Freeman-on-the-land - Lawful not Legal

[FreeMan]

Thanks for joining us jocbear... the answer really depends on what questions you are asking

Here's some good reading to start with (and even if you're far down this particular path):-

Mary Elizabeth Croft - How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash-Confiscatory Agency Known To Man

George Mercier - Invisible Contracts-Law As Legalised Slavery

Mr Schauf - Top Secret Bankers Manual

Hope these help... if there is anything specific you'd like to know I may be able to point you in the right direction...

Have fun

 

[ParadigmShift]

"Black's Law Dictionary is the definitive law dictionary for the law of the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It has been cited as legal authority in many Supreme Court cases. The latest editions, including abridged and pocket versions, are useful starting points for the layman or student when faced with an unfamiliar legal word. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions."

http://www.blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/top.htm

 

[FreeMan]

"Black's Law Dictionary is the definitive law dictionary for the law of the United States. It was founded by Henry Campbell Black. It has been cited as legal authority in many Supreme Court cases. The latest editions, including abridged and pocket versions, are useful starting points for the layman or student when faced with an unfamiliar legal word. It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions."

Thanks Paradigm, I think it's also worth mentioning that the use of a legal dictionary to look up any word can be an enlightening experience. Let's just take 'person' for example:-

Compact Oxford English Dictionary
noun ([SIZE=-1]pl.[/SIZE] people or persons) 1 a human being regarded as an individual. 2 an individual’s body: concealed on his person. 3 [SIZE=-1]Grammar[/SIZE] a category used in the classification of pronouns, verb forms, etc. according to whether they indicate the speaker (first person), the person spoken to (second person), or a third party (third person).

Bouvier Law Dictionary
PERSON.
1. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law,
man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member
of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a
man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds
entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33
Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.

5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.

6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.

7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.

8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; hushands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.

So as you can see, quite an expansion in meaning when it comes to legal definitions. Number 5 from the Bouviers quote is particularly interesting.

 

[FreeMan]

Added link in post #1 to a HUGE library of reading material. Many aspects of sovereignty, history of law, banking etc covered.

 

[jocbear]

Thanks for all the replys. I guess the first thing I am trying to learn is how to refute my strawman and how to stay out of admiralty(sp?) jurisdiction.

 

[FreeMan]

Thanks for all the replys. I guess the first thing I am trying to learn is how to refute my strawman and how to stay out of admiralty(sp?) jurisdiction.

No problem joc, I'm just glad people are engaging in this subject. Refuting your strawman and staying out of admiralty may be a little tricky, but it depends on your present situation, where you live, self-sustained(?) etc. I think the only way to truly be freeman 100% and stay out of admiralty is to move way out into the sticks and go self-sufficient. Supply your own power, water, food, fuel etc. If you have to engage in 'commerce' whatsoever you are entering into admiralty jurisdiction.

My thoughts on this now are you cannot avoid engaging in commerce in this day and age. You need your strawman as a 'transmitting utility' to interface with the 'public', but what you can do is set-up certain degrees of separation between you and your strawman so it's clearly documented that you are a 'man' and your legal fiction is the 'person'. This could be by 'sovereign declaration' or 'commercial security agreement' (links to both in a previous post). This way you become the 'agent' or 'authorised representative' of your strawman, and you sign everything as such. Your 'legal fiction' is a corporation, just the same as Wal-Mart, IBM etc. These corporations have no hands to sign documents etc, they are fictional and devoid of energy and require humans to act on their behalf. This is the same deal with your 'name/fiction/corporation'... treat it as if you are the CEO of your name and you are the sole board member. You have total control to act and make decisions on behalf of your company.

So in summary, don't concentrate in trying to get rid of your strawman. Concentrate on understanding that it is not you.

This is a great listen to get the basics down if you haven't heard it already --> J.Anderson - The Strawman Illusion-the matrix exposed

Welcome aboard the 'citizen-ship'

 

[Hydro-Soil]

Remember though, a 'summons' is only an INVITATION to attend a hearing i.e. "would you like us to adjudicate this controversy". It is not dishonoured if declined correctly.

I think this segment needs to be emphasized a bit. The "Know the difference between law and statute" bit is a good one too.



Whatever you do.... don't go into this lightly. Unless you have it down pat.... they're going to get you into a contract with them and then you'll be subject to what they say.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

This could be by 'sovereign declaration' or 'commercial security agreement' (links to both in a previous post). This way you become the 'agent' or 'authorised representative' of your strawman, and you sign everything as such.

This has run into problems in CA/US.... I'll try to find the link and post it up.

kk, Here's the link where this is discussed. Zip to 1:00 for the explanation of why you can't create a fiction to be an agent for your Strawman(fiction). I'm interested in going over the specific case... if anyone can find it.

 

[Sam the Caveman]

I'm in the united states of america. (it might be beneficial to state your country of origin when it comes to this topic, because things are slightly different in every country)

For all the naysayers, this is not something a man can start doing and everything go smoothly as it relates to johnny law. They have been allowed to have the power for a long time with no pushback from the free sovereign men. When you try and take back your power from them, they (more than likely) will not just lay down and let you have it.

The enforcers of statutes know nothing about common law citizens, because they weren't taught to know anything about it, even though it is clearly in the law. The Corporate state makes no money off of common law citizens, so its not in their best interest to train their employees to know the parts of the law that set them apart.

This venture will require you to research in depth every step you take into the world of becoming a sovereign free man, and being able to represent yourself with confidence to local statute enforcement officers and judges. This sounds scary and intimidating, yes, but if you know how to handle yourself in court, they will be so scared they will throw a temper tantrum like a teenager, guaranteed.

There is no magical paper you can file to make this move go smoothly, but there are many things you can do to help the process along, even then, it may not go very well, it depends on how fraudulent your local scam artists are and how unwilling they are to let go of their assumed power.

The most clearly enlightening video series I've seen up until this point is called Are You a Sovereign Yet which can be found on youtube or google video, its a little over an hour and a half long, but well worth it.

The speaker's website has a wealth of information touching every topic related to this located in the sovereign and freedom section of his website.

famguardian dot org is the website

 

[dillhole]

This is a fantastic thread, perhaps the most important one I've read. This information is still very new to me and I see it will take many years of learning for me to safely put it to use. Like most americans, I was totally ignorant about the true nature of governments and rights. Now that I have a rudimentary understanding of what freedom really means, I feel compelled to learn more.

Are there any structured learning programs designed for men like me, that teach everything in an unbiased manner starting at the basics? This would be great because I feel like I must unlearn much of what has been presented to me as truth. It's not easy waking up from the matrix

Peace and Hope,
DH

 

[Sam the Caveman]

dillhole, I wish there was one.

I'm also continuing to learn about this perspective.

For those of us located within the United States of America, you do not want to be a UNITED STATES (the corporation) citizen. By allowing them to presume you are a citizen of the corporation of UNITED STATES, and they will, you give them immediate jurisdiction over your title (STRAWMAN), of which that corporation presumes you (a man) are surety for, unless you have claimed otherwise.

It seems there aren't any clear cut directions on how to claim resident alien status (resident of United States of America but alien of UNITED STATES corporation), or how to file a security agreement with your STRAWMAN.

I've heard a security agreement is to be filed at the county recorders office, but depending on how naive they are (and hopefully they will be) that will determine how easy it will be.

I saw a video of a woman trying to do this in california and the clerk denied the filing, claiming it wasn't a code or statute. The clerk claimed "thats what we file here, codes and statutes". She demanded to speak with the official county recorder, he then told her that he would have to review the documents with his attorney.

The problem with this situation is, we created them to serve us, they took an oath to do so, but they are not honoring it. They themselves have been indoctrinated to believe that attorneys have the sole authority, over every sovereign being, and they are grossly wrong. The Unites States of America was created under the truth (real law) that every living soul is a sovereign being, and that government was created with the most important purpose to protect and defend the inalienable rights of sovereign beings.

 

[billy_big_bud!]

hi guys, awesome thread! could any one provide links to info relevant in canada, other than the ones listed alrady. thanks. looking forward to freedom!

 

[FreeMan]

Hey Everyone

I think this segment needs to be emphasized a bit.

Remember though, a 'summons' is only an INVITATION to attend a hearing i.e. "would you like us to adjudicate this controversy". It is not dishonoured if declined correctly.

As all de facto courts and jurisdictions are ultimately under admiralty/merchant/commercial law, all proceedings must therefore be within this jurisdiction. In admiralty all administrative remedies must be exhausted before it can be put before a judge, and only then if there is a controversy. If the administrative process is exhausted and the other party are in serial dishonour of your lawful notices, a summary judgement can be made based on the paper-trial by a judge or Notary Public (whose seal is recognised worldwide in ALL jurisdictions). The aforementioned jurisdiction has it's foundation based in honour and dishonour. A brief summary of how it works-

You must remain honourable at all times in law. If you are in dishonour a controversy arises and you can almost guarantee on receiving a court summons. Dishonourable actions are being silent i.e. not responding to an affidavit, remaining silent when addressed in court etc and refusal or denial... i.e. "It wasn't me", "Not Guilty" etc. This obviously seems strange at first but stay with me for a sec here. "So if I say not-guilty I am actually in dishonour which makes me guilty?"... Yeah I know, it sounds crazy but it's all just admiralty 'mirror talk'. So how do you stay in honour exactly? Well you can admit or accept, which is basically just bend over... I'm not a fan of this angle myself. You can also 'conditionally accept' which means you accept whatever is being asked of you 'upon proof of claim' of what is being asked. For example - "I accept your invitation to attend the court hearing on blah blah blah, upon proof of claim that a controversy exists". If you have noticed the other parties correctly and have asked the right questions, following the administrative route of notice, notice of dishonour, opportunity to cure, final opportunity to cure, notice of estoppel, estoppel (this is the bare minimum - notice battles can run into the 20s+), the other party will clearly be in dishonour and lose by default judgement as you can prove you are the honourable party. This works the same way with 'bills of exchange' and 'negotiable instruments' e.g. "I accept this bill upon proof of claim that a/you have an enforceable 2 party contract b/you have accounted a loss" etc etc.

I must add though, the courts really don't like the fact that people are aware of these procedures and they continue to act fraudulently in their dealings. Be prepared for a show of ignorance and disregard for the law by them and their agents.

This could be by 'sovereign declaration' or 'commercial security agreement' (links to both in a previous post). This way you become the 'agent' or 'authorised representative' of your strawman, and you sign everything as such.

This has run into problems in CA/US.... I'll try to find the link and post it up.

kk, Here's the link where this is discussed. Zip to 1:00 for the explanation of why you can't create a fiction to be an agent for your Strawman(fiction). I'm interested in going over the specific case... if anyone can find it.

Thanks for the link Hydro, I hadn't seen this before and it's made me think a lot about my approach. It sounds like to be totally free from statutory obligation you must relinquish all 'persons' that are connected to the state/law society etc. This would also mean relinquishing the bond/birth trust which is a 'benefit privilege' after all. I think what is becoming clearer on this journey is that there are really two main approaches to the 'freeman' technology which are - 'Freeman-On-The-Land' - in short denying all benefit privileges including bond thus removing all statutory obligations, or 'the 'Commercial Redemption' angle which involves retaining benefit privileges and remaining under statutory obligations, but having access to the bond to 'pay' any 'charges' you may pick up from 'policy officers' (as police 'charges' are just 'bills' that are being dishonoured). Although the foundations of both are very much the same... the way to handle any claims being made against you seems to be very different. We have also run into problems over here and I'm starting to see why...

(it might be beneficial to state your country of origin when it comes to this topic, because things are slightly different in every country)

Thanks Sam, like you say it needs to be adapted for local practicality. I'm coming from a UK perspective, but I think to date our communications have been very broad and really span globally, as we seem to be running into similar problems over here too.

I've not seen your video suggestion so I'll check that out when I get chance.

I've heard a security agreement is to be filed at the county recorders office, but depending on how naive they are (and hopefully they will be) that will determine how easy it will be.

I saw a video of a woman trying to do this in california and the clerk denied the filing, claiming it wasn't a code or statute. The clerk claimed "thats what we file here, codes and statutes". She demanded to speak with the official county recorder, he then told her that he would have to review the documents with his attorney.

Great information my friend, it's given me a few ideas I need to develope. Any chance you could dig out that video?

This is a fantastic thread, perhaps the most important one I've read.

Welcome to the party Dill, it's very empowering for me (and I'm sure others) to know that any information being imparted is of help to people, especially if you've been through extended bouts of banging your head against the brick wall. Like Sam says... there is no real start to finish path with this stuff. There are many ways to navigate through and you must decide which paths are best for you. I know entirely where you're coming from though, and Rob Menard's Fundamentals of Freedom goes through some of the basics. There are many good 'basics' links in some of the previous posts too. Good Luck bro.

hi guys, awesome thread! could any one provide links to info relevant in canada, other than the ones listed alrady.

Welcome too Billy... I think your main source over there is thinkfree.ca, and there's a wealth of valuable knowledge on the thinkfree forums as well. You'll be glad to hear that you guys are quite far on this journey already (maybe further than both US/UK).

I guess that's all for now folks, sail safely on those stormy waters.

Peace

 

[gaiusmarius]

great to see this thread still chugging along, it's becoming quite the resource. the main thing about the Free Man concept in my opinion is that it sounds and feels totally right, if the powers that be don't recognize it, they damn well should. how much sense does it make for the government our servant to be telling us what we can and can not do when we are not causing harm. they even want to come in your house now and tell you what you can and can not do.

 

[Sam the Caveman]

I was watching a home inspector lecture about home generators, and they said if the generator isn't registered with the city than it is an illegal generator.

Illegal generator???? WTF??? LMAO????

This kind of shit is progressing in the wrong direction, whatever happened to personal accountability?

My neighbor a while back told me he called the city to ask permission if he could burn in his own backyard and they told him no. I laughed in his face, he sees me burning stuff in my backyard at least twice a year. I never asked permission, ...what?... ask permission to do something in my own backyard... why would I do that?

 

[FreeMan]

I agree with both of you 100%... what kind of crazy world are we living in when you have to ask for permission to do almost anything? And as far as democracy goes... what sort of democratic society looks down on it's citizens for criticising it's governments actions? The state seeks total control as it is presently run by egotistical maniacs, and I think this clearly resonates in their actions and legislation. I've learned not too take this personally any more, the state is just a psychopath who cares for nothing but it's on wealth, well-being and control. We must treat it like you would treat any other entity with mental instability... with understanding, compassion and love. I think only through these means can we display the equality that I'm sure all of us seek for ALL mankind. This certainly doesn't mean lay down and let them carry on with their delusion, but rather walk away and cease to enhance it their perception of power. I think this also goes hand in hand with letting others know exactly what they are dealing with, and I hope that by us continuing to engage here and with the people around us, we can serve as nodes for the great mass awakening of man.

Thanks for all the input guys... Peace & Love

F.M.

 

[dillhole]

Thanks for the link Hydro, I hadn't seen this before and it's made me think a lot about my approach. It sounds like to be totally free from statutory obligation you must relinquish all 'persons' that are connected to the state/law society etc. This would also mean relinquishing the bond/birth trust which is a 'benefit privilege' after all. I think what is becoming clearer on this journey is that there are really two main approaches to the 'freeman' technology which are - 'Freeman-On-The-Land' - in short denying all benefit privileges including bond thus removing all statutory obligations, or 'the 'Commercial Redemption' angle which involves retaining benefit privileges and remaining under statutory obligations, but having access to the bond to 'pay' any 'charges' you may pick up from 'policy officers' (as police 'charges' are just 'bills' that are being dishonoured). Although the foundations of both are very much the same... the way to handle any claims being made against you seems to be very different. We have also run into problems over here and I'm starting to see why...

Hello, everyone. I am having some confusion on this point as well. What seems right to me, a layman, is that when you disassociate yourself from your legal fiction (person) you are claiming that it's contract was fraudulent (no informed consent). It seems to follow that any contracts or persons created with the legal fiction would then become null and void. This would mean that the instant you became a FreeMan-on-the-Land your contracts with your employer, DMV, etc. would be voided. In fact, any contract in which you signed your legal name (legal fiction) would be fraudulent and require remedy.

This seems contrary to some information I've seen on this subject. I think in the youtube series "Are you a sovereign yet?" it implies that all of these other contracts/persons are independent of the original legal fiction. Am I misunderstanding something?

the main thing about the Free Man concept in my opinion is that it sounds and feels totally right

This is exactly the way I feel. I am not fluent in legal mumbo jumbo but I have the ability to spot Truth when I see it. I see it here. In fact, the freeman concept seems to fit perfectly with the words of the US founding fathers (as I recall them). They wanted to create a government that would be more immune to the corruption that plagued all previous ones. They wanted a government with checks and balances to prevent any of its parts from assuming too much power. I think I remember reading something by Thomas Jefferson or John Adams that seemed to imply that WE are the ultimate check on the government. Someone help me out here, I can't remember where I read this. If this is true, then I think it makes an airtight case for this movement. Since birth certificates and sin/ssn numbers didn't exist back then, we should eliminate the fraudulent legal fictions and return to the type of government intended by those who created it. It would make the Freeman movement a very patriotic thing for a man to do!

I think the answers to our questions may have been spelled out by the likes of Jefferson and Adams. Looks like it's time to dust off the old history textbooks.
DH

*edit* I now see that most of what I wrote above is bullshit! Special thanks go to The Bling!

 

[The Bling]

with your attitude your gonna have a hard time ever being free

and


ITS A CONSPIRACY !

 

[dillhole]

with your attitude your gonna have a hard time ever being free

and


ITS A CONSPIRACY !

*edit* Nevermind, I get it now. I just watched "Rob's Very Cunning Plan" on youtube".

I think your mind has to be freed in stages so it can cope with the changes

Thanks Friend!

DH

 

[gaiusmarius]

hehe, i like free man on the land Robert of the Family Menard, he might be a bit of a comedian, but he really believes in his cause and is willing to fight for what he believes. i hadn't seen his addendum to Rob's very cunning plan yet. i hope he wins his right to fly without government issued ID, at least domestically. watching all his battles makes you realize how much is involved in claiming your sovereignty on so many levels.