree with I am perfectly entitled to do that.

[number_6]

If you were studying this stuff you would have an answer to your question. If I want to pick and choose what statute I agree with I am perfectly entitled to do that.

So, some statutes good, some statutes bad? The problem is that everybody is different and what may be good for one may be considered bad by another.
As an example, consider if I am of the opinion that driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol is acceptable, and I reject the drink driving laws. As a freeman I could argue that as long as at no time do I cause any harm or loss to another, driving blind drunk should be allowed. But in reality others would (or I hope they would) reject my argument and I doubt that my failure to accept the laws that cover DD would prevent any action taken against me. I cannot forsee the situation where everybody picks and chooses the laws that suit themselves.

[yozhik]

So, some statutes good, some statutes bad? The problem is that everybody is different and what may be good for one may be considered bad by another.
As an example, consider if I am of the opinion that driving a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol is acceptable, and I reject the drink driving laws. As a freeman I could argue that as long as at no time do I cause any harm or loss to another, driving blind drunk should be allowed. But in reality others would (or I hope they would) reject my argument and I doubt that my failure to accept the laws that cover DD would prevent any action taken against me. I cannot forsee the situation where everybody picks and chooses the laws that suit themselves.

The basis of all Freeman ideology is being a responsible adult.
Whilst travelling in your private conveyance when drunk might not cause harm, injury or loss; I would strongly suggest it is not the actions of a "responsible adult" and therefore, whilst no common law has been broken ... common sense has.

[number_6]

The basis of all Freeman ideology is being a responsible adult.
Whilst travelling in your private conveyance when drunk might not cause harm, injury or loss; I would strongly suggest it is not the actions of a "responsible adult" and therefore, whilst no common law has been broken ... common sense has.

Of course you are right, but I was using that as an example. The same could be said of somebody driving at 90mph through a heavily populated housing estate whilst children are coming out of school. No harm or loss. But can that individual declare no consent individually to be governed by the statute that prevents it? My point is that consent may be dependant on the majority giving such consent.

[yozhik]

Of course you are right, but I was using that as an example. The same could be said of somebody driving at 90mph through a heavily populated housing estate whilst children are coming out of school. No harm or loss. But can that individual declare no consent individually to be governed by the statute that prevents it? My point is that consent may be dependant on the majority giving such consent.

It actually sparks an interesting philosophical debate ... because even in this example - no "crime" has been committed.

OK - so the traveller was probably exceeding what would be deemed a "responsible" speed, in the environment he was travelling ... but then what we're really drifting into is the laws of probability and statistics ... an actuaries wet dream :)

At 90 m.p.h, the traveller is XX% more likely (probable) to be involved in an event that would constitute a crime of harm, injury or loss.

... and this is where it goes from the private side into the public side; from the unlimited liability to the limited liability area.

Most of the statutes are financial instruments with a monetary value, which has been calculated with probabilities and insurance actuaries. So the statute of speed limitation is based on XX% of drivers being caught speeding, generating XXX amount of revenue, which is also thrown into the probability pot along with statistics of road accidents and scientific studies of human reaction times, etc ...

So not so much about "crime" ... it is more about exceeding the probability and risk extremes of the insurable liability.

[number_6]

At 90 m.p.h, the traveller is XX% more likely (probable) to be involved in an event that would constitute a crime of harm, injury or loss.


This introduces a new problem for myself. Although no harm or loss has been experienced by another, some may argue that there is a possibility that such actions may cause injury, and these actions should be prevented, even though no injury has occurred. How can this work?

[yozhik]

This introduces a new problem for myself. Although no harm or loss has been experienced by another, some may argue that there is a possibility that such actions may cause injury, and these actions should be prevented, even though no injury has occurred. How can this work?

That's my point.

Example (100% hypothetical and totally inaccurate - for illustrative purposes only :) )... "Statistics show that at a speed of 90mph, the probability of having an accident is 250% more likely ... or 2.5 x more probable, than at 30mph".

Actuaries would then crunch the numbers and assess that with the current contribution levels (N.I), the risk factor exceeds the premium coverage, so to make the insurance of the liability insurable, the speed needs to be restricted to bring the risk factor within a profitable level.

Limited liability is all about number crunching, actuaries and ultimately; profitability.

[cruise4]

"I'm finding that very hard to achieve quite frankly."

:D:D

"truth is relative"

I just posted that in another thread and immediately read the phrase here again. Strange. :eek:

[1694]

That's my point.

Example (100% hypothetical and totally inaccurate - for illustrative purposes only :) )... "Statistics show that at a speed of 90mph, the probability of having an accident is 250% more likely ... or 2.5 x more probable, than at 30mph".

Actuaries would then crunch the numbers and assess that with the current contribution levels (N.I), the risk factor exceeds the premium coverage, so to make the insurance of the liability insurable, the speed needs to be restricted to bring the risk factor within a profitable level.

Limited liability is all about number crunching, actuaries and ultimately; profitability.

Has any evidence of profit for private purpose been provided? (If anyone tries to submit a Dun and Bradstreet listing I will e-throttle them.)

[yozhik]

Has any evidence of profit for private purpose been provided? (If anyone tries to submit a Dun and Bradstreet listing I will e-throttle them.)

Raising revenue = balanced budget
Balanced budget = meeting debt obligations to BoE
BoE = private interest

profit for private purpose :D

(also profit for common purpose ... do I get bonus points?) :rolleyes:

[1694]

Raising revenue = balanced budget
Balanced budget = meeting debt obligations to BoE
BoE = private interest

profit for private purpose :D

(also profit for common purpose ... do I get bonus points?) :rolleyes:

The budget never balances.

Raising revenue via fines etc. decreases borrowing (reducing profits for the bankers) and decreases other taxes. Most public services are underfunded (no need to argue that they are badly run, but for them to be badly run and fulfill all requirements they are underfunded), they raise revenue to try and pay to provide a better service on top of the tax revenue they are given.

The BOE is a tricky one, shares are held by the treasury, and dividends therefore go into the public purse. There are however I believe secret bond holders, the original share holders, who may still have a claim above the regular share holders. The accounts of the BOE are published, it is no longer really involved in money creation/lending to either the govt or commercial banks. HSBC for example is a much bigger player.

The police fine speeding motorists so they can afford to investigate rapes. I fail to see how the police investigating and prosecuting a rapist is commerce? What possible financial benefit is there to the police? (rape and attempted rape is a statutory crime)

[bsmurph83]

The police fine speeding motorists so they can afford to investigate rapes. I fail to see how the police investigating and prosecuting a rapist is commerce? What possible financial benefit is there to the police? (rape and attempted rape is a statutory crime)

well I can't really comment on stuff in the UK too mcuh but I can tell you that in Australia they make annually something like $5 BILLION dollars from unlawful speeding fines and other rubbish infringements where noone is actually hurt or even inconvenienced. So, the idea that these things in particular are not about profit is not one that really holds up. It's a source of free (unlawful and sometimes illegal) income that can't really be justified. i seriously doubt it is funnelled back into investigating real crime, either here OR in the UK. that strikes me as being a tad optimistic...in Australia it's out of control and rampant. it's just a cash cow, here at least.

be interested to know details about profits and such over there...

[yozhik]

The police fine speeding motorists so they can afford to investigate rapes. I fail to see how the police investigating and prosecuting a rapist is commerce? What possible financial benefit is there to the police? (rape and attempted rape is a statutory crime)

You've asked the same question in a new thread, so I will copy and paste a reply to it here, for consistency;

Did you know that prisoners are bonded and given a cusip number, which is pooled with all the other bonds and traded on the stock market under the name of the bonding warehouse (prison) where they keep the surety (person)?

The cusip number is supposedly made up of the persons government created ID number, either Social Security Number or TFN or whatever.

The prisoner is released when the bond matures, and they have finished earning their profits (interest)

SOURCE: Full Article (http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5809)

[dharmic one]

The budget never balances.

Raising revenue via fines etc. decreases borrowing (reducing profits for the bankers) and decreases other taxes. Most public services are underfunded (no need to argue that they are badly run, but for them to be badly run and fulfill all requirements they are underfunded), they raise revenue to try and pay to provide a better service on top of the tax revenue they are given.

The BOE is a tricky one, shares are held by the treasury, and dividends therefore go into the public purse. There are however I believe secret bond holders, the original share holders, who may still have a claim above the regular share holders. The accounts of the BOE are published, it is no longer really involved in money creation/lending to either the govt or commercial banks. HSBC for example is a much bigger player.

The police fine speeding motorists so they can afford to investigate rapes. I fail to see how the police investigating and prosecuting a rapist is commerce? What possible financial benefit is there to the police? (rape and attempted rape is a statutory crime)

Not one source quoted to back ANY OF THIS. All opinion. The difference between many others on here and you is that when people argue your points you demand evidence. Yet you speak your opinions as if they are well-established fact and provide no evidence, then exclaiming that it is others who do not have any.

Your absolute lack of ability in analytical thinking is epitomized in the statement "The police fine speeding motorists so they can afford to investigate rapes. I fail to see how the police investigating and prosecuting a rapist is commerce?"

If you allege that money is obtained to investigate rapes by fining motorists then

1 what is this based on?
2. where can money exist or be used without entering into commerce?

Judge
Oath of allegiance
“I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law. ”
Judicial oath
“I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. "

Does a judge not call god to witness that He will uphold all Laws and consensual agreements of this realm? Consensual agreements evidenced by the exchanges of negotiable instruments to which parties have to willingly agree for it to be upheld that the instruments or contracts are valid?

Do I not consent to my governance?

Statutory crimes that you speak of are still civil crimes. You only have to read the associated pages on Wikipedia to see this. Could you also state your understanding with regards to the rules of interpretation of the statutes you speak of? as I am only just getting my head around the term hermeneutics.

One who knows such obviously little of the law might benefit from a little humility in the light of their argument with people like chesterd who obviously has read what concerns them. I find your arguments to be in total contempt of what it even means to be reasonable. I intend to destroy every argument you intend to make on every thread you intend to comment on, as I am tired of the bile you spew at perfectly innocent parties who just want to know the truth about the country they live in. Screwing your arguments may become a full time job as you spew such arrogance almost daily.

This I am prepared for as I thouroughly enjoy a challenge....

Here's to a fun few weeks!!!

[1694]

Not one source quoted to back ANY OF THIS. All opinion. The difference between many others on here and you is that when people argue your points you demand evidence. Yet you speak your opinions as if they are well-established fact and provide no evidence, then exclaiming that it is others who do not have any.

Your absolute lack of ability in analytical thinking is epitomized in the statement "The police fine speeding motorists so they can afford to investigate rapes. I fail to see how the police investigating and prosecuting a rapist is commerce?"

If you allege that money is obtained to investigate rapes by fining motorists then

1 what is this based on?
2. where can money exist or be used without entering into commerce?

Judge
Oath of allegiance
“I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law. ”
Judicial oath
“I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. "

Does a judge not call god to witness that He will uphold all Laws and consensual agreements of this realm? Consensual agreements evidenced by the exchanges of negotiable instruments to which parties have to willingly agree for it to be upheld that the instruments or contracts are valid?

Do I not consent to my governance?

Statutory crimes that you speak of are still civil crimes. You only have to read the associated pages on Wikipedia to see this. Could you also state your understanding with regards to the rules of interpretation of the statutes you speak of? as I am only just getting my head around the term hermeneutics.

One who knows such obviously little of the law might benefit from a little humility in the light of their argument with people like chesterd who obviously has read what concerns them. I find your arguments to be in total contempt of what it even means to be reasonable. I intend to destroy every argument you intend to make on every thread you intend to comment on, as I am tired of the bile you spew at perfectly innocent parties who just want to know the truth about the country they live in. Screwing your arguments may become a full time job as you spew such arrogance almost daily.

This I am prepared for as I thouroughly enjoy a challenge....

Here's to a fun few weeks!!!

source in my sig.

[dharmic one]

source in my sig.


Interesting. How did I know that you would not respond to any of the comments I had posted with anything but an insubstantial remark that doesn't even constitute a sentence from which any meaning whatsoever can be gleaned?

"source in my sig". This source says nothing about rules of interpretation that I believe simply must be understood before anyone can claim that they have read and understand any act of parliament.

You claim to have higher knowledge and show none. It was affirmed on this thread that admiralty law was restricted to the sea and ships and your views and that of cacadores have been proven in my opinion to be baseless, false and everyone must be able to see how blissfully nonchalant you are about the ignorance and bigotry of your views.

Exactly where in your "sig" could I find the answers to the questions I asked? As you seem so very confident that the answer to ALL of the post you referred to in your quotation of me lies within the article you pointed to, would you care to state where exactly???

[number_6]

You only have to read the associated pages on Wikipedia to see this.


Hmmm, could be dangerous.

[dharmic one]

I agree, wikipedia is not the most "balanced" source of information on the net by a mile. I actually really enjoy dissecting the language on the pages and using the blatant lies and hypocrisy to compose a view for myself of subjects based on the truth I can glean from the often messy language of the pages.

I spent 4 hours reading Wiki regarding law and literally had to draw myself a bloody map just to keep up with what they are saying.

They have an excellent trick of hiding pages behind very loosely related page titles..that's one of their ploys.

Like many sites though you can see through the stench of crap they are happy to have us all believe, just read the Bank of England entry...that'll give you a giggle, yeh try and verify for yourself just how much the power is "seperated" in this country, between the executive, legislative and judicial bodies.

Read their entries on parliamentary sovereignty, I wasn't exactly falling over myself to listen to the rallying cries of war fever and faux heroic celebration of "our troops" coming home when I read these pages.

Wiki is now the last place I check the validity of anything, but it does have its uses eg, if you can read the pages using inductive reasoning, the psuedo free country belief we all have about england can begin to disintegrate, that is what I find anyway.

[bsmurph83]

1694, you might benefit from the book that contains this paragraph (referenced in another thread):

What many of the victims accused of maritime “crimes don’t realize is that admiralty and maritime jurisdictions were merged with the law and equity jurisdictions in 1966 (See: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, notes to Supplementary Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims). All four
causes of action (or natures of the cause) which were once separate and distinct are now rolled into one set of rules and indistinguishable from one another in our modern courts.

go here: http://autarchic.tripod.com/files/specialmaritimeexposed.pdf

[bsmurph83]

this quote is from the same source:

The Supreme Court (US) has held:

There are no common law offenses against the United States. Only those acts which Congress has forbidden, with penalties for disobedience of its command, are crimes.

United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. (7th Cr.) 32 (1812); United States v. Coolidge, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 415 (1816); United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 206 (1883); United States v. Eaton, 144 U.S. 677, 687 (1892).
Actions to recover penalties imposed by act of Congress generally but not invariably have been held not to be criminal prosecutions. Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranaham, 214 U.S. 320 (1909); Hepner v. United States, 213 U.S. 103 (1909); United States v. Regan, 232 U.S. 37 (1914).
Contempt proceedings, which were at one time not considered to be criminal
prosecutions, are no longer within that category. Compare In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564 (1895), with Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968).

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE ACCUSATION?
If common law crimes against the United States do not exist, what kinds of crime do exist against the United States? Article III, Section 2 provides for four different jurisdictions, law, equity, admiralty, and maritime. By process of elimination, we can automatically rule out law by virtue of the above Supreme Court holdings. Equity is defined as “Justice administered according to fairness as contrasted with the strictly formulated rules of common law. The term equity denotes the spirit and habit of fairness, justness, and right dealing which would regulate the intercourse of men with men. (See: Black’s 6th). Equity deals with fictions, like corporations. Since it is common knowledge that law and equity have been combined and are virtually indistinguishable from each other, and that anyone who has witnessed “criminal” proceedings in the courts easily recognizes that these “criminal” or “quasi-criminal” accusations are most usually contrary to the spirit and habit of fairness and justness and right dealing of men with men.
Therefore, the cause of action cannot be in equity.

Admiralty is defined in Bouviers 1856 edition as”: the name of a jurisdiction which takes cognizance of suits or actions which arise in consequence of acts done upon or relating to the sea; or, in other words, of all transactions and proceedings relative to commerce and navigation, and to damages or
injuries upon the sea. 2 Gall. R. 468. Black’s 6th edition observes that: “the terms “admiralty and “maritime” are virtually synonymous.”

Bouvier’s 1856 edition defines “Maritime Cause” as:

1. Maritime causes are those arising from maritime contracts, whether made at sea or on land, that is, such as relate to the commerce, business or navigation of the sea; as, charter parties, affreightments, marine loans, hypothecations, contracts for maritime
service in building, repairing, supplying and navigating ships, contracts and quasi contracts respecting averages, contributions and jettisons; contracts relating to marine insurance, and those between owners of ships. 3 Bouv. Inst. n. 2621.
2. There are maritime causes also for torts and injuries committed at sea.
3. In general, the courts of admiralty have a concurrent jurisdiction with courts of law, of all maritime causes: and in some cases they have exclusive jurisdiction.
[Emphasis added].
As long ago as 1851 the Supreme Court recognized that the Congress has the power to extend the jurisdictions of admiralty and maritime causes to the land under the commerce clause and deprive the
people of the right of a trial by jury. The following holding by the high court pretty much says it all.
:
This power [of admiralty jurisdiction] is as extensive upon land as upon water. The Constitution makes no distinction in that respect. And if the admiralty jurisdiction, in
matters of contract and tort which the courts of the United States may lawfully exercise on the high seas, can be extended to the lakes under the power to regulate commerce, it
can with the same propriety and upon the same construction, be extended to contracts and torts on land when the commerce is between different States. And it may embrace also the vehicles and persons engaged in carrying it on. It would be in the power of Congress to confer admiralty jurisdiction upon its courts, over the cars engaged in transporting passengers or merchandise from one State to another, and over the persons engaged in conducting them, and deny to the parties the trial by jury. Now the judicial power in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, has never been supposed to extend to contracts made on land and to be executed on land. But if the power of regulating commerce can be made the foundation of jurisdiction in its courts, and a new and extended admiralty jurisdiction beyond its heretofore known and admitted limits, may be created on water under that authority, the same reason would justify the same exercise of power on land." Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12 How. 443 (U.S. 1851)
The very next year, in 1852, the Supreme Court warned that this admiralty or maritime threat to Liberty was encroaching on the land and morphing itself into an air breathing creature just as a harmless tadpole transforms itself into a frog, and this is a really ugly frog. If you had never seen a tadpole gradually go through this miraculous process, you might never believe that such a transformation could occur, changing a harmless water-breathing creature into an air-breathing predator.

Next to revenue (taxes) itself, the late extensions of the jurisdiction of
the admiralty are our greatest grievance. The American Courts of
Admiralty seem to be forming by degrees into a system that is to
overturn our Constitution and to deprive us of our best
inheritance, the laws of the land. It would be thought in England a
dangerous innovation if the trial, of any matter on land was given to the
admiralty" Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315, 342 (U.S. 1852)
Has the Congress expanded this admiralty and maritime jurisdiction? The answer is a definite and
emphatic yes.

[bsmurph83]

further from this source:

The broad language of Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 72.11 makes almost all crimes whether or not they are Federal or States crimes “commercial crimes.” In the Propeller Genessee Chief,
supra, it was revealed that admiralty courts have jurisdiction over interstate commerce, so it would follow that the crimes listed in 27 CFR 72.11 are cognizable in an admiralty or maritime court, and such are
commercial courts. The relevant part of the text is as follows:
Commercial crimes. Any of the following types of crimes (Federal or State): Offenses against the revenue laws; burglary; counterfeiting; forgery; kidnapping; larceny; robbery; illegal sale or possession of deadly weapons; prostitution (including soliciting, procuring,
pandering, white slaving, keeping house of ill fame, and like offenses); extortion; swindling and confidence games; and attempting to commit, conspiring to commit, or compounding any of the foregoing crimes. Addiction to narcotic drugs and use of marihuana will be treated as if such were commercial crime.

In the Ebsworth & Ebsworth lecture of 1994, infra, Proctor Wiswall states: “Congress has been repeatedly held by the Court to have the power to extend the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction by statute,
and Congress has repeatedly exercised that power;”

[girlgye]

This introduces a new problem for myself. Although no harm or loss has been experienced by another, some may argue that there is a possibility that such actions may cause injury, and these actions should be prevented, even though no injury has occurred. How can this work?


Twice over the last month and this is no exageration I have nearly killed a kid driving at 5mph. Where I live there are speed bumps (which also wreck your car exhaust) which limit you to 15 mph. Both occasions the kids just decided to kamakazi in front of me (not looking where they were going). My car is big and they are ickle. What's gonna be dreamt up now to emotively make me feel guilt and shame for the fact that the little critter was on a clear suicide mission.

90 miles an hour in a built up zone at 4.00 am in the mornining is probably ok. 90 mile an hour at 3.30pm is probably not a very sensible move in view of the above experience. You would have a hard time justifying it to yourself if you killed someone at 3.30 pm at that speed. I don't need a greedy, grasping corporation to evacuate my bank balance to aid me to come to my own conclusions about behaving responsibly. Same if I'm pissed out of my head. It has become a cultural meme not to drink and drive. I don't believe people who do need to have their bank balances evacuated either. they just need education and instruction. In the old days the community would sit down and explain the consequences of such ill thought out actions.

As ever, emotive examples which really boil down to keeping people financial constrained.

[girlgye]

The budget never balances.

Raising revenue via fines etc. decreases borrowing (reducing profits for the bankers) and decreases other taxes. Most public services are underfunded (no need to argue that they are badly run, but for them to be badly run and fulfill all requirements they are underfunded), they raise revenue to try and pay to provide a better service on top of the tax revenue they are given.

The BOE is a tricky one, shares are held by the treasury, and dividends therefore go into the public purse. There are however I believe secret bond holders, the original share holders, who may still have a claim above the regular share holders. The accounts of the BOE are published, it is no longer really involved in money creation/lending to either the govt or commercial banks. HSBC for example is a much bigger player.

The police fine speeding motorists so they can afford to investigate rapes. I fail to see how the police investigating and prosecuting a rapist is commerce? What possible financial benefit is there to the police? (rape and attempted rape is a statutory crime)


Where is your evidence?

This is just the usual emotive sheepy argument designed to stop me from questioning where my money (hard earned energy) is really going. I pay (or rather I was supposed to be paying) £240 per year to my local constabulary. With 600,000 residents that's some substantial budget going into the Police pot. Then equate the fines which you claim go towards solving rapes. Don't make me smash my computer against the wall. Utter tosh. NOtice how annual reports are always under budget and over spent. More money from the tax player please. ker ching.

anyway I'm not here to prop up your clear sheepie arguments. I'd really like to see every penny of that money accounted for FOR AND BY THE PUBLIC who donated it in the first place. donating to peace officers is about all I'm prepared to pay for quite frankly. I'd rather spend my money on researching and creating a society where nutcases don't feel they can rape with impunity.

[hadabusa]

hm,all this talk,but no evidence?

weak

[cacadores]

the freeman philosophy? 99% of it is irrelevant and the rest is just hearsay from what I can tell...

I would agree. It's also an empty money-making prop: 'Freeman' seminars, books, courses etc etc.

[cacadores]

Having read through ths debate, I have to say there are a number of intelligent posters on here, arguing for both 'sides'.

Admiralty Law restricted to the Sea.

What's interesting, is that my original point, which is that Admiralty Law is restricted to problems involving ships and the sea, has not been convincingly disproved. I posted a list of content, that is, those subjects which fall under Admiralty Law and no one has shown that this list is wrong, or has shown that there is some secret list. More to the point, real judges and real lawyers are trained to know what they are doing: and the subject matter they are trained by is open for view: Admiralty Law is the law of the sea and of ships: there is nothing else to it.

My post was greeted with rude dismissal and a dialectic question from Rob. This is hardly 'getting the information out' is it chaps? The fact that no one could raise an objection to my list of content, is testimony enough.

Obstupification about Admiralty Law.

From other threads, objecters seem to latch on to the idea that an accused person can end up in an 'Admiralty' court if he's not careful. It rather misses the point that the location of a trial is not the point: in England at any rate you'll be sent to trial at a Magistrates or Crown court where the proceedures (in other words the way the trial is processed and judged) are also open and routine. The 'type' of court is neither here nor there: it is the content of the charge and body of law which applies that matters. If your case does not involve ships or the sea, no Admiralty Law will be applied, end of story.

Deliberate Obstupification

'Freeman' ideology is an interesting concept and deserves proper attention. But let's face it, this subject has also attracted real charlatons, because there is money to be made from seminars, books and pamphlets on the subject. And the more complicated and involved it is made to appear, the more some people willl spend to reach an evermore elusive understanding. The fact is people have been deservedly prosecuted in America for peddling false 'advice' on this subject and on these same boards, someone was appealing for people to send him $1000 (if I remember correctly) to set up what appeared to be an ogligachy on stolen crown land in Canada. Likewise one man tried to object to being arrested in England by telling the policemen that they were acting under 'Admiralty Law' which was not only false, but a dangerous waste of time. I would appeal to you to be discerning in your appraisal of this subject. I would appeal to you to be suspicious of anyone whose reaction to the posting of legal information is to immediately trash it and the messanger. Read facts with intelligence and compare information. Reaching the truth about 'Admiralty Law' or Common Law is not about blind belief, belonging to a movement or about trashing 'heritics' but about broardly reviewing information and sifting it by comparision with what you do know.

Fragmentary Nature of our Freedom.

We are individuals and our avoidance of laws or individual rights are applied to the individual. Naturally there are a number of rights or non-obligations which we can enjoy if we avoid, as far as possible engaging with society. The officers apointed by that society can also be reminded of their obligations towards us and the limitations of their power. Still, by opting out of society's laws as far as possible, the price is that real engagement in society becomes more difficult. You want to refuse to give concent to a government? Well, then you're immediately faced with a number of big decisions. If you earn money there is no need to bother about taxes directly as your employer will pay them but if you fully opt out of filling in consensual forms and the like, then you won't be able to claim your taxes back and will have trouble drawing a pension. In fact, the only way an individual can opt out of the obligations of commerce, is to not use money and live off the land (there are problems with that too, see below), because money itself is a note of debt, as well as of credit. 'Freeman' ideology picks a number of truths, about Common Law, about how courts can be temporarily put in check if you don't follow the assumed proceedures, about the historical accidents that made our modern legislature....etc etc, and it then strings the lot together with a lot of wishful thinking. In the case of 'Admiralty courts' for example, there is either a secret and overarching proceedure or statute which places individuals under 'Admiralty Law' without their knowing. Or there is not. And if there is such a proceedure, then judges and legislaters would have to have decided that at some time. The most we get on that subject, is the historical fact that once in history, colonial Admiralty courts tried Americans under the stamp act. And later, U.S. legislaters became worried that that Admiralty Law was being applied on land.

Admiralty Law and the land.

Admiralty Law applies to the sea and to ships. And obviously, to trade by ships, which obviously involves some contact and handling on land. Historically, lawyers will try to apply the law which seems to give their clients the best advantage and this may have resulted in attempts to have land-sea matters dealt with by Admiralty courts in America where it was possible. The point about this, is that some people on these threads see something sinister in that process. Whereas in reality, none of the wrangling between lawyers that results in these jurusdiction arguments is secret. The laws on procedures can be read and legal disputation is in open court or minuted in Parliament or in the U.S legislatures. But what advantage would the state have for procecuting someone without a car tax disc under 'Admiralty Law' when the statutes don't apply and can obviously be thrown out? In reality, missing car tax is procecuted using police powers (see below).

'Admiralty Law' as a metaphor.

Some people seem want to see some clear break, when the state 'tricks' you out of your Common Law rights and applies statute law by tricking you into your giving your consent to their strange 'Admiralty' jurusdiction. No. The use of 'Admiralty Court' proceedures, as I have already pointed out, was an isolated colonial act to avoid jury trials in the application of the stamp act, as it pertained to goods traded by sea. It was a complicated historical grevence rooted in American history and too many people are playing on this jurisdiction issue, when the real issue was about the state using the sea link to apply an alternative set of legal proceedures in a trial. In that case, the issue of which court proceedure was in place, seemed to be being decided by a legislature in England which American most colonists could not vote for. Since then, there was a revolution and American citizens can vote for their legislatures. In any case, suggesting that 'Admiralty Law' is being applied to land issues in England is nonsense.

Democracy verses Common Law

Democracy pre-supposes that we are governed by our consent through the consent of the majority. Common Law had its origens in a non-democratic country, where the person was assumed to be free but the king had established rights over property and taxes, and on keepng the peace, but that these rights should not be overbearing. This tone is kept in the Magna Carta and in the English Bill of Rights and in the Acts of Settlement. In fact the king's rights to ownership of land, let's not forget, were aquired through conquest. Firstly by William's conquest of England, the colonists' conquest of American and the Indian lands and by state purchase. Rights over land is now enjoyed by the Federal Government. With the rise of colonial trade, people who had aquired large amounts of wealth, decided to exert some control over what the King could expect from them in taxes. Hense, in Britian, Parliamentary power was funded by the merchants of the city of London, just as US federal power is theoretically funded by the private banking merchants who own the Federal Reserve. And these legislatures, funded now more widely by all our taxes, are nominally appointed by an act of democratic consent, called voting. This is because, both in England and in America, Parliament userped the power of the Crown, i.e. the King. The English Civil War saw the triumph of Parliament which eventually left the King with theoretical powers of legislature but which took away his right to tax the people. Thus he became dependant on the legislature for money. Because the king lacked money, he also found it difficult to organise the population, for example for war. But the Crown (and by transferrance, the U.S. Federal Government and states), do retain de facto ownership over the land. If an owner dies intestate, then his property in most cases reverts to the state. Altogether, the U.S. government owns 28.8% of the country's land area. The Governments reserve the right to tax all the land, the courts can remove it from you to pay debts and the government can evoke police powers over the people on it.

Police Powers

Police powers evolved in Common Law states with the breakdown of Feudalism. In England Parlaimant devolves police powers to area constabularies. In the U.S, the individual states are responsible and also the Federal government has its powers.

Police power can be in the form of making laws, compelling obedience to those laws through physical means with the aim of removing liberty, legal sanctions, or other forms of coercion and inducements.

'Freeman' in reality.

We can be taxed and forced to pay debts. Our land can be taxed. We can be arrested and tried without consent. We can be imprisoned without our consent. The police powers reserved to the states by the Constitution, include all powers the states retained prior to 1789 (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton). We are free, as long as we do not use money, have no land and do not bother our fellow man.

[micklemus]

What a very perceptive and spot on post.

[killmicrosoft]

Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act,1890.

[53&54ViCT. On.27.]

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:MYUtfw4P8AgJ:www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1890/pdf/ukpga_18900027_en.pdf+Colonial+Courts+of+Admiralty +Act,1890&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiL1mZo-56oT3jwwSmz76JnsR-LziQW9eDs3Te8MDBXqKb19WU9REZpSw9ZJQP1nr02i9MM2hS0e VgMt24Ws9on0bM6nOsTufvL6RNvRx0XUtoa25buNfHwr2tfk_E sFUaGAasS&sig=AHIEtbQc3_y1355l6gi12diSugY2ZNDX9Q

or

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1061686&ActiveTextDocId=1061686&filesize=42024

[britishnick]

Thanks for taking the time to post all that - an interesting perspective. Not that I've looked deeply in to it specifically but I was under the impression that admiralty law was set up to assist with trade contracts between corporations (private entities)...?

Anyways, I'd like to heartliy disagree with your final post about our reality of freedom:


We are free, as long as we do not use money, have no land and do not bother our fellow man.
The list is much longer:
[To quote the great Bill Hicks: "You are free to do as we tell you"]

We [members of the UK society] are free as long as we DO NOT
use fiat currencies
travel in a motorised vehicle (becuase we need to tax, register, insure, mot, not speed etec etc)
travel quickly on even a pedal powerd bike (people have been prosecuted for this!)
build our own house without following building regs
grow / buy / use / carry 'controlled substances' inlcuding alcohol (underage), weed, some minerals (!!!!)
make our own fuel
own a gun (without a licence)
smoke in public buildings (even if everyone in there consents)
play music to more than 11 people in a field (shut down cos it's a 'rave')
etc etc etc.

My point being - In the current system we're not free to do as we chose. We are free to do as we are told.

[steven1]

Having read through ths debate, I have to say there are a number of intelligent posters on here, arguing for both 'sides'.

Admiralty Law restricted to the Sea.

What's interesting, is that my original point, which is that Admiralty Law is restricted to problems involving ships and the sea, has not been convincingly disproved. I posted a list of content, that is, those subjects which fall under Admiralty Law and no one has shown that this list is wrong, or has shown that there is some secret list. More to the point, real judges and real lawyers are trained to know what they are doing: and the subject matter they are trained by is open for view: Admiralty Law is the law of the sea and of ships: there is nothing else to it.

My post was greeted with rude dismissal and a dialectic question from Rob. This is hardly 'getting the information out' is it chaps? The fact that no one could raise an objection to my list of content, is testimony enough.

Obstupification about Admiralty Law.

From other threads, objecters seem to latch on to the idea that an accused person can end up in an 'Admiralty' court if he's not careful. It rather misses the point that the location of a trial is not the point: in England at any rate you'll be sent to trial at a Magistrates or Crown court where the proceedures (in other words the way the trial is processed and judged) are also open and routine. The 'type' of court is neither here nor there: it is the content of the charge and body of law which applies that matters. If your case does not involve ships or the sea, no Admiralty Law will be applied, end of story.

Deliberate Obstupification

'Freeman' ideology is an interesting concept and deserves proper attention. But let's face it, this subject has also attracted real charlatons, because there is money to be made from seminars, books and pamphlets on the subject. And the more complicated and involved it is made to appear, the more some people willl spend to reach an evermore elusive understanding. The fact is people have been deservedly prosecuted in America for peddling false 'advice' on this subject and on these same boards, someone was appealing for people to send him $1000 (if I remember correctly) to set up what appeared to be an ogligachy on stolen crown land in Canada. Likewise one man tried to object to being arrested in England by telling the policemen that they were acting under 'Admiralty Law' which was not only false, but a dangerous waste of time. I would appeal to you to be discerning in your appraisal of this subject. I would appeal to you to be suspicious of anyone whose reaction to the posting of legal information is to immediately trash it and the messanger. Read facts with intelligence and compare information. Reaching the truth about 'Admiralty Law' or Common Law is not about blind belief, belonging to a movement or about trashing 'heritics' but about broardly reviewing information and sifting it by comparision with what you do know.

Fragmentary Nature of our Freedom.

We are individuals and our avoidance of laws or individual rights are applied to the individual. Naturally there are a number of rights or non-obligations which we can enjoy if we avoid, as far as possible engaging with society. The officers apointed by that society can also be reminded of their obligations towards us and the limitations of their power. Still, by opting out of society's laws as far as possible, the price is that real engagement in society becomes more difficult. You want to refuse to give concent to a government? Well, then you're immediately faced with a number of big decisions. If you earn money there is no need to bother about taxes directly as your employer will pay them but if you fully opt out of filling in consensual forms and the like, then you won't be able to claim your taxes back and will have trouble drawing a pension. In fact, the only way an individual can opt out of the obligations of commerce, is to not use money and live off the land (there are problems with that too, see below), because money itself is a note of debt, as well as of credit. 'Freeman' ideology picks a number of truths, about Common Law, about how courts can be temporarily put in check if you don't follow the assumed proceedures, about the historical accidents that made our modern legislature....etc etc, and it then strings the lot together with a lot of wishful thinking. In the case of 'Admiralty courts' for example, there is either a secret and overarching proceedure or statute which places individuals under 'Admiralty Law' without their knowing. Or there is not. And if there is such a proceedure, then judges and legislaters would have to have decided that at some time. The most we get on that subject, is the historical fact that once in history, colonial Admiralty courts tried Americans under the stamp act. And later, U.S. legislaters became worried that that Admiralty Law was being applied on land.

Admiralty Law and the land.

Admiralty Law applies to the sea and to ships. And obviously, to trade by ships, which obviously involves some contact and handling on land. Historically, lawyers will try to apply the law which seems to give their clients the best advantage and this may have resulted in attempts to have land-sea matters dealt with by Admiralty courts in America where it was possible. The point about this, is that some people on these threads see something sinister in that process. Whereas in reality, none of the wrangling between lawyers that results in these jurusdiction arguments is secret. The laws on procedures can be read and legal disputation is in open court or minuted in Parliament or in the U.S legislatures. But what advantage would the state have for procecuting someone without a car tax disc under 'Admiralty Law' when the statutes don't apply and can obviously be thrown out? In reality, missing car tax is procecuted using police powers (see below).

'Admiralty Law' as a metaphor.

Some people seem want to see some clear break, when the state 'tricks' you out of your Common Law rights and applies statute law by tricking you into your giving your consent to their strange 'Admiralty' jurusdiction. No. The use of 'Admiralty Court' proceedures, as I have already pointed out, was an isolated colonial act to avoid jury trials in the application of the stamp act, as it pertained to goods traded by sea. It was a complicated historical grevence rooted in American history and too many people are playing on this jurisdiction issue, when the real issue was about the state using the sea link to apply an alternative set of legal proceedures in a trial. In that case, the issue of which court proceedure was in place, seemed to be being decided by a legislature in England which American most colonists could not vote for. Since then, there was a revolution and American citizens can vote for their legislatures. In any case, suggesting that 'Admiralty Law' is being applied to land issues in England is nonsense.

Democracy verses Common Law

Democracy pre-supposes that we are governed by our consent through the consent of the majority. Common Law had its origens in a non-democratic country, where the person was assumed to be free but the king had established rights over property and taxes, and on keepng the peace, but that these rights should not be overbearing. This tone is kept in the Magna Carta and in the English Bill of Rights and in the Acts of Settlement. In fact the king's rights to ownership of land, let's not forget, were aquired through conquest. Firstly by William's conquest of England, the colonists' conquest of American and the Indian lands and by state purchase. Rights over land is now enjoyed by the Federal Government. With the rise of colonial trade, people who had aquired large amounts of wealth, decided to exert some control over what the King could expect from them in taxes. Hense, in Britian, Parliamentary power was funded by the merchants of the city of London, just as US federal power is theoretically funded by the private banking merchants who own the Federal Reserve. And these legislatures, funded now more widely by all our taxes, are nominally appointed by an act of democratic consent, called voting. This is because, both in England and in America, Parliament userped the power of the Crown, i.e. the King. The English Civil War saw the triumph of Parliament which eventually left the King with theoretical powers of legislature but which took away his right to tax the people. Thus he became dependant on the legislature for money. Because the king lacked money, he also found it difficult to organise the population, for example for war. But the Crown (and by transferrance, the U.S. Federal Government and states), do retain de facto ownership over the land. If an owner dies intestate, then his property in most cases reverts to the state. Altogether, the U.S. government owns 28.8% of the country's land area. The Governments reserve the right to tax all the land, the courts can remove it from you to pay debts and the government can evoke police powers over the people on it.

Police Powers

Police powers evolved in Common Law states with the breakdown of Feudalism. In England Parlaimant devolves police powers to area constabularies. In the U.S, the individual states are responsible and also the Federal government has its powers.

Police power can be in the form of making laws, compelling obedience to those laws through physical means with the aim of removing liberty, legal sanctions, or other forms of coercion and inducements.

'Freeman' in reality.

We can be taxed and forced to pay debts. Our land can be taxed. We can be arrested and tried without consent. We can be imprisoned without our consent. The police powers reserved to the states by the Constitution, include all powers the states retained prior to 1789 (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton). We are free, as long as we do not use money, have no land and do not bother our fellow man.

I totally agree with micklemus.
Thats probably one of the best posts I have read on this forum.
Top marks

exellent*

[micklemus]

Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act,1890.

[53&54ViCT. On.27.]

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:MYUtfw4P8AgJ:www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1890/pdf/ukpga_18900027_en.pdf+Colonial+Courts+of+Admiralty +Act,1890&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiL1mZo-56oT3jwwSmz76JnsR-LziQW9eDs3Te8MDBXqKb19WU9REZpSw9ZJQP1nr02i9MM2hS0e VgMt24Ws9on0bM6nOsTufvL6RNvRx0XUtoa25buNfHwr2tfk_E sFUaGAasS&sig=AHIEtbQc3_y1355l6gi12diSugY2ZNDX9Q

or

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=0&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1061686&ActiveTextDocId=1061686&filesize=42024

I'd urge you to read it too and check the various repeals. The reality is far less exciting.

[killmicrosoft]

I'd urge you to read it too and check the various repeals. The reality is far less exciting.

repeal or Modifications are only in part and some change of wording please check out for your self

[alisa2]

Democracy pre-supposes that we are governed by our consent through the consent of the majority.

We can be taxed and forced to pay debts. Our land can be taxed. We can be arrested and tried without consent. We can be imprisoned without our consent. The police powers reserved to the states by the Constitution, include all powers the states retained prior to 1789 (U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton). We are free, as long as we do not use money, have no land and do not bother our fellow man.

"We can be arrested and tried without consent."

That’s because almost no one understands what the proper function of Government is.

A democratic form Government is not what We the people agree to in 1787. We the people [allegedly] agreed to a Republican form of Government--a Government where individuals govern themselves. See Federalist Paper #10. See also “You have a Republic, if you can keep it." (Benjamin Franklin). The problem with that is that, back in 1787, almost no one knew what a Republican form of Government entailed. In Federalist Paper #10, Madison said that the people would not accept any other form of Government, but was that really the consensus of the People ? Where is the proof that the People would only accept a Republican form of Government ? The United States guaranteed the states a Republican form of Government in Article 4. The article is meaningless words on paper since the Founders left no instructions to anyone how this guarantee would be fulfilled.

Democracy is mob rule, and mob rule is no government at all. The word ‘Government’ pre-supposes order, not disorder. When the mob rules, there is always disorder. That’s why I dislike the word Government- it pre-supposes Law (order) but the People never get order. What they get are pretenders of Government- Cops, robbers, murders and kidnappers.

[micklemus]

repeal or Modifications are only in part and some change of wording please check out for your self

I can assure you, I know it like the back of my hand. This is a red herring but if you want to discuss I'll happily go through it.

[killmicrosoft]

I can assure you, I know it like the back of my hand. This is a red herring but if you want to discuss I'll happily go through it.

so your an authority are you???? (delusional!!!) who gave you that authority ????(not me!!!)
what makes you think that your word is any better than anyone else s
mate im sorry but all i can see is you trying to hush people up who can show you facts
dont get me wrong im not on a quest to to disprove or prove facts to you or any other person
i am only interested if finding out the truth for myself.
for if i do not know the truth who can i teach the truth too.

[micklemus]

so your an authority are you???? (delusional!!!) who gave you that authority ????(not me!!!)
what makes you think that your word is any better than anyone else s
mate im sorry but all i can see is you trying to hush people up who can show you facts
dont get me wrong im not on a quest to to disprove or prove facts to you or any other person
i am only interested if finding out the truth for myself.
for if i do not know the truth who can i teach the truth too.

LOL!

Don't overestimate yourself. It doesn't matter to me if you believe the sea is pink, nor whether you believe me or not.

I was offering to take you through it, the background to it and the various repeals. Clearly you don't want that. No skin off my nose.

If you wish to believe this Act is relevant to the "Admiralty law conspiracy" (as I presume is the case otherwise you wouldn't have posted it) be my guest.

[killmicrosoft]

LOL!

Don't overestimate yourself. It doesn't matter to me if you believe the sea is pink, nor whether you believe me or not.

I was offering to take you through it, the background to it and the various repeals. Clearly you don't want that. No skin off my nose.

If you wish to believe this Act is relevant to the "Admiralty law conspiracy" (as I presume is the case otherwise you wouldn't have posted it) be my guest.

as stated before repeal or Modifications are only in part and some change of wording please check out for your self.

i have read this statute/act and various other statues/acts linked to this statues/act and i can assure you it is what it says on the tin if you don't believe me look at what repeals/Modifications have been made

only parts/Modifications of text or/and parts of the the statute/act have been repealed/Modified not the whole statute/act as you seem to imply and you know that is not the case.

Don't overestimate yourself

don't worry i don't !!!!!!!!!!!!!
all i am seeking is the truth and i have had enough of the bullshit of the lame ducks who don't investigate facts and think that they know it all without investigation as in my experience they themselves become a victims of their own ignorance.

[micklemus]

as stated before repeal or Modifications are only in part and some change of wording please check out for your self.

i have read this statute/act and various other statues/acts linked to this statues/act and i can assure you it is what it says on the tin if you don't believe me look at what repeals/Modifications have been made

only parts/Modifications of text or parts of the the statute/act have been repealed/Modified not the whole statute/act as you seem to imply and you know that is not the case.

I didn't say the whole Act had been repealed. I mentioned repeals, i.e. parts have been repealed.

It's what it says/does that matters and the reality is far more mundane. There's clearly no point in discussing though so I'll leave it there.

[rumpole]

'I refuse to be subject to statute, which is Admiralty Law. I am in a common law jurisdiction'

The mantra of the 'Freeman' myth.

So, wake up chaps, let's get the information out:

Admiralty law (also referred to as maritime law) is a distinct body of law which governs maritime activities, private entities which operate vessels on the oceans, marine commerce, marine navigation, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea.

Application of English Admiralty law:

It is a distinct body of law which governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of private international law governing the relationships between private entities which operate vessels on the oceans.

Application of American Maritime Law:

X. Classic Civil Law Principles Found in American Maritime Law

1) Shipowners' limitation of liability and abandonment

2) The attachment

3) Proportionate fault

4) The codification of maritime lien law

5) Maritime liens are rights

6) Wrongful death

7) Liens on cargo for demurrage without contract

8) Equity

9) Marine insurance

10) General average

11) Salvage

12) Maintenance and cure

XI. Classic Common Law Principles Found in American Maritime Law

1) The ship mortgage

2) The collision lien

3) Arrest in rem

4) No cure/no pay in salvage


Modern admiralty law is based upon the laws of Wisbey, the laws of the Hansa Towns, and the laws of Oleron. All refer to disputes with ships.

Historically, the American interest in Admiralty courts came about because the English Parliament passed a 'Stamp Act' to pay for the army, whereby certain goods imported by sea had to have a pre-paid stamp affixed to them. Because colonial juries became less likely to convict a colonist for not paying, the British parliament determined that trials be organised under Admiralty jurisdiction, where there was no trial by jury. Protests against this were one development in the American rebellion.

Now, even Admiralty courts have trial by jury. Admiralty courts in both countires have jurusdiction just over sea and ship matters only since March 18, 1766. If you want to know if you're looking at an Admiralty court, then look at the law it's practicing. If it's not using Admiralty law, then it's not an admiralty court.

'Legislation is Admiralty law'? Shall we see how many people fall for it?:eek:

This is all correct - I used to work in the shipping industry.