Freeman-on-the-land - Lawful not Legal

[FreeMan]

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?

All under statute/act. There can be no law against drugs as no crimeis being committed be possessing/growing them (unless you stole someone else's stash, or you were growing on some one elses property).

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?

It's not so much the wording, the substance is what really matters. They must rebut your claims substantially i.e. with lawful reason why your claims do not stand. Since the only laws that apply to a man are 'natural law' and 'common law' you can expect no substantial counter claim.

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.

I watched it again and I think he was just so vexed they picked him up. He mentions he's changed his name and that's why they are arresting him... Changing your fictions title is of no use, it's still a title. It's just like when 2 corps merge and change their operating name. He did the main thing perfect though, no consent.

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.

A valid point, this is going to seem very alien to people if they haven't come across it before. I'm not sure about stating that it's theoretical and based in belief though... I'd have to ask the same of all other posts and threads that talk about statute as if it's law. From my perspective now, it's pure belief that statute and legislation is law... in fact you can prove it in about 5 minutes with the legal dictionary.

 

[Duckmang]

Thanks freeman for starting this thread. I am very compelled to follow up on all of the links posted.

I have one question pertaining to a situation I was in last year.....

2:00AM the LEO is knocking at my door wanting to come in and look around b/c of a supposed 911 call hangup from my address. My wife, in lockup for a DUI at the time, is a medical marijuana patient registered with the state. Needless to say I wasn't going to let them come in and look around, and didn't. I did however present them with my id upon request.

Say they wanted to try to catch me doing something next week, could they use that previous association with my fiction against me? Say the same officer "recognizes me" from before. Would I have to make a new association with my fiction, or could I just clam up and be safe?

 

[gaiusmarius]

there is a whole lot that is very logical and interesting about the Free Man on the Land concept. as you have the right to silence, not stating more then your first name shouldn't be an arrestable offense. i realize that we no longer have real Law, as the law we have now is not the same for all. government exempts it's self from following the Laws of the land. so it might indeed cause you problems if you try this concept on the wrong person. But, in the long run you should be able to get redress if you don't give up any rights as a Free Man.

anyway wanted to post another link that might interest some:

http://www.youtube.com/mrmitee --- Menard's youtube channel

here's what can happen if you don't know exactly what you are doing. she got off light though it seems, only 200 bucks fine.

part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MgpVEDoHq8&feature=related
part2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1TyCOphbCk&feature=related

 

[gaiusmarius]

another link about the theorie of Free Man on the Land

another link about the theorie of Free Man on the Land

Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay...A&q=bursting+bubbles+of+government+deception#

 

[FreeMan]

Thanks freeman for starting this thread. I am very compelled to follow up on all of the links posted.

I have one question pertaining to a situation I was in last year.....

2:00AM the LEO is knocking at my door wanting to come in and look around b/c of a supposed 911 call hangup from my address. My wife, in lockup for a DUI at the time, is a medical marijuana patient registered with the state. Needless to say I wasn't going to let them come in and look around, and didn't. I did however present them with my id upon request.

Say they wanted to try to catch me doing something next week, could they use that previous association with my fiction against me? Say the same officer "recognizes me" from before. Would I have to make a new association with my fiction, or could I just clam up and be safe?

Hey Duckmag, my pleasure starting the thread... I couldn't believe that there wasn't one already, especially when I read on here time after time that people are getting screwed repeatedly, sadly through their own consent. Hopefully this will change, people will start to look into this and then we can really start making some moves with the MJ movement. I highly doubt begging your legalisation is ever going to be effective, as the right to work with this glorious genus already exists, we just have to claim it.

The admission of joinder between you and your strawman has to happen on each occassion as far as I am aware. When you are being asked your name or fiction, what is lawfully being asked is 'do you want to contract / do you consent? As far as I comprehend it accepting one contract shouldn't mean that you automatically accept every contract offered after that. You don't have to get the strawman out of the picture all together, you just need to know that it is not you. A more difficult task than it sounds, as you've had it drummed into you from day 1 that you are 'Mr Joe Bloggs' or whatever...

What I have noticed is regardless if they know your strawmans title, they still need consent. A friend was arrested for filming himself in a public building. He went through motions of 'which law' (if someone is trying to enforce a law onto you, they MUST know the EXACT law) and after consecutive arrival on scene of higher and higher ranking individuals the real poilice turn up, wade in and put him in the meat wagon. He gets down the station and the custody sergeant asks his name to which he handed him his 'Notice of Understanding and Claim of Right' and stated - "This is who I am". The sergeant repeated over and over "what is your name!?". He needed him to physically say it of his own admission, consent was absent. When it came to getting his belongings back on release (without charge by the way, no contract), they tried to get him to sign for them. He stated he would not and that if they did not give him possessions back they had committed theft. They returned his items, but they could have easily just have not (unlawfully).

It's really a play off between - 'Your rights' VS 'Inconvenience'. You really have to decide which one means more to you when rolling as a freeman. Of course your going down the station, of course they are going to hold you there for the maximum time, but all of that becomes laughable when you know they are fighting a losing battle. As long as you keep your consent locked up, they are acting unlawfully and you have recourse. Show LEO love at all stages... this really throws a spanner in their negativity machine. Here's the 'Love Police' with a great example of how to deal with them. (the series has been taken down at the wishes of one involved, but I have them all if you can't find them.)

 

[FreeMan]

Great links Gaiusmarius, interesting what happened to the freeman 'exercising her free right to journey in an auto-mobile she owned'. That court looks similar to our Magistrates, no jury... just a judge/banker (bench in latin means 'bank') stamping orders. A 'summons' to this type of court is merely an invitation to attend. What is happening is they are saying that a 'controversy' exists, 'do you want us to adjudicate?'. You can simply decline this invitation if you can prove that you have stayed in honour and no controversy exists. I think she got steam-rolled there as it looks like she may have been appearing as a person rather than on behalf if it. I'd like to know some more details of exactly what happened.

Great discussion guys, and we haven't even really touched on the 'bankruptcy' situation yet

 

[gaiusmarius]

this young man has some very interesting ideas too. he begins with some basic money talk, then goes to common law, he even seems to be involved in a common Law court in Fairbanks Alaska, he also talks about the liberty bell system which is basically a Free Mans 911. this guy seems to have his shit together.

i'm afraid its all in parts, hope folks find it interesting:

part 1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn_JGwB1xzs

part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMn3paNDwY

Part 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEDIWA98LR8

Part 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC_7o4kqZyY

Part 5 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gok8wcacVy8

Part 6 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wveBbRWjBo

Part 7 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqfL6VQpnGI

Part 8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Z4Q60ZFP4

Part 9 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwMDzPlA_j0

Part 10 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PphPNW1hVtg

Part 11 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6FQ5kh1bqI

 

[Sam the Caveman]

Thanks for the post gausmarius, I just watched all of them.

That is a very real thing and from what I see a great alternative, but it doesn't excuse us from codes and statutes.

Creating a primary lien right through a security agreement on your strawman seems to be an effective way to relieve your "man" from liability of codes and statutes.

Easier said than done.

Statue enforcement officers (cops) will do their best to get you to contract with them. The tricky part is knowing how to not contract with them politely, which means knowing your rights and knowing what you have to do to enter a contract. Sometimes saying nothing will assume you agree with someone trying to contract with you. Respond with statements recognizing you do not wish to contract with them.

It seems having paperwork stating your "claim of right" will make things much easier, as far as them not trying to contract with you.

I've been awoken to the fact that in the usa, the consitution guarantees our right to "travel". However "driving" and "motor vehicle" are statutory terms and by using those terms, you enter into a contract.

This means you don't have to register your vehicle with anyone or have a drivers license, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

I've been watching Winston Shrout, and that man is a genius at talking and dealing with statute enforcement officials, he knows all about contracts, and his legal shinanagandry is epic. He can make a lawyer's head spin in no time.

I've been trying to get through all his videos you posted earlier, but he is not a very time effective speaker or organized for that matter.

I'm loving this thread, Thanks Freeman

 

[Sam the Caveman]

Your correct about UCC-1 statements, they are only a public notice of a lien. A security agreement is needed to establish a lien.

I'm not sure how to get that done at this point, or make a claim of right, which seems to be the first things in line.

 

[FreeMan]

Gaiusmarius - Thanks bro, I'll check that vid as soon as I get chance. From your description it sounds a little similar to Robert Menard's 'World Freeman Society' theology. Have you seen his 'Very Cunning Plan'?

SamTheCaveman - Great info man, I'm still to execute my free right to journey in an auto-mobile. Namely because I don't want to spend too many promissory notes on the damn thing. As these techniques are so new I don't want to shell out only to have the thing 'stolen' by our motoring authority. I've got enough on my plate at the moment as well just trying to get my other contracts in order. I know some that have had success and some that have not... it's definitely on the 'to do' list.

As far as claiming your rights and a security agreement... I can only confidently help you half way really. I have links to documents that you can look over and adapt, but I'm uncertain as to where you would file them in the states. Over here a security agreement just has to be filed in the 'public' arena somehow. This could be by bringing it into evidence on a pending case or simply down at your local archives. Have something similar over there? The claim of right over here is sent to whoever really needs to know about it. We use the 'Notice to agent is notice to principle, and notice to principal is notice to agent' rule. This means it doesn't matter whether you serve it to the lowest rank employee or the CEO, it is their responsibility to make sure whoever needs to see it is noticed. This way we serve it on the Queen, Prime Minister, Local Police etc, and they all have a responsibility to inform their agents and subsidiaries. We could just serve it on Her Madge alone, as all the others are her agent, but it's best to be thorough when doing any of this stuff. What we are really trying to do is perfect the administrative process to obtain default judgement. Judicial adjudication is a LAST RESORT, although you wouldn't think so the way lawyers talk. This is because they need you in default or dishonour to have any reason to exist... they only come into play when you are in dishonour.

I'll edit up the first post as soon as I get moment with a more comprehensive set of fundamentals for everyone... it'll take some time but I will get to it.

In the meantime here are document links. I think this site purposly avoids giving you much explanation of their content to encourage your own research. Some great links on there as well:-

Sovereign Declaration and Claim of Right

Commercial Security Agreement

Glad your checking Shrout as well guys, if anything his perception & comprehension of commerce are outstanding... He does have a thing about making things sound a little simpler than they are sometimes. You could get in a whole heap of trouble just running straight out and trying SOME of his stuff without any other research, but I think in general we can determine what a 'safe' or 'risky' action could be. If you're not sure about a particular angle, just park it until you know a little more and confidence has risen.

And remember...

There's nothing evil about it folks, it just commerce...

Sail carefully brothers

 

[JJScorpio]

I should have added that a cop has to have a reasonable suspicion to believe that the person being held for refusing to give their name was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. And we all know that's not hard for them to come up with. If there isn't something then they just make something up, lol.

 

[humble1]

I first heard about this "Freeman" malarkey when I was visiting our great neighbors to the north, Canada. Mostly used as a tax-dodge, although the folks who get caught generally are screwed unless there was a procedural error somewhere. I'm gonna tell you what I told them (you're all part of the Commonwealth, right?).
Our legal system is different here in the states. I understand this all came about because of the magna carta, and a few other legal precedents, but once you hit guilty until proven innocent vs. innocent until proven guilty everything is as different as night and day. I know what the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of rights say but the reality on the ground is different. Police can and do hold US citizens (even if they deny their citizenship) for 72 hours without cause of any kind nor expectation of legal consequences for either party.
JJ please move this to a UK forum so that innocent, ignorant Americans don't piss off cops with their perceptions of legal fictions.
Rant Off.

 

[Sam the Caveman]

video evidence

they make car cameras that you install in your car that video tape every thing you do or don't do, also video taping the statute enforcement officer during you interaction or preferably non-interaction with him.

If the statue enforcement officer makes up probable cause that you can prove otherwise in court with video evidence, whatever he charged you with gets dismissed.

but that would be if you contract with him by giving him identification, which would then admit you (a man) are/own your strawman, and are therefore liable.

 

[Sam the Caveman]

I first heard about this "Freeman" malarkey when I was visiting our great neighbors to the north, Canada. Mostly used as a tax-dodge, although the folks who get caught generally are screwed unless there was a procedural error somewhere. I'm gonna tell you what I told them (you're all part of the Commonwealth, right?).
Our legal system is different here in the states. I understand this all came about because of the magna carta, and a few other legal precedents, but once you hit guilty until proven innocent vs. innocent until proven guilty everything is as different as night and day. I know what the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of rights say but the reality on the ground is different. Police can and do hold US citizens (even if they deny their citizenship) for 72 hours without cause of any kind nor expectation of legal consequences for either party.
JJ please move this to a UK forum so that innocent, ignorant Americans don't piss off cops with their perceptions of legal fictions.
Rant Off.

I hate to burst your bubble, but you are misinformed on this topic.

This applies to americans as much as canadians and brits.

 

[FreeMan]

Hey everyone...

JJ - Thanks for the addition. It will take a few more posts to hit this message home but it requires some open minded thought on your part. I am totally aware of so called statutory obligations, in fact I've been on the end of them more times than I care to remember (it's exactly the reason we're having this discussion). What I'm trying to say is a cop may act as if he/she has the right to act on your, they may believe that they have a right in the same way you believe they do, but both of these scenarios are based on belief. Because of this belief that they have a right you will just about do anything the cop says says without question. This implied consent is in fact what is making the whole event lawful, and you are giving your rights away which many have shed blood for in the past.

It's worth noting that although a practical methodology in law, freeman is also a philosophy and a way of life. It requires you to have the view that all men are equal and that just because a guy puts a certain suit on for 8 hours a day he doesn't have the right to dictate your life to you. I don't know about you guys, but I am not a robot. I do not require a government operating system to be able to make decisions. I am perfectly capable of living peacefully with my fellow man without interference from the state. I thought this might be the general view here, as it seems like our main problem is getting harassed and jailed for growing a plant. This to me seems insane... which got me thinking.

"Why am I letting insane people run nearly every aspect of my life?"

This led me looking for answers... I haven't found them all yet but the picture is definitely becoming clearer.

I totally agree 100% with what your saying. A cop can make any old bullshit up on the spot to act on you, BUT ONLY IF YOU CONSENT. If you know a cop can only interact with a 'fiction' and not a 'man', you know WHATEVER comes out the guys mouth is bullshit. When you live in the world of statutory obligations you really have no standing... you need to memorise every one of those damn things. How do you know that you are breaking/obeying the law if you haven't? Here's a working example... the content is really irrelevant for this discussion but I hope it explains my angle a little:-

Click to open 24 Reliefs deductible at Step 2
24
Reliefs deductible at Step 2
(1)
If the taxpayer is an individual, the provisions referred to at Step 2 of the calculation in section 23 are—
(a)
the following—
section 72 (early trade losses relief),
Chapter 6 of Part 4 (share loss relief),
Chapter 3 of Part 8 (gifts of shares, securities and real property to charities etc),
sections 457 and 458 of this Act or section 266(7) of ICTA (payments to trade unions or police organisations),
section 193(4) of FA 2004 (pension schemes: relief under net pay arrangement: excess relief), and
section 194(1) of FA 2004 (pension schemes: relief on making of claim), and
(b)
the following—
section 64 (trade loss relief against general income),
section 83 (carry-forward trade loss relief),
section 89 (terminal trade loss relief),
section 96 (post-cessation trade relief),
section 118 (carry-forward property loss relief),
section 120 (property loss relief against general income),
section 125 (post-cessation property relief),
section 128 (employment loss relief against general income),
section 152 (loss relief against miscellaneous income),
Chapter 1 of Part 8 (interest payments),
Chapter 4 of Part 8 (annual payments and patent royalties),
section 574 (manufactured dividends on UK shares: payments by non-companies),
section 579 (manufactured interest on UK securities: payments not otherwise deductible),
Part 2 of CAA 2001 (plant and machinery allowances), in a case where the allowance is to be given effect under section 258 of that Act (special leasing of plant and machinery),
Part 3 of CAA 2001 (industrial buildings allowances), in a case where the allowance is to be given effect under section 355 of that Act (buildings for miners etc: carry-back of balancing allowances),
Part 8 of CAA 2001 (patent allowances), in a case where the allowance is to be given effect under section 479 of that Act (persons having qualifying non-trade expenditure),
section 555 of ITEPA 2003 (deduction for liabilities related to former employment),
section 446 of ITTOIA 2005 (strips of government securities: relief for losses),
section 454(4) of ITTOIA 2005 (listed securities held since 26 March 2003: relief for losses: persons other than trustees), and
section 600 of ITTOIA 2005 (relief for patent expenses).
(2)
In any other case, the provisions referred to at Step 2 of the calculation in section 23 are—
(a)
the provisions listed in subsection (1)(b), and
(b)
section 505 (relief for trustees of unauthorised unit trust).

Do you understand this stuff??? It might be the case that you do but this is just one section of one Act... how many of these things exist? It seems to me impossible to know if you are breaking/obeying the so called law if you don't know what they ALL are.

Your post was 100% correct... cops can do whatever the hell they like to a 'Person'. What I'm trying to say is that lawfully speaking a 'Person' is a piece of paper. Do you think you are a piece of paper? If so you're either as insane as those who treat you like it, or I have missed some serious evolutionary advancements in the world of pulp derived stationary. Please have a look through the legal dictionary link I posted... law uses a whole different language and unless you speak it you have no idea of what is truly being asked of you.


Humble 1 - Thanks for jumping onboard. I agree with some of what your saying here. Police believe they have a right to hold you 72hrs and they often do... what I'm saying is they don't, and 72hrs later (max.) you'll be walking out of that place with a big smile on your face and no lawful charge. I know this first hand... in fact over here after 24hrs they have to apply to the court to hold you longer, they aren't even getting past this stage now.

I totally agree with what you are saying in regards to the constitution and the practical use of it (or lack of as we all know). It's a different story on the ground, but think about it. How can that be? How can the law on the ground be different to written law? The reason for this is that police aren't enforcing any laws, they work in the legal realm of statute and legislation. Look up those words in the legal dictionary. Just because someone does something, it doesn't give them lawful right to do so.

One thing that I am learning on this freeman path is it is not for everyone. You have to know your rights and be willing to stand up for them. This may result in the occasional trade of of convenience vs dignity, but for me this is not even a decision I have to make more. I feel so strongly about my right to exercise my peaceful freewill that I am willing to trade time, convenience and worldly possessions to stand by those rights. It will be too late for you guys to say anything when they are loading you onto the FEMA bus. Ask the guys who were in the line to Auschwitz 70 years ago how they did claiming their rights at that point... oh wait, we shamefully can't.

P.S. JJ - Please don't move this thread. It is exactly where it needs to be. Although what we are discussing here may be a little leftfield from conventional LEGAL thinking, it most definitely in the interest of anyone who is concerned with LAW and SECURITY. I have clearly stated that none of this should be taken as legal advice and that people looking to act on this information do so at their own risk! All information here should be cross referenced and everyone should do their own independent research. If people are going to follow this stuff blindly they might as well remain in statute and get a lawyer to do their talking for them.

And as Sam kindly stated, these workings apply to both US and Canada, in fact it applies to the whole world. The Uniform Commercial Code is the only man made law in force around the world. Legislated statutes are just 'rules' of a corporation and they only apply to employees of that corp, in this case the UK/US Governments.

 

[gaiusmarius]

Not Legal Advice

Not Legal Advice

wow that sovereign declaration and claim of right is pretty comprehensive. not so easy to rebut either.

i like the bit about claiming the right to grow all organic substances that exist on planet earth hehe.

pasted from FreeMans link:

SOVERIEGN DECLARATION & CLAIM OF*RIGHT
Aug 2, 07:30 PM
DECLARATION OF UNDERSTANDING & INTENT
I, the Freeman-on-the-Land, Upper-Case of the family Lower, a sovereign, flesh and blood Man and blessed living soul, who, according to the eye-witness testimony of my biological mother, separated from her womb in the General Hospital of the county borough of Place of Birth, on the Date of Birth, am equal in every conceivable way to every other blessed living soul in the Universe, and do hereby state clearly and unequivocally that the following is a Verified Plain Statement of the Facts as I perceive them.
Whereas, it is my understanding that:
1. Natural Law is the permanent underlying basis of all law, and theories of Natural Law have been an important part of jurisprudence throughout legal history. Natural Law is to be distinguished from Positive Law, which is the body of law created by Man. Natural Law is both anterior and superior to Positive Law (Oxford Dictionary Of Law 5th Edition ISBN0-19-860756-3 page 326), and,
2. The principals of Natural Law derive from the Fundamental Laws of the Universe, and,
3. The Fundamental Laws of the Universe are the law of attraction, the law of intent, the law of allowance and the law of balance, and,
4. The law of allowance dictates that all sentient beings in the Universe be allowed to exercise their own Freewill at all times, absolutely and without exception, and,
5. I, the Freeman-on-the-Land, Upper-Case of the family Lower, am a sentient being of light; a blessed living soul in the physical form of a flesh and blood Man; a fragment of Divine Consciousness with unalienable rights granted by the Creator of the Universe, and,
6. Common Law derives from Natural Law and applies to all blessed living souls on Planet Earth, dictating that we are all born free to do what we choose for ourselves, provided that we do not infringe the rights to life, freedom and property of another, and, 
7. The geographical area of Planet Earth commonly known as England is a Common Law jurisdiction, and, 
8. Parliament and the National Government of the United Kingdom are corporate entities, and as such, they are not immune from bankruptcy and insolvency laws, and, 
9. Corporate entities require voluntary agreements in order to claim authority or control over other parties, and,
10. No individual, whether Monarch, Prime Minister, Pope, politician, judge or public servant of any description, is above Universal, Natural or Common Law, and,
11. Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and,
12. A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law, and, 
13. A society is defined as a community of Men and Women joined by mutual trust and consent, to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal or purpose, and, 
14. The enforcement of government policy by coercive and deceptive methods is always and without exception a breach of Universal, Natural and Common Law, and, 
15. The only form of government recognised as lawful on Planet Earth is a representative one, and, 
16. Representative government necessarily requires the voluntary consent of the governed, and, 
17. In the absence of the voluntary consent of the governed, representative government cannot lawfully exist, and, 
18. Men and Women born anywhere on Planet Earth have a natural and unalienable right to self-determination, and can, at any time, choose to revoke or deny their consent to be governed, and, 
19. Any flesh and blood Man and blessed living soul who does revoke or deny his consent to be governed is free from government control and statutory obligations, restrictions and restraints of any and all descriptions, and, 
20. A Claim of Right establishes a lawful excuse, and that this factual truth is expressed by way of example in the Theft Act 1968 and the Criminal Damage Act 1971, where belief must be that the law creates and vests a specific right to act in a certain way. In English law, a limited form of statutory offense is termed “claim of right”. In Chamberlain v Lindon 1998 1 WLR 1252 [1], Lindon demolished a wall to protect a right-of-way. Despite allowing nine months to pass before acting, Lindon honestly believed that it was immediately necessary to protect his legal rights without having to resort to civil litigation. It is not necessary to decide whether Lindon’s action was justified as a matter of civil law. For the purposes of criminal law, what matters is whether Lindon believed that his actions were reasonable, i.e. a subjective test. Thus, a lawful excuse may be acknowledged by a court to arise when an individual, honestly, even if mistakenly, believes that their actions are necessary and reasonable, and, 
21. Any flesh and blood Man or Woman who has established lawful excuse is not in breach of any law in choosing to disobey any de facto court, tribunal, statute, act, bill, code, by-law, warrant or order, and, 
22. De facto means that something exists as a matter of fact rather than of legal right, while de jure means something exists as a matter of legal right, and,
23. All existing courts and governments on Planet Earth are de facto, and, 
24. Any and all agreements made for and on behalf of the people of Great Britain by Her Majesty’s Government, the CROWN, the National Government, its agencies, creditors, officers, partners, representatives and affiliates, or any other legal entity, organization or individual, do not in any way legally bind the Men and Women of Great Britain, unless there has been full disclosure of the terms of those agreements, as well as the establishment of mutual consent to those terms, and, 
25. I, the Freeman-on-the-Land, Upper-Case of the family Lower, have honorably refused to be bound by agreements made by corporate entities of any description without my explicit voluntary consent, since corporations are incapable of moral sensibilities and function only for the benefit their shareholders, often to the detriment of the community and the environment, and, 
26. The METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCES and their POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS are now, whether knowingly or unknowingly, protecting the interests of the National Government’s creditors, rather than the Men and Women of Great Britain, and, 
27. The METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCES and their POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS are now, whether knowingly or unknowingly, consistently failing to protect the rights to life, freedom and the peaceful possession of property of the Men and Women of Great Britain, and,
28. If POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS are not providing a service for an injured party who has given sworn testimony against another for unlawfully infringing their rights to life, freedom or property, there is no reason to stop, detain, question or search any flesh and blood Man or Woman, and, 
29. POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS who attempt to enforce statutes against a flesh and blood Man who has lawfully revoked his consent to be governed, are, in fact, breaching the peace, and,
30. Permanent estoppel by acquiescence, barring any POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, court or prosecutor from bringing charges against this flesh and blood Man and blessed living soul, under any act, bill, statute, by-law or code, will be automatically created if this DECLARATION OF UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT & CLAIM OF RIGHT is not rebutted by the Respondent, point for point, within the stipulated time and in the appropriate manner, and,
31. Historically, the purpose of a national armed force was to ensure that foreign powers never invaded and governed under a force of arms, and
32. The existence of armed militia patrolling and policing our streets is evidence of wars fought unsuccessfully and tyrannical government, and,
33. The law provides remedy at all times, even against rogue or negligent POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, as well as de facto governments dominated by soulless corporate interests, and,
34. Any action for which Men and Women can apply for and receive a license must itself be a fundamentally lawful action, and, 
35. I am not a child, but a fully grown adult flesh and blood Man and blessed living soul, who operates with full responsibility and maximum freedom; therefore, I do not recognize any perceived obligation to ask permission to engage in lawful and peaceful activities, under any circumstances whatsoever, and, 
36. Legal entities are fictitious and as such do not have the capacity to exert any control or authority over blessed living souls who operate with regard to that knowledge, and, 
38. A summons is merely an invitation to appear and the ones issued by de facto courts are not dishonored if conditionally accepted upon receipt of irrefutable proof that there is an obligation for the recipient to attend, and, 
39. The Common Law right to travel on the highways without a license, provided I am not engaging in commerce thereupon, is lawful and still exists, despite being deceptively hidden from view, and, 
40. Clause 39 “No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimized, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land”, and clause 40 “To no-one will we refuse or delay right or justice”, of the original Magna Carta of 1215 are still in full force and effect, and that the expression “law of the land” means Common Law.
41. I have the power to appoint a Notary Public or an officer of the court to act on my behalf, therefore, I also have the power to perform those duties myself, and, 
42. Living freely in peace is within my community’s standards and does not create any loss, injury, damage or liability, or comprise a breach the peace in any way whatsoever, and,
43. The act of registering the birth of a baby creates an entity called a LEGAL PERSON, which exists in association with that baby, and, 
44. This creation of the LEGAL PERSON is not disclosed to a baby’s parents when they apply for a certificate of live birth for their child, nor is the creation of a Life Annuity that is solely dependent upon the life that baby, and, 
45. I, the Freeman-on-the-Land commonly known as Upper-Case of the family Lower, have, since the eighth year of this physical incarnation, been used as surety for the debts of the National Government and security for the Bank of England’s fiat currency, and,
46. I, the Freeman-on-the-Land commonly known as Upper-Case of the family Lower, have no legal or lawful obligation to obey the orders of any individual, organization or legal entity claiming to be acting on behalf of the Queen or King or Pope, including but not limited to, agents, officers, partners and affiliates of THE CROWN, THE VATICAN, THE UNITED NATIONS and THE EUROPEAN UNION, as well as the National Government of the UNITED KINGDOM, its agents, officers, partners, affiliates, creditors and cash-confiscatory departments, since I do not grant my consent to any authority that they might claim to have over me, under any circumstances whatsoever, and, 
52. I, the Freeman-on-the-Land commonly known as Upper-Case of the family Lower, hereby lawfully revoke my consent to be governed.
DECLARATION OF INTENT
Therefore, be it now known to any and all interested, concerned or affected parties, that I, Upper-Case of the family Lower, the sovereign, flesh and blood, Freeman-on-the-Land, do hereby declare my intent to live in peace under Universal, Natural and Common Law, free from all statutory obligations of any and all descriptions, and to travel freely without charges, delays or disruptions, whether traveling domestically or crossing international borders in my private sovereign capacity, and to trade, create, exchange and exist without governance anywhere on Planet Earth, and I hereby state my intention to do so without limitations, restrictions or regulations created by individuals, organizations and/or legal entities, without my explicit voluntary consent.
CLAIM OF RIGHT
1. I claim the right to deny my consent to interact or co-operate with de facto government agents, officials, bailiffs and grossly negligent POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. 
2. I claim a right to possess, use and enjoy my property, without having to pay for the use or enjoyment of it. 3. I claim the right to view my community as Mankind on Planet Earth, and that my course of action is not outside said community’s standards, and will in fact support Mankind’s universal desire for truth, peace, maximum freedom and soulfulfillment. 
4. I claim the right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter into knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally, and I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefits of any contract or commercial agreement that was not fully disclosed to me prior to its execution.
5. I claim that all property held in my possession, including without limitation, the property itemized in Commercial Security Agreement Unique ID Number, is held under this Claim of Right, and cannot be seized, confiscated or inspected without my written and notarized consent. 
6. I claim the right to use all necessary means to protect my property, and do not consent to any individual, organization or legal entity claiming the right to use force or violence in regard to my property. 
7. I claim the right to use all necessary means to protect my physical body in all circumstances, and do not consent to any individual, organization or legal entity claiming the right to use force or violence in regard to my physical body. 
8. I claim the right to refuse to supply an intimate or non-intimate sample of my DNA for any purpose whatsoever, without my written and notarized voluntary consent.
9. I claim the right to refuse to supply samples of my blood and/or urine for any purpose whatsoever, without my written and notarized voluntary consent. 10. I claim the right to refuse to be medicated, whether by any individual, government, corporation and/or legal entity, by any means whatsoever, without my written and notarized voluntary consent.
11. I claim the right to grow, harvest, store, trade, sell, barter and/or use for my own purposes, any and all organic substances that grow naturally upon Planet Earth. 
12. I claim the right to refuse to be bound by the judgments, orders, warrants or rulings of the de facto courts of the UNITED KINGDOM, the EUROPEAN UNION and/or the UNITED NATIONS, under any circumstances whatsoever.
13. I claim the right to receive any and all dividends and/or beneficial interest derived from any and all annuities, securities, bonds, trusts and the like, associated with my LEGAL PERSON, STRAWMAN (and all derivatives thereof), that may have been generated since its registration in the county borough of Place of Birth, on the Date of Birth. 
14. I claim the rights of a Secured Party Creditor to the STRAWMAN (and all derivatives thereof) Trust, as well as any and all parties doing business as the same without full disclosure and my express authorization and/or consent. 15. I claim the right to any and all beneficial interest of the STRAWMAN (and all derivatives thereof) Trust. 16. I claim the right to charge a FEE SCHEDULE, for any transgressions by POLICY ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, de facto government principals, officers, agents or justice system participants, of THREE THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof, if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated, and THIRTY THOUSAND GB POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof, if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and notarized consent, and THREE MILLION GB POUNDS for any grievous or actual physical harm to my body. 
17. I claim the right to use any and all administrative and/or judicial processes in order to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors, who, by their actions or omissions, harm me, my dependents or my interests, directly or by proxy, in any way whatsoever. 18. I claim the right to Sovereign Diplomatic Immunity, pursuant to private and international law. 19. I claim the right to amend this Claim of Right, as and when necessary, and at my sole discretion.
SOVEREIGN AFFIRMATION
I, the Freeman-on-the-Land, Upper-Case of the family Lower, a sovereign, flesh and blood Man and blessed living soul, hereby affirm upon my full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, that the entirety of the foregoing is a lawful amendment to the Notice of Understanding and Intent & Claim of Right referenced herein.
By:________________________________
Freeman-on-the-Land Upper-Case of the family Lower 
WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT
All Rights Reserved – Errors & Omissions Excepted
Executed in the presence of:
Notary Public: Notary Seal:
Signature:____________________________
Directions for response
All interested, concerned and affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or to make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within SEVEN (7) DAYS of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, and received at the Notary Public’s office no later than ten days from the date of original service, as attested to by way of certified mail receipt.
Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic administrative default judgment, securing forevermore all rights herein claimed, and establishing permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence, forevermore barring the bringing of charges under any statute, bill, by-law, code or act against the Freeman-on-the-Land Upper-Case of the family Lower.

 

[FreeMan]

It's a very hard Claim of Right to rebut... from what I've seen this is the best template around. It's worth pointing out that the whole of the 'Declaration of Understanding and Intent' isn't totally necessary. You could just notice the 'Claim of Right' and if acquiesced it stands in law. I personally think the understanding is important though as it lets whoever you are sending it to know that you know the deal, and it also states your peaceful intentions.

There's two ways to attack it really... either edit out the bits you don't understand (as you don't want to 'stand under' anything you don't comprehend), or just research everything on there before you send it. I'd suggest the latter but of course the decision is always up to yourself.

One problem we have come up against over here is finding Notary Publics that are willing to notarise your documents and act as witness of response, most are reluctant due to pressure from their superiors. A solution to this is appoint another freeman to be your Notary. If you can appoint a notary you can appoint someone else to perform that task. Only problem is the Notary Seal carries a lot of weight, so much so in fact it trumps a judges decision... so if you're going into court with the situation done and dusted with the seal, there's nothing a judge can do. It's really better to find a decent Notary if you can.

 

[gaiusmarius]

thought i'd add another couple of links on this subject or closely related to it.

does the common law and UCC exist? part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0XTF-mbjg

part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-emxYwXNLc&feature=channel

peace

 

[FreeMan]

Thanks for the links Gaiusmarius, I watched the Schaeffer Cox presentation. I really like the way they've handled their neck of the woods. In line with my philosophy almost exactly... why are we ASKING for rights? It really is crazy when when you break it all down... but as Winston Shrout says - "It's all in the mirror folks".

 

[havalota]

this is a bump to keep it in the public notice