Freeman-on-the-land - Lawful not Legal

Hey everyone

I thought I'd start a thread on the suggestion of other members, and I'm getting all kinds of bad karma for going off-topic. I can see why but I think freeman-on-the-land/secured party creditor/expatriating etc are all very relevant to the problems that are being posted, namely because no actual crimes are being committed, they are just breech of statute. No corpus delicti, no crime!

This thread got the ball rolling.
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=161139

Hopefully you guys will continue to explore this avenue with me. I'm not claiming to know anything as this subject is most definitely a continuous learning curve. I only have my perspective and how I see things, and so do you, but I am certainly willing to share that with you all and I hope you will give me insight into your reality too.

EDIT:- I think it's also worth mentioning that Freeman-on-the-Land is a different perspective on Law. It's nothing new, we have been under admiralty jurisdiction for a long time, but because of an assumption of power that we have given the police, they just play be whatever rules they like. This can work both to your detriment and advantage depending on your perspective and understanding. It may seem like these techniques will get you into more trouble with the law, but in reality the action which gives them the all clear to move to the next stage is your consent.

I never give legal advice EVER! If you accept legal advice (from a lawyer etc) you are deemed a 'ward of the court', i.e. not capable of presenting yourself. Your voice is stripped and you may no longer address the court. Freeman is about regaining the knowledge of the true jurisdiction we are under and claiming back the rights to act for ourselves, which I'm guessing most of us have signed away without disclosure of this fact

Use this information at your own risk! You are sovereign beings and only you can decide on what's right for you. I know I feel myself that decisions have been made on my behalf for too long...

Peace all

LINKS
Huge library of reading material

Other threads of interest:-
The Lawful Rebellion, THE new hope.
Restore America Project

Posts from the other thread #1

Posts from the other thread #1

Originally Posted by Classyathome
Put a vid cam in car - next time you get pulled over, don't get out, or just play dumb.

See if leo sez something stupid - or lies about blatant stuff.

Sounds like fishin' trip - they are bustin' your balls, and makin' shit up...

Click to expand...

This is great advice (maybe not playing dumb) and almost certainly the deal. Record everything, doors locked, keys on floor, window down 1 inch. Don't give your name, don't sign anything. The cops are just trying to generate as much revenue as they can, not so sneakily hidden by the name of a "Charge" (I just love the word games they use). They'll literally pin anything on you to hit their quota for the day. Record either with video or/and audio and make sure they know you are recording too. Obviously don't give them too much reason to pull you over, as any mischief in their contracts just makes your case stronger.

After you've got all that under your belt, actually SCREW THEM! We should make sure we actually follow up instead of considering it a lucky escape from the Gestapo. These organisations are supposed to be representative, to serve and protect... I'm starting to wonder what exactly (£$€). Study up, solidify your case, then sue their asses or whatever it is you guys do over there wave:hey from UK). Hit them where it really hurts... in the pocket! Police officers can be held commercially liable for their actions, they all take an oath so make sure they know you know it!

Take care everyone.

Posts from the other thread #2

Posts from the other thread #2

Originally Posted by NiteTiger

Originally Posted by FreeMan
This is great advice (maybe not playing dumb) and almost certainly the deal. Record everything, doors locked, keys on floor, window down 1 inch. Don't give your name, don't sign anything. Just take your time in jail for failing to provide identification.

Click to expand...

Fixed your post.

Click to expand...

Yeah obviously man... what is a worse penalty for you guys over there? Here in the UK, the policy officers can only hold you for 24hours without charge, then they have to apply to the court for an order to hold you longer. This is impossible if you know what you are doing. Any time they are forcing action on the MAN (this includes you too ladies), they are acting unlawfully and you have recourse. As soon as you create joinder between you and your name, they can pretty much treat you however they want. You are admitting that you are an employee of the US/UK/EU and you are on the job 24/7, this aint no dayshift.

I'm not saying that a little time in a cell isn't inconveniencing the day you had planned, I'm just saying if you've got a brick in the car and you're going down the station anyway, why do it as an employee breaking company rules instead of a MAN of freewill who has the lawful right to do as the hell he likes as long as he's not affecting anyone else (maybe that brick is so stinky it's annoying the other road users )

These suggestions seem a little crazy at first, but do a little research into this and you'll see they're not as out there as you initially thought. A lot of people speak of LEGAL and LAW, but it makes me chuckle... especially when the advice given is only in line with LEGISLATION, they are two completely different things. This wasn't on the BAR test, trust me. Legislated acts are not law, they are merely rules of a society. Has anyone ever tried to read those damn things...? Usually a couple of hundred pages of senseless trash... Are you telling me you guys have memorised every section of every act, every link or discrepancy between acts and understand them all? How do you even know if you are abiding by the so called law if not? A Policy Enforcement Officer can tell you just about anything under section 89 of the Bullshit Act and all you can do is bow down to their authority. The only thing these corps have an authority to act on is your 'PERSON' or 'NAME / LEGAL FICTION', which isn't you. It's a title that's all, a piece of paper (your birth certificate to be precise) which your employer created when your parents signed the ownership of you over to them (REGISTRATION in law is defined as 'transfer of ownership').

A brief story - A friend was arrested recently. He gave no name and refused to contract with them in any way (didn't sign anything and did nothing that was ordered). They held him for a whole 24hrs + whatever it took them to get him into a hearing. He stayed strong and they had to release him without charge... why? Because they have nothing to charge, he was a MAN and not a PERSON from start to finish. The claim is now smelling very sweet.

It's all just commerce and we forget that sometimes... they aren't interested in right and wrong. If they were then weed, window tints or whatever other shit doesn't affect YOU in any way whatsoever wouldn't be legislated against.

None of this was in any way LEGAL advice and I will never give any... as soon you receive it you are considered a 'WARD' or 'CHILD' and you have no right to speak. The police over here always try to get you to take on legal advice from a solicitor, I'm not sure what it's like over there. Lawyers obviously love this as they can only make money when you are in controversy. Ever tried to defend yourself in court as the person? It's not very effective... the word 'steamrolled' comes to mind.

I know nothing about LEGAL and never claim to, but I'm quite versed with LAWFUL. You can never have any success in either realm if you have one foot in both. From my escapades in LEGAL I have concluded that you can have a pretty good life if you are willing to tow the line, bend over and accept anything your government demands of you without question. Any diversion from this is risky and you don't have much remedy available to you. The world of LAWFUL on the other hand is a much more level playing field, "No one is above the law". For one, my chronic back pain from all that bending is gone, so now I just lawfully smoke for pleasure

It's all about words and what they mean... this is an interesting watch from the law research group --> The Occult World Of Commerce (don't be put of by views, just listen to the words)

#3

#3

Originally Posted by gaiusmarius
very interesting post, i'm fully into being a free man instead of a legal person, but what do you do if they want your prints and they already have them? they will use the prints to connect you to the legal person, don't you think? that's why biometrics are so evil they enslave us all and tie us to the fictional legal person, there by allowing them to act against you. or do i get this wrong?

peace

Click to expand...

Hey gaiusmarius, thanks for reading my post... I was starting to think freeman was of no interest around here. I hear what your saying about the prints thing, you need to know who you are for it to be effective. A 'legal fiction' or 'name' is exactly that, legal and fictional, it's a legal title. The only way you can be that fiction is of your own admittance, whether expressed (maybe a contract you signed, or GIVING your name to LEO) or implied (silence is agreement in law).

I thought about the 'joinder' aspect of me and my STRAW MAN to a fair extent. It didn't really click for a while, but I'm at the stage now where I'm thinking fingerprints actually support the fact you are a MAN even more! After all, how can a fictional entity actually have fingerprints? I think the only thing which will stand up as joinder between you and your STRAW MAN is admittance from your own mouth i.e. What is your name?, and by signing a contract as your fiction instead of the authorised representative for the fiction
i.e by:Free of the family Man.

From what I've seen over here the police are 'business as usual' as if none of this is happening, but strangely enough regardless of if they know who you apparently are not, they need you to voluntarily give your name. This has been proven by a few I have spoken with. I think this is because a fiction cannot communicate with a real entity. This is exactly the reason you need the fiction, to operate in commerce with other corporations.

The key to it is understanding that you are already a freeman and not a legal fiction, I hope I'm not replying to a piece of paper here. There's a bit of paper shuffling to do as you probably have many contracts in place that you wasn't aware of, but it's simple when you know who and what you are.

As for LEO, you just have to stand your ground. Always act as the MAN, never a 'fictional entity' or 'name'. A MAN doesn't have a 'name' or 'title' because he/she is a real living entity, not a fiction. Only fictions have titles. There are other possibilities for ending up in their jurisdiction, 'driving' a 'registered' vehicle is a commercial act and whoever the vehicle is registered with now owns the thing. Registration in law is defined as 'transfer or ownership'. You don't need a licence to drive an unregistered auto mobile (because you now own it) providing you are not engaging in commerce i.e. taxi etc.

http://www.citizenlaw.com/legaldict.htm <-- Legal Dictionary

It's a whole different language and it's deceptively close to English. Here's a few words worth looking up :-

Person
Human
Man
Statute
Registration...

So many I could go on forever... I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun (or most likely horror!) looking through that thing.

I really hope more people hook onto this thing, we could be making monumental strides in our community with this.

Claim the right, NO REBUTTAL from ANYONE! No corporate entity has power over a real living flesh & blood man, I'd like to see ANY fictional entity rebut an MAN's Affidavit of Truth. Many here have now claimed the right to 'grow, harvest, store & sell any organic substance that grows upon the planet known as Earth'. Madge herself has acquiesced (as silence is agreement in commerce/law) that neither her or any of her agents have the right to stop a MAN doing this... I don't think LEO agree with this, but they are just another for profit organisation... Check https://www.dnbdirect.ca/ReportSearch.asp and see who else is a corporation.

Corporations need contracts to do business with you, but you are a MAN so they need your 'fiction' in order to act. Forcing you into contract is extortion, so that's a no no. They need voluntary agreement, which in commerce is simply giving your 'fiction'. It's not evil, it's just business to them. That's why we need to learn how to operate our STRAW MAN and use what we have available to us instead of trying to tear it all down. All we have to do is walk away from it... leave the ego and the fiction, and material securities behind, just be a real living MAN, nothing more nothing less, grow some plants, and maybe even clean up this rubbish tip we've created over the last 100 years.

Namaste brothers and sisters

#4

#4

Originally Posted by gaiusmarius
are you saying that if i refuse to name myself as the legal person, nor answer any questions, except to give my first name, they will just go on their way?

Click to expand...

No, what I am saying is if you refuse to identify yourself as the legal fiction, and then the cop acts on you, he/she will be doing so unlawfully and you can hold them commercially liable. The way to do this is attach a fee schedule to your claim of right, say
$/£10000 an hour for questioning, interrogation, traffic stop etc.
£/$20000 an hour if detained, handcuffed etc,
$/£50000 an hour if assaulted, physically harmed etc,
£/$1000000 if DNA/Fingerprints forced - per infringement

You get the idea... mail this to them and they have so long to respond (3,7,14 days). If they don't rebut your claims point for point within the time period, that now stands as truth in commerce, as silence is agreement. You now have a contract with them providing you followed the correct procedure, and this secures a default administrative judgement. You gave them ample opportunity to rebut your claims and they chose to remain silent -

Legal Maxims -

A matter must be expressed to be resolved.
He who fails to assert his rights has none.

An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.
He who does not deny, admits.

He who leaves the battlefield first (does not respond to affidavit) loses by default.
He who does not repel a wrong when he can occasions it.

Put your local force on notice, they can't rebut your claims because there's nothing in LAW which says you can't have tints, only in STATUTE. They pull you over, you now have a $10000 commercial injury claim and I suspect it's going to get higher when he asks you to contract. Perfect the process... perfect the claim (aka commercial lien), and they shouldn't give you too much trouble after that. The lien is a powerful tool, and could be quite bad for them depending on how much it is they owe you. No other entity can extract money from them until the lien is settled, and it can only be removed by the claimant or a panel of judges. This is where is hurts them because they are businesses after all, and they are just trying to make money from the service they offered to you (do you want to contract?/what is your name?) You probably agreed/acquiesced or worse still, gave them your vessels title. This is why after all the fun & games they hand you the bill or 'charge' for their troubles.

Hey Freeman, I see your from the UK. There is a guy in london that handles police encounters very well of which he video tapes them all. His youtube name is cveitch, and calls his crowd the love police. He stands up to them very politely and persistently, its amazing.

I'm in the usa where the police have to have reasonable suspicion to stop your vehicle. That means road blocks that police set up are by consent only, that means you have to consent to giving them identification when they ask. You have the legal right and duty to not consent and ask them what their reasonable suspicion is for stopping you, if there is silence, ask "am i free to go now?"

This includes any checkpoint or roadblock where police try to ask you for identification without having reasonable suspicion for stopping you.

Slightly off topic here, but it was the first freeing experience I went through when claiming my rights. Luckily for me I had a nice cop who asked to search my vehicle, of which I replied "I do not consent to any searches today" and the cop turned around and got back in his car without a word.

I have found a website with a wealth of information pertaining to americans about taking control of your strawman. Freedom club usa

Originally everyone is established by a birth certificate as the owner/beneficiary of their strawman.(your name in all capital letters) With the proper use of grammar, nouns don't have all capital letters, ever, so it is purely fiction. As the owner/beneficiary of your strawman, you are responsible for debt and obligations assigned to it. YOU ARE NOT YOUR STRAWMAN, YOU ARE A MAN/WOMAN NOT A "PERSON" in the "PUBLIC".

By assuming a relationship as an aggregate corporation with your strawman, you (the flesh, a man/woman) control the assets of the strawman, without owning anything or being responsible for anything associated with the strawman. You do not own the strawman, you only control its assets, therefore you are not a owner/beneficiary and am not responsible for its (strawman's) debt or obligations. You (the flesh, man/woman) acquire a primary lien on the strawman, that means you are its highest priority creditor. Assuming this relationship between you and your strawman, you own nothing but control all its assets.

This primary lien can be submitted via UCC-1, which will place you (the flesh, man/woman) as the controller of your strawman's assets without owning him, where owning it would make you (the flesh, man/woman) responsible for it's debt and obligations.

Filling out a UCC-1 properly is not what I'm sure on how to do.

Why do strawman exist in the first place, you ask?

The usa went bankrupt in 1933 and all the governors assembled and pledged the people's assets and energy from their state but, governors of the state can only speak for the people in their "public" (fiction) capacity. They can not pledge private human beings or property, so they had to find a way to bridge the gap between private human beings and their property with the creditors of the bankruptcy. The governors pledged to register the application for birth certificates of every new born child with the department of commerce. This application form is the collateral used to secure the debt. The strawman was created when they wrote your name in all capital letters (designating legal FICTION) on your birth certificate. Now they have a standard form of identification saying you (the flesh, man/woman) are owner of this legal fiction/strawman/your name in capital letters. This now makes the governors pledge in their "public" (fiction) capacity valid.

When the government or corporation does anything associated with you, they use your legal fiction (strawman) because they want you to think that is you. YOU ARE A BREATHING HUMAN BEING, NOT A LEGAL FICTION, THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. The legal fiction (strawman) was fabricated with trickery in order to hold real human beings accountable for the national debt owed to the private federal reserve international bank.

Welcome fellow flesh & blood man

Welcome fellow flesh & blood man

Namaste Sam, great posts!

Sam the Caveman said:

Hey Freeman, I see your from the UK. There is a guy in london that handles police encounters very well of which he video tapes them all. His youtube name is cveitch, and calls his crowd the love police. He stands up to them very politely and persistently, its amazing.

Click to expand...

Thanks for mentioning those guys, Charlie and Danny are two of the funniest men I've seen in a while. It must be very liberating for them to make those videos. For anyone who hasn't been acquainted with cvietch and the love police (funnily enough he's on youtube front page now!) --> Everything is OK. These two are freemen-on-the-land, they know their rights and they bravely stand by them.

Same The Caveman said:

I'm in the usa where the police have to have reasonable suspicion to stop your vehicle. That means road blocks that police set up are by consent only, that means you have to consent to giving them identification when they ask. You have the legal right and duty to not consent and ask them what their reasonable suspicion is for stopping you, if there is silence, ask "am i free to go now?"

Click to expand...

Great to connect with some one over the other side of the pond. I think it really helps in the world of admiralty jurisdiction. As this international law and really the only one that is in force around the world (there are a couple of others which we can go into), we can compare similarities/differences between LEO/court actions and find out what the hell they are upto! There are key procedures which stay the same no matter where your geographical location, the consent thing you talk about is a great example. All corporations need a voluntary contract to do business with your strawman (aka your 'transmitting utility'), which can simply be giving its title/name/fiction. You have a right to NEVER give your fiction, under any and all circumstances. Any attempt to force you into contract is extortion and you have recourse. The situation can arise where the temperature rises and you may have no choice but to perform an order, maybe if guns are drawn etc. Any time an action is being forced out of you, clearly state you are performing only 'under protest and duress' for the fear of your physical being, and you do not consent. That really is the key, you have no complaint in commerce if you consent... it makes sense really, how can you? It's cruel that the knowledge of these workings has been hidden for so long, invisible contracts are all around, but with the right set of eyes it all becomes clear.

Sam The Cavman said:

Slightly off topic here, but it was the first freeing experience I went through when claiming my rights. Luckily for me I had a nice cop who asked to search my vehicle, of which I replied "I do not consent to any searches today" and the cop turned around and got back in his car without a word.

Click to expand...

This is very much on-topic, we need to share experiences so we know what is working and what's not. I think you guys are further ahead with this over there, Canada even further. The roots go very deep over here, the assumption of power by the so called judicial system (this is laughable) is so ingrained that they barely follow procedure any more. I heard of a guys appeal against a bad ruling being struck out 3 times by the judge who made the original ruling!? Had can you review your own decision? It's crazy... but I guess their malpractice makes it easier to navigate your vessel.

Sam The Caveman said:

Originally everyone is established by a birth certificate as the owner/beneficiary of their strawman.(your name in all capital letters) With the proper use of grammar, nouns don't have all capital letters, ever, so it is purely fiction. As the owner/beneficiary of your strawman, you are responsible for debt and obligations assigned to it. YOU ARE NOT YOUR STRAWMAN, YOU ARE A MAN/WOMAN NOT A "PERSON" in the "PUBLIC".

Click to expand...

There are some variables here as far as I understand it. I think if you have a SIN, then you have signed beneficiary rights over to the Government, they are now the fiduciary and they are really responsible for debts of the strawman. To lawfully use your strawman as a security to back the fiat currency, they must take on the debts and liabilities of the strawman. That's the reason you have 'Social Insurance' ('National Insurance' here in the UK), so you can 'set-off' any claims made against it. You would not be out of line to consider that contract void, as you weren't given full disclosure that your strawman ([sm] from now on) was being used as a security, your parents didn't have disclosure they were signing you over in registration etc. You could then claim back fiduciary status of the [sm] and all proceeds would come to you. I think you do this through a commercial security agreement between you the flesh & blood man and the [sm]. You just file this in the public records (not sure what this is local to you) and notice anyone you think needs to know.

Sam The Caveman said:

By assuming a relationship as an aggregate corporation with your strawman, you (the flesh, a man/woman) control the assets of the strawman, without owning anything or being responsible for anything associated with the strawman. You do not own the strawman, you only control its assets, therefore you are not a owner/beneficiary and am not responsible for its (strawman's) debt or obligations. You (the flesh, man/woman) acquire a primary lien on the strawman, that means you are its highest priority creditor. Assuming this relationship between you and your strawman, you own nothing but control all its assets.

This primary lien can be submitted via UCC-1, which will place you (the flesh, man/woman) as the controller of your strawman's assets without owning him, where owning it would make you (the flesh, man/woman) responsible for it's debt and obligations.

Click to expand...

Again I have a little different perspective on this, see what you think. You are right about you only control the [sm], it's your transmitting utility that enables a real man to interact with fictions. The way I've heard it explained is the [sm] is like a mask or shield that a man must use in commerce. All commerce is based in fraud! A man is not capable of fraud because his word is his bond, so if a man were to try and engage in the public, it would destroy the fictions like the true voice of god (a lot of it's based on King James Bible). In terms of ownership, I think the reason you don't own the [sm]s assets is due to the fact that you may have signed those rights over in order to receive the insurance policy. It's a little confusing though, as I've also heard that you have an inherant right to everything of the [sm], as you the living man are the only thing that can give that thing energy. Need to clear this one up myself, but I quite like the idea of accessing my insurance policy at the minute. Being able to take care of my basic living needs will give me much more time to concentrate on the things which give me the living man MY energy!

The lien is also another great tool. No other entity can extract any specie of money from the [sm] until the lien interest is settled. Corporations may find it hard to get paid if the flesh & blood man ([f&bm] from now on) has a lien on his/her [sm] to the tune of £$1000000000. I think the lien on yourself is the commercial security agreement as I mentioned. UCC-1 financing statement is only NOTICE of the lien. It let's the international community know there is a lien in place, and if anyone is thinking of coming for you they better check that out first, it is not the lien iteself so it's no good without the security agreement. I'll press someone for a vid of this, it's not online yet but they took us through the whole thing.

A commercial lien placed on another corporation is a different matter. This is perfected by way of the standard noticing route i.e. notice, notice of default, notice of default & opprtunity to cure, final notice of default & opportunity to cure, notice of lien, commercial lien... or something like that.

Spot on information in your second post as well Sam, thanks again for jumping in and helping out. The grey areas are so vast that the main problem half the time is knowing where to start. It's much better from my perspective when people ask questions or want to know something specific as it gives you a natural starting point. I'm lost at sea otherwise, and there are pirates on the dark sea of commerce everywhere

Peace all

Thanks Freeman, I would like to find a seminar to attend.

I've heard in the past of people who give speeches on this topic but don't know how to find out about where they are or who gives them.

I've been picking up bits and pieces here and there from different websites, but would like to sit down for a formal presentation of info.

Do you know of anyone on this side of the pond?

Duckmang said:

Am I understanding right that when a LEO asks my identity that I should simply say that I am a free man? If they don't press the issue no problem right...? But if they do press the issue I'm not understanding the process entirely. Say they want to take me "in" for my refusal to name myself (attach myself to the fiction) Do I inform them then of my $10K/hr fee for questioning? I sorta understand the "lein trap" but not how to set and snare it. Could you clarify this better for those of us who aren't fluent in "legal-eze"

Click to expand...

It's like you imagine, it could go either way. As Sam said he had a cop just u-turn and nothing more was said. I've seen the other end of the spectrum i.e. maximum detention without charge which is 24hrs over here. They cannot 'charge' you if they have no fiction to do business with, a fictional entity such as LEO (they are men ACTING as peace officers) cannot communicate in any capacity with a real man.

The way I would suggest (for theoretical purposes - do your own research) is notice your local law enforcement, claim whatever rights you wish in an affidavit and attach a fee schedule for any transgressions. If they do not respond within the allotted time period they have acquiesced, as remember silence is agreement. Follow this administrative process with the defaults etc, then you gain 'lawful estoppal'. This is basically the 'end of discussion' ticket you need really. It's a contract which they have agreed to silently, and you can call them in on their obligations should they decide to harrass, detain, or whatever you have in your fee schedule.

Then if you are stopped, and LEO insist they find out who you are, you can give them the contract which states you are a man that they have no lawful right to engage with, you are charging for the time which they have already lawfully agreed to as per your stated rates... and last but not least inform them the clock has already started ticking. I can't say what their response to all this will be, over here they are really holding their ground. I've heard stories from you guys over there that LEO pretty much know what the deal is and after a few attempts they just stop bothering you. I guess it's like a door-to-door salesman trying the same dead lead all the time. They are only going to knock a couple of times before they realise you are never going to buy anything and it's a waste of time. They are just businesses trying to generate revenue and it's bad practice to waste time chasing up cold leads if they know there is no sale at the end. It's just as easy to stop the guy behind you asleep at the wheel.

As for 'legalese', it's really a trap that will have you chasing your tail. The courts change their dictionaries all the time and it's unclear as to which versions are in use and where. It's better to 'stand-under' your own law, as I certainly don't 'under-stand' statutes and acts. Ever tried reading those things? I defy anyone to comprehend them. Taking into account the fact that legalese is so close to the base language, you have to literally decipher every word. Better to just walk away... The only time it's really worth looking into is if you want to use a statute or an act against a corporate entity, as they are bound by such legislation.

LEGAL = fiction. (This is the reason I don't give LEGAL advice)
LAWFUL = truth

Sam the Caveman said:

Thanks Freeman, I would like to find a seminar to attend.

I've heard in the past of people who give speeches on this topic but don't know how to find out about where they are or who gives them.

I've been picking up bits and pieces here and there from different websites, but would like to sit down for a formal presentation of info.

Do you know of anyone on this side of the pond?

Click to expand...

The guy who really helped me comprehend the commerce side of things was Winston Shrout. He's really ahead of the game and he's got a lot of his seminars recorded. The DVDs require many promissory debt notes (£$) to acquire (which some don't agree with) but luckily there are a couple online.
Winston Shrout - Fort Collins Seminar
Winston Shrout - Kelowna Seminar

Highly recommend watching those 2. He goes through a lot of stuff such as 'Accepting for Value' your birth certificate/bond, set-off, bonding judges... tons of great info in there.

Here's a whole load of other good video links that you may find useful. Rob Menard, Marc Stevens and J.Anderson are all must sees as well.

Sail safely bro

NiteTiger said:

Oh, no doubt it's some awesome info, and makes for a great esoteric legal discussion. I'm enjoying reading it

I would desperately love to see some cases where this has been applied in reality, my whole approach to life would change!

Click to expand...

I'd also like to read some case law with this stuff but it's a little tricky to hunt down. I've seen it live in court but not down on paper.

I've discovered over here the main reason is different courts record cases differently. Our lowest rank court is called the 'Magistrates' and they deal with statutory 'offences' such as parking tickets, growing etc NOT crimes. There can be no crime without injury/loss + claim. Can you believe this court doesn't even record the details of the case? They are plainly stamping orders and the result is noted, so any freeman victory is simply being down played as 'case dismissed'. The next court is the 'Crown' which deals with 'real' crimes a man is capable of committing - assault, burglary, murder etc. These are real crimes as they involve injury or loss, and a claim which are the 2 elements needed for a crime (corpus delicti). Freeman methodology isn't much use to you here as you cannot cause injury or loss to another, their rights, freedoms or property. Your rights end where the next man's start, and all are equal under the law.

I think one of the best things you can do is hook up with some freemen in your area and follow them down to the courthouse, just observe from the public gallery. It's very empowering and like you mentioned, it really does change your whole approach to life.

I have a question for you guys... How do your courts work over there? Can you dig up cases from your lowest ranked courts (not sure what they are called)?

Freeman is a great concept. Anyone in Canada should Youtube the name Robert Arthur Menard. Even tho his style of delivery is a bit odd to me, he has tons of great info in his videos and book.

nice...

nice...

i was hoping you'd start a thread on this subject...

i have watched some films by Robert Menard, it's very interesting stuff, specially the thing of using the money on your birth certificates corresponding bond.

was just thinking if one made a claim of right and attached said fee schedule and sent it down to the local police station, or the city police chief, you'd surely get a letter back saying, no you don't have the right to grow etc. this then would spoil everything as only their silence can be taken as agreement?

here's quite a funny guy who seems to believe he's free and ends up making it so lol

http://www.break.com/index/he-fought-the-law-and-the-law-lost.html

gaiusmarius said:

was just thinking if one made a claim of right and attached said fee schedule and sent it down to the local police station, or the city police chief, you'd surely get a letter back saying, no you don't have the right to grow etc. this then would spoil everything as only their silence can be taken as agreement?

Click to expand...

Your partially correct here, you may get a 'letter' back from the police saying you can't grow, but if that is all they have 'dishonoured' your notice. A simple letter 'no you can't grow' just won't do in this case. A 'notice' is a lawful document, affidavits need to be rebutted with evidence point for point. They must respond to your notice along the lines of 'you can't grow because...'. They might try 'you can't grow because of s.X of the Misuse of Drugs Act' etc, but this is literally as the term describes it... an 'Act', a bit like a game.. you have to play along. Statutes can only be enforced on the [sm] and therefore require consent. Well, I do not consent... what else could they have in the bag? They really have no lawful rebuttal available to them.

gaiusmarius said:

http://www.break.com/index/he-fought-the-law-and-the-law-lost.html

Click to expand...

That's a great vid man... he starts of with freeman techniques but then he just switches and goes plain oldschool on them... RUN!

He gets things a little twisted as he states to the officers that their actions are not LEGAL, when this really doesn't matter. It's a LAWFUL standing he is attempting to make. He never contracted as far as I could see but he could have definitely kept his cool a little better. Getting angry with these guys only makes things more difficult for you... it makes you look crazy and just gives them more reason to want to restrain you. There's no need to take things 'personally', especially since a 'person' is a fiction and you are a man

Ifi t's going down, it's going down... just keep your cool, keep your mouth shut (ANYTHING you say may be used against you) and concentrate on keeping a tab on their bill... you've got a commercial lien to construct

gaiusmarius said:

here's quite a funny guy who seems to believe he's free and ends up making it so lol

Click to expand...

Welcome to the true matrix my friend, your own mind believing that you are not free
We create our own realities through perspective, Menard is a great example of how to manifest your thought. He believes so he is (and he's still roaming free as far as I know).

Slightly off topic here (but not really... it's all fractal) but have you ever heard Terence McKenna or Robert Anton Wilson talking about how language creates your reality? It's almost as if the freeman movement is a true realisation of this. Words with hidden meaning are really keeping the whole construct together, but the smoke around the edge of the mirror is clearing, and we are starting to see the illusion for what it really is.

Dr. Buddington said:

Freeman is a great concept. Anyone in Canada should Youtube the name Robert Arthur Menard. Even tho his style of delivery is a bit odd to me, he has tons of great info in his videos and book.

Click to expand...

Anyone anywhere should check Rob Menard, what he speaks of applies internationally... there is only commercial law (Uniform Commercial Code). It's admiralty jurisdiction and was based on the law of the Phoenecian sea-faring merchants.

FreeMan said:

No, what I am saying is if you refuse to identify yourself as the legal fiction, and then the cop acts on you, he/she will be doing so unlawfully and you can hold them commercially liable.

Click to expand...

I hope your other info is better than this.

In the United States, if a policeman asks you your name during an investigation, and you refuse, he has the right to detain you until either you produce proof of who you are or they determine who you are.

Hi again FreeMan

FreeMan said:

Your partially correct here, you may get a 'letter' back from the police saying you can't grow, but if that is all they have 'dishonoured' your notice. A simple letter 'no you can't grow' just won't do in this case. A 'notice' is a lawful document, affidavits need to be rebutted with evidence point for point. They must respond to your notice along the lines of 'you can't grow because...'. They might try 'you can't grow because of s.X of the Misuse of Drugs Act' etc, but this is literally as the term describes it... an 'Act', a bit like a game.. you have to play along. Statutes can only be enforced on the [sm] and therefore require consent. Well, I do not consent... what else could they have in the bag? They really have no lawful rebuttal available to them.

Click to expand...

ahh yes good point, they have to draft a counter claim. as you can tell i'm still not very informed on this subject. been watching Winston Shrout's fort Collins talk, on part 3 now

there are a couple of other matters that come to mind, one being, what if a country has recently had a referendum on a whole series of new drug laws, do they still only count as statutes or acts?

the other point was the actual formulation of the notice, with your claim of right and fee schedule. i guess if their rebuttal's wording is so important, my original claim also needs to be flawlessly worded?

FreeMan said:

That's a great vid man... he starts of with freeman techniques but then he just switches and goes plain oldschool on them... RUN!

He gets things a little twisted as he states to the officers that their actions are not LEGAL, when this really doesn't matter. It's a LAWFUL standing he is attempting to make. He never contracted as far as I could see but he could have definitely kept his cool a little better. Getting angry with these guys only makes things more difficult for you... it makes you look crazy and just gives them more reason to want to restrain you. There's no need to take things 'personally', especially since a 'person' is a fiction and you are a man

Ifi t's going down, it's going down... just keep your cool, keep your mouth shut (ANYTHING you say may be used against you) and concentrate on keeping a tab on their bill... you've got a commercial lien to construct

Click to expand...

we don't see the beginning of this encounter, for all we know he was calm to begin with, but once those so called peace officers laid hands on him he lost his cool, which is kinda natural imo if unjustly detained. i noticed that he refused to "understand" or "stand under" and his ranting seem to give him power somehow to withstand the effect of the tazer. but sure once you are wrangling on the floor with them you've normally lost lol.

peace out

Hi JJScorpio

JJScorpio said:

I hope your other info is better than this.

In the United States, if a policeman asks you your name during an investigation, and you refuse, he has the right to detain you until either you produce proof of who you are or they determine who you are.

Click to expand...

has that always been the case? is it the case all over the US? what about New Hampshire? i've seen utube clips of guys there refusing to show id and the cops just giving them an exasperated look.

anyway maybe we should have a header at the top telling people that this is a theoretical discussion and relates to certain peoples research and beliefs pertaining to common law, which most law enforcement will not share.

JJScorpio said:

I hope your other info is better than this.

In the United States, if a policeman asks you your name during an investigation, and you refuse, he has the right to detain you until either you produce proof of who you are or they determine who you are.

Click to expand...

Hey JJ, thanks for dropping in. My info is just that... information. It's up to you what you do with it. What we are discussing here is an alternative perspective to what you may have been told/taught. I hope you stay and explore it with us.

Regarding the police having a RIGHT to detain you until you prove who you are, I have to disagree. A police officer is an 'actor' or 'fiction'. It's a man pretending to be something else. He/she works for a corporation who's business is making sure employees follow company rules, and fining/detaining those that don't. If you have a SIN you are an employee of the United States Corporation.

Why do you believe that a police officer has a right to act on you? If I approached you and asked your name and you refused to give it me, would I have a right to detain you? I might point a gun in your face and you might have to go along for the fear of your safety, but that still wouldn't give me the right would it? All are equal under the law, and all corporations need consent in order to act on you.

When you say 'United States', do you mean the geographical area known as the the United States of America, or 'THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION'? (I think they've recently changed their operating name to HOMELAND SECURITY CORPORATION). They are two very different things.

Please show me a LAW which states you must give your 'name' or 'legal fiction' to a police officer when requested. I'm certain there isn't one anywhere on the planet, but for the sake of exploring this particular avenue, please attempt. [here come the flames from the law grads . Sorry guys, they didn't teach you law in there]

You NEVER have to perform a request, as it it just that... a request not an order, the latter of which is slightly different. If you are given an order, whoever made it is immediately liable for a bill, just like when you order some take-out. You place the order, you're given the service, then you receive the bill. So a working example - "Let me look in your bag"... "Is that an order or a request?"... "That's a request"... "Well, I'm not obligated to fulfil a request"... or if the cop gives you an order - "That's an order"... "Then by placing the order you are liable for a bill sir. The price is £10000 per opened container, do you accept?". If they don't they have refused your contract and again have no right to act.

Did you read the other posts JJ, or have you looked into this stuff already?