Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-09-2009, 10:17 PM   #1
the maestro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Is this all or nothing?

Firstly I'd just like to say that irrespective of all the legal stuff I love what you are all doing. I've felt and voiced for a very long time the freeman ethos even though I'd never heard of it and didn't know the lawfulness of what I felt, it was simply because it was in my heart to be free. Like most people I don't wish to cause anyone harm or loss, and putting up with tighter and tighter controls on normal human 'god given' rights and activity and being treated like a child has always been a bitter pill to swallow. We are all free in our hearts and even if this movement comes to nothing the human will to be free will never be snuffed out.

Now to my question 'Is this all or nothing'? I'd like to know exactly when the contract(s) that put you under the power of civil law are determined to have been agreed to.

On the one hand we have people who say that the only way to be free of statute 'law' is to have your birth certificate destroyed, your NI number removed etc.

Then on the other hand we seem to have people who seem to say that even as a normal member of society (yes I know the legal meaning of the word), e.g. someone working in a 'normal' job and with an NI number you can claim that you aren't under contract to stand under statute law in a multitude of circumstances.

So does having a Birth Cert and a NI Number mean that all statute law is applicable? In other words is that the START of the contract for EVERYTHING in acts of parliament? Or, do the contracts exist within a sub-level within the society?

Example: driving a car - I have a driving license, tax, insurance etc. in fact everything the system demands. I get a speeding ticket and try to say that they don't have a contract with me. Where is the contract (if anywhere)? Does the fact that I have a birth cert. and NI mean that I'm under contract, or is the contract in the fact that I have signed up to have a license? Or does no contract exist until the Police Officer tried to lay one on me? I heard somewhere that in applying for a license you are in fact agreeing to do all the associated stuff of having MOT, obeying rules of the road, having insurance etc? So in fact if you have a Drivers license you are stuffed.

One thing that made me thing of that is the forum member GirlGye who got picked up - she had a valid driving license but a de-reg car, no insurance etc. Is she under contract because of the license?

I think you are getting the picture - where exactly does the contract begin and should we be sharing this precise information?

Last edited by the maestro; 12-09-2009 at 10:19 PM.
the maestro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 10:30 PM   #2
nialldabass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 253
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Hi and welcome to the boards, good question and one I am not gonna try and answer, but I think your asking about consent as each, lets say parking fine is a new contract and I asume your asking when the consent is given
The whole argument is that the consent was given without full dissclosure, so the authorities are acting fraudulently in their contracts which is an offence under comman law.
I hope im right but Im sure youll get a much better answer
nialldabass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 11:04 PM   #3
the maestro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nialldabass View Post
Hi and welcome to the boards, good question and one I am not gonna try and answer, but I think your asking about consent as each, lets say parking fine is a new contract and I asume your asking when the consent is given
The whole argument is that the consent was given without full dissclosure, so the authorities are acting fraudulently in their contracts which is an offence under comman law.
I hope im right but Im sure youll get a much better answer
Yes your are correct, I'm asking when consent is given in each case.

For example, is there something (that we never read) on the forms that you fill in e.g. when registering a car, when applying for a driving license etc. that says in effect "I agree to be bound to make sure my car has an MOT, that I have insurance". Or is the consent given as part of belonging to the society, i.e. having a birth certificate, having a NI number. Exactly when in each case is consent given? For e.g. council tax, have you consented because you have a birth certificate, NI number, or is the consent given further down the line, and if so, at what point?

Last edited by the maestro; 12-09-2009 at 11:05 PM.
the maestro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 11:49 PM   #4
tien an
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,101
Likes: 5 (4 Posts)
Default

Hi the maestro (what a moniker!) and welcome to the boards from me too.

In an attempt to answer your question:

I recently managed to have a PCN cancelled.
My method for doing this was not quite as recommended by the FOTL method (for want of a better term), and I mixed it up a bit. (read: cocked it up).

I posited that since the reserved parking spaces weren't all being used before, during and after the time I had parked my car there, I wasn't causing any harm, injury or loss to anyone.
(This, as you may know, is alluding to the fact that the alleged offence was criminal, when in reality a PCN is a civil (or contractual) offence).
This was a monumental mistake on my part, for which I am slightly embarrassed. I say slightly, because I am after all quite new to all this as well and I have 'put it down to experience'.
I also insisted that the Authority threatening to prosecute me provide proof of their claim:
Me showing them ID.
Them being able to prove that I am the legal fiction with whom they have a contract.
Proof that a contract exists between us.
...and other points to be found on many similar counter-claims in such cases.

The chap who wrote the letter (three pages), confirming the cancellation of the PCN begins:

"As a fellow 'human being', and understanding that you are 'of the XXXXX family', I fully acknowledge that you, as the person addressed above, are fully entitled under 'Natural Law' to be addressed as you would prefer. However, it can also be confirmed that you have registered your name and address with the DVLA. Therefore, in accordance with the statutory process outlined below, we understand your statutory name and address to be the one at the top left-hand corner of the page, which will be recognized under the legislative process".

He then states that:
"The reason for the cancellation is that there were a number of points from your initial informal representation that were not fully or clearly addressed, as was subsequently highlighted in your further correspondence on this matter".

He then goes on to quote the Traffic Management Act (2004), contravention no. 12r, which is a "breach of the TMA..."

To summarise:
He acknowledges both the human being and the corporate fiction.
The human being (corporate entities can't write), had not been adequately replied to when the claim was contested.
The corporate entity was found to have breached the (contract?) TMA.

This is my view of what happened:

Whilst I (the human being) am acknowledged, I (the corporate entity) would be recognised as liable in the 'legislative process'. (for having breached the 'contract'?).
Since a 'man' occupies a much higher position (second only to 'God') than that of the corporate entity, the corporate entity could not prosecute the 'man'. (Corporate entities are the issuance of 'man' and, since a maxim of law states that the issuance cannot be more powerful than its creator, the corporate entity is powerless to prosecute).

...or they couldn't be bothered arguing the point and let me off on a technicality that would have scuppered their court case (not explaining their reasons for prosecution = lack of full disclosure = voided contract).
This last presumption is supported by one of the closing lines in the letter:
"In conclusion, I accept that the particular situation you found yourself in was an unfortunate oversight".

Unfortunate?
For whom?
Not me: I had the chance to issue a counter-claim and rebut their claim.
For them perhaps?

I don't really know what is going on...I can make assumptions, speculate all I like...I'm not as versed in Statute Law or legalese as their solicitors, so can't say for sure.

To answer your question(s).

I think the contract begins when your birth certificate is issued.
An amendment to the contract is made when you complicate matters by getting a driving licence.
Other amendments are made when you begin to work and pay tax (NINO is issued).

Consent to the initial contract is given by your parents (or the informant), since you are an infant (in reality) and cannot speak for yourself.
The other amendments are made at (your) request: applications for NINO, driving licence etc.

That full disclosure is not given (they don't even tell you the RTA and TMA are contracts!), is probably the reason why PCN's like mine are cancelled.

As for council tax...that's another story, for another day.

Hope I've helped.

tian an.

PS First post and such an eloquent, knowledgeable question...careful there; you'll have people getting suspicious...

Last edited by tien an; 13-09-2009 at 12:14 AM.
tien an is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2009, 11:53 PM   #5
tien an
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,101
Likes: 5 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the maestro View Post
Yes your are correct, I'm asking when consent is given in each case.

For example, is there something (that we never read) on the forms that you fill in e.g. when registering a car, when applying for a driving license etc. that says in effect "I agree to be bound to make sure my car has an MOT, that I have insurance". Or is the consent given as part of belonging to the society, i.e. having a birth certificate, having a NI number. Exactly when in each case is consent given? For e.g. council tax, have you consented because you have a birth certificate, NI number, or is the consent given further down the line, and if so, at what point?
This is a really good question and one to which I fully intend finding the answer.
I only 'consented' to paying council tax because they sent me a Bill and I was told (hearsay) that I had to pay it.
I 'consented' by paying the first month's instalment.
tien an is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 12:01 AM   #6
wildhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a stable by a sacred spring
Posts: 5,257
Likes: 220 (114 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tien an View Post
This is a really good question and one to which I fully intend finding the answer.
I only 'consented' to paying council tax because they sent me a Bill and I was told (hearsay) that I had to pay it.
I 'consented' by paying the first month's instalment.
see this is another twist...

been paying CT at present address, they been rather good at this council

but since i have been paying, can I just say "oh i am now enlightened, and wont be paying?"

Rabbit hole? No Shit!!!
wildhorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 12:10 AM   #7
tien an
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,101
Likes: 5 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhorse View Post
see this is another twist...

been paying CT at present address, they been rather good at this council

but since i have been paying, can I just say "oh i am now enlightened, and wont be paying?"

Rabbit hole? No Shit!!!
Hi wildhorse, I think it works more like this:

You enter into a contract, any contract, and find later that the contract causes you loss, harm...or that it's simply fraudulent (They didn't tell you they were funding the EU with your CT, for example).
That is incomplete disclosure of the terms of the contract and, as far as I know, good grounds for interrupting the contract yourself.

(Google Ray St.Clair...)

tian an.
tien an is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 12:14 AM   #8
the maestro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tien an View Post
This is a really good question and one to which I fully intend finding the answer.
I only 'consented' to paying council tax because they sent me a Bill and I was told (hearsay) that I had to pay it.
I 'consented' by paying the first month's instalment.
Cheers Tien an,

So you believe that being a part of the society, i.e. having a registered birth certificate etc. isn't enough for them to enforce this contract?

I'm a bit confused about the 'being a member of a society' thing that freemen talk about compared to the 'contract' under specific circumstances part.

I've not read your PCN related reply completely, I will tommorow Just watching a silly film (district 9) at the moment...
the maestro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 12:17 AM   #9
tien an
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,101
Likes: 5 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the maestro View Post
Cheers Tien an,

So you believe that being a part of the society, i.e. having a registered birth certificate etc. isn't enough for them to enforce this contract?

I'm a bit confused about the 'being a member of a society' thing that freemen talk about compared to the 'contract' under specific circumstances part.

I've not read your PCN related reply completely, I will tommorow Just watching a silly film (district 9) at the moment...
Ah no; nothing of the sort: The Society in question is the Law Society.
We mortals are most definitely not part of that club.

I speculate (all I can do for the moment) that the CT 'contract' is unenforceable because they didn't tell me what they were doing with the money I paid them: funding the EU, the national debt (I want to know exactly where it's going). (Lack of full disclosure).

I'd speculate that the contract surrounding the relationship between your corporate entity (created by the birth certificate) is also unenforceable for the same reasons...do you remember the date you were born, receiving full disclosure of the implications of that (bloody) certificate?
Did you know that they create a "c'est de qui" trust in your NAME, which makes you officially "Dead and irretrievably lost beyond the seas".
Oh, if you catch on before you're seven years old, you can cancel the contract....(stranger than fiction innit?)



tian an.

Last edited by tien an; 13-09-2009 at 12:24 AM.
tien an is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 12:39 AM   #10
the maestro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tien an View Post
Hi wildhorse, I think it works more like this:

You enter into a contract, any contract, and find later that the contract causes you loss, harm...or that it's simply fraudulent (They didn't tell you they were funding the EU with your CT, for example).
That is incomplete disclosure of the terms of the contract and, as far as I know, good grounds for interrupting the contract yourself.

(Google Ray St.Clair...)

tian an.
Just an aside. The wisdom of these common law ideas seems timeless. We aren't trying to get off speeding fines etc. On the face of it they are quite sensible, but I personally believe that having laws that say 'you MIGHT harm someone' is the the thin end of the wedge and lays the ground for all the anti terrorist, anti demonstration laws.. Thought police.. Its also just wrong to use accident statistics to condemn an individual - they have a right to take their individual circumstances into account and I don't just mean lame mitigation. Loosing a driving license for some people means no job, no family and not to have a trial by jury for this is ridiculous. If people were free of these laws but had full liability and full freedom, sure there would be a few tragedies but I personally think that the rewards for the real society are far greater. Why do people drive like idiots? Because of this SOCIETY (in my opinion).
the maestro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 12:44 AM   #11
the maestro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tien an View Post
Ah no; nothing of the sort: The Society in question is the Law Society.
We mortals are most definitely not part of that club.

I speculate (all I can do for the moment) that the CT 'contract' is unenforceable because they didn't tell me what they were doing with the money I paid them: funding the EU, the national debt (I want to know exactly where it's going). (Lack of full disclosure).

I'd speculate that the contract surrounding the relationship between your corporate entity (created by the birth certificate) is also unenforceable for the same reasons...do you remember the date you were born, receiving full disclosure of the implications of that (bloody) certificate?
Did you know that they create a "c'est de qui" trust in your NAME, which makes you officially "Dead and irretrievably lost beyond the seas".
Oh, if you catch on before you're seven years old, you can cancel the contract....(stranger than fiction innit?)



tian an.
That's not what Ive been lead to believe. I thought that the society was the corporation of UK PLC or whatever it is these days. That's why we have to abide by its rules because we are assumed to be employees of it?
the maestro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 12:55 AM   #12
tien an
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,101
Likes: 5 (4 Posts)
Default

We have to clear something up here, the maestro:

(I'm only referring to the UK)

Acts of Parliament, which have the force of law, are administered (enforced) by members of the Law Society, who pen these 'laws' in legalese (research the multiple and sometimes contradictory meanings of words used by members of the Law Society).

The MP's who (are supposed to) deliberate the implications of these laws before passing them through the legislative procedure, govern the populace by consent.
Stop consenting to be governed = withdrawal from 'society' = freedom from jurisdiction of 'Acts'.

That's the theory anyway.

(Hope that clears up the confusion between 'society' and the 'Law Society').

tian an.
tien an is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 01:40 AM   #13
the maestro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tien an View Post
We have to clear something up here, the maestro:

(I'm only referring to the UK)

Acts of Parliament, which have the force of law, are administered (enforced) by members of the Law Society, who pen these 'laws' in legalese (research the multiple and sometimes contradictory meanings of words used by members of the Law Society).

The MP's who (are supposed to) deliberate the implications of these laws before passing them through the legislative procedure, govern the populace by consent.
Stop consenting to be governed = withdrawal from 'society' = freedom from jurisdiction of 'Acts'.

That's the theory anyway.

(Hope that clears up the confusion between 'society' and the 'Law Society').

tian an.
Hopefully I will understand more as I go along I'm going to go back to the law books, its a pity really having to disentangle all this legalese to obtain your basic human rights, but i'm up for it.
the maestro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 01:28 PM   #14
wildhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: In a stable by a sacred spring
Posts: 5,257
Likes: 220 (114 Posts)
Default

it is head spinning indeed...

but simplified what we are living in, is a system close to that of Minority Report (tom cruise)

we are all condemned before our actions, and we have been programmed to accept this...

rather like getting told Jesus died for our sins on the cross...now thats conditioning for ya...2000 years before we were born, some guy died for our sins? and we are supposed to carry that on our shoulders?

rather sick when looked at like that...

But see, convicting someone even when no harm was ACTUALLY caused, but might have been had circumstances been different, doesnt bring in the cash via fines and other indirect 'penalties'. How can you bring someone to justice if no-one got hurt?

Learning from our mistakes comes not from fines or points, but from internal reflection and 'getting it'. Only then will we look at our actions and responsabilities differently. But education is free, and would mess up this corrupt legal infrastructure relient on guilt and shame, not facts or individual cases or circumstances. Many sentences are mandatory, and so all it takes is the word of a copper slighted or vested interest and youre fucked!

Making mistakes and learning from them is part of our evolution, spiritual and otherwise, this current legal system stunts that to a certain extent, by changing the course of events for the worse. Whilst there are real criminal characters that dont want to better themselves, I bet there would be at least a great individual, who had he/she not got made an example of, and got sent down, would turn his/her life around and become someone great. Instead, left and turned away by 'society' and unable to get work on his/her release, they re-offend as they couldnt get back on track. Yup, this system has a lot to answer for.

(sorry if that dont make sense, just abit fluffy headed today )

I no longer consent to this system...they are liars and hypocrites and so I begin my own journey into this as a right, not just a way of life...
wildhorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-09-2009, 02:48 PM   #15
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhorse View Post
see this is another twist...

been paying CT at present address, they been rather good at this council

but since i have been paying, can I just say "oh i am now enlightened, and wont be paying?"

Rabbit hole? No Shit!!!
Hehehehehehe I love this AVATA Amisa.x
girlgye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2009, 12:06 AM   #16
the maestro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 171
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhorse View Post
it is head spinning indeed...

but simplified what we are living in, is a system close to that of Minority Report (tom cruise)

we are all condemned before our actions, and we have been programmed to accept this...

rather like getting told Jesus died for our sins on the cross...now thats conditioning for ya...2000 years before we were born, some guy died for our sins? and we are supposed to carry that on our shoulders?

rather sick when looked at like that...

But see, convicting someone even when no harm was ACTUALLY caused, but might have been had circumstances been different, doesnt bring in the cash via fines and other indirect 'penalties'. How can you bring someone to justice if no-one got hurt?

Learning from our mistakes comes not from fines or points, but from internal reflection and 'getting it'. Only then will we look at our actions and responsabilities differently. But education is free, and would mess up this corrupt legal infrastructure relient on guilt and shame, not facts or individual cases or circumstances. Many sentences are mandatory, and so all it takes is the word of a copper slighted or vested interest and youre fucked!

Making mistakes and learning from them is part of our evolution, spiritual and otherwise, this current legal system stunts that to a certain extent, by changing the course of events for the worse. Whilst there are real criminal characters that dont want to better themselves, I bet there would be at least a great individual, who had he/she not got made an example of, and got sent down, would turn his/her life around and become someone great. Instead, left and turned away by 'society' and unable to get work on his/her release, they re-offend as they couldnt get back on track. Yup, this system has a lot to answer for.

(sorry if that dont make sense, just abit fluffy headed today )

I no longer consent to this system...they are liars and hypocrites and so I begin my own journey into this as a right, not just a way of life...
I completely agree with you, its just a pity that not that many people seem to be able to see the wider picture. Civil rights is a really hard cause to argue for because you will always get bludgeoned by some emotive issue like some pedo who abused a child giving them a lift to a sports club, or someone who was killed by a speeding motorist. So we must have tighter controls on all 'potentially' dangerous activities. The end result is everything and everyone is categorised and put in a box, individuality and growth goes out of the window like you said.

Anyway this is getting a bit off topic, I still don't know how I can use all this 'freman on the land' stuff being a member of the system. Sorry but I just couldn't survive without an NI number, I'd have not means to live!
the maestro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-09-2009, 12:28 AM   #17
tien an
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,101
Likes: 5 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the maestro View Post
I completely agree with you, its just a pity that not that many people seem to be able to see the wider picture. Civil rights is a really hard cause to argue for because you will always get bludgeoned by some emotive issue like some pedo who abused a child giving them a lift to a sports club, or someone who was killed by a speeding motorist. So we must have tighter controls on all 'potentially' dangerous activities. The end result is everything and everyone is categorised and put in a box, individuality and growth goes out of the window like you said.

Anyway this is getting a bit off topic, I still don't know how I can use all this 'freman on the land' stuff being a member of the system. Sorry but I just couldn't survive without an NI number, I'd have not means to live!
I don't either: At the moment, I'm telling myself that there must be a means of evoking natural law (called 'common law' in England), which is anterior and superior to statute law, to protect and enforce the Claim of Right, and not the jurisdiction of (aforementioned) statute law.
There is also Commercial Redemption, which requires one to retain the NI number as a means of 'offsetting' (or 'accepting for value') certain costs incurred in our society (such as shelter and food) against a trust of which we should be the beneficiary, instead of the State.

Speaking of 'State', just this subject is covered (not quite as thoroughly as one would wish) here: http://www.youtube.com/user/ACriticalState

Enjoy.

'Is this all or nothing?'
In my humble opinion, no...not yet.

tian an.
tien an is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:16 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.