Freeman / Strawman, legal fiction and Admiralty law...

[Butangeld]

This is a broad subject but the law can be used to beat the 'system'. That is if you don't intend to make the slightest of mistakes during your tip-toe through the minefield that awaits those brave enough to go there.

Still it is a good time to spread this knowledge. The more each of us know about the law, its origins and what makes it stick the stronger we'll be for it.

I notice that John Harris has not been included here yet, so here is It's An Illusion:

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5eStQAq4aU

He has a website too, here is the important page: http://tpuc.org/Acts_and_Charters

Harris has for a number of years practiced what he preaches and demonstrates one way in which we can dis-connect with the system. If I remember correctly he goes to the core historical documents upon which Fleet Law stands and reveals that even MPs and the queen are limited companies :D

Personally I have put into practice what he reported on the TV license and can confirm that it works. There is no law requiring one.

[danceblackcatdance]

Posted by Anchor (here)
A little while back we had a fun little chat about this subject on Nexus Radio, it kind of dances around the subject a bit but touches on a lot of important points (Lord Sidious, Me, Fred Steeves, Celine) MP3 is here http://nexus.2012info.ca/radio/NeXus...the%20Land.mp3

http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/showt...an-on-the-Land

Great link, listened but will have to listen to that one again too... thx!

Posted by Butangeld (here)
This is a broad subject but the law can be used to beat the 'system'. That is if you don't intend to make the slightest of mistakes during your tip-toe through the minefield that awaits those brave enough to go there.

Still it is a good time to spread this knowledge. The more each of us know about the law, its origins and what makes it stick the stronger we'll be for it.

I notice that John Harris has not been included here yet, so here is It's An Illusion:

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5eStQAq4aU

He has a website too, here is the important page: http://tpuc.org/Acts_and_Charters

Harris has for a number of years practiced what he preaches and demonstrates one way in which we can dis-connect with the system. If I remember correctly he goes to the core historical documents upon which Fleet Law stands and reveals that even MPs and the queen are limited companies :D

Personally I have put into practice what he reported on the TV license and can confirm that it works. There is no law requiring one.

This is a top video too thank you for posting... interesting on the TV license thing.. they seem to say there is legislation...

Which legislation authorises the BBC to collect the TV Licence fee?

Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being shown on television without a TV Licence.
Section 365 of that Act requires that a person to whom a TV Licence is issued must pay a fee to the BBC. The nature and quantity of this fee is set out in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended).

Since 1991 the BBC, in its role as the relevant licensing authority, has been responsible for collecting and enforcing the TV Licence fee. The BBC contracts companies to do this work under the BBC trade mark ‘TV Licensing’. The BBC (and contractors acting on its behalf) must comply with the law in collecting and enforcing the licence fee. The BBC Charter further requires that these arrangements be appropriate, proportionate and efficient.

[SKAWF]

yep, the bbc, and its contractors must comply with the 'act'

but the 'act' is not law. and only applies to state employee's,
or those performing a function of government.

but we.... as natural humans, are not required to pay the license.
only those acting through title have to pay.

if the state has no title to act against, it cant do a damn thing.

really, one could get bogged down within the statutory/maritime admiralty system,
trying to work out which act entitles them to do such and such

but if you think of it like a company.....
that company is entitled to create whatever policy it wants
but its only its employee's that have to abide by those rules.

only the title has to abide by the acts and statutes created by the state.
the name on your birth certificate was created by them after all. they own it,
but they dont own you.
you are a human being, with god given rights....
not a fictitious title on a piece paper.

so look at the whole system....
and instead of getting into the machinations of it (like hip hipnotist mentioned)
just reject all of it.
the whole system, is not designed for our benefit.

think of it like two fields with a fence separating them.
we..... are on one side,
the state is on the other

it cons us into going over into its field (maritime admiralty), where it has complete control of everything.
we also know there there are thousands of 'acts' over there that will cause us all kinds of problems.

so we choose to stay on our side of the fence (god given, common law), where we are free, and the state MUST act on out behalf, and for our benefit.
otherwise, we take it to civil court, and sue it for lots and lots of money.

the state cannot make us go into its domain, any more than tesco or mc donalds can make us by their products.

but they will still state that we MAY be prosecuted if we dont comply
even if there's a 99.99999999% chance that they wont do a damn thing.

if they actually had any power over us at all, they would say that we WILL be prosecuted.

(as an aside, if you commit a common law offense, the police will arrest you.
they dont need a title. Any time they ask you your name....they have no authority, unless you give the title)

gods law, is higher up... than any policy created by the state.
our system has far more power than theirs.
we dont have to abide by the states rules,
but IT MUST abide by ours.

i'm holding info back as i want to bump this thread every now and then.

[Butangeld]

Posted by danceblackcatdance (here)
This is a top video too thank you for posting... interesting on the TV license thing.. they seem to say there is legislation...

Which legislation authorises the BBC to collect the TV Licence fee?

Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being shown on television without a TV Licence.
Section 365 of that Act requires that a person to whom a TV Licence is issued must pay a fee to the BBC. The nature and quantity of this fee is set out in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended).

Since 1991 the BBC, in its role as the relevant licensing authority, has been responsible for collecting and enforcing the TV Licence fee. The BBC contracts companies to do this work under the BBC trade mark ‘TV Licensing’. The BBC (and contractors acting on its behalf) must comply with the law in collecting and enforcing the licence fee. The BBC Charter further requires that these arrangements be appropriate, proportionate and efficient.

These look like laws but there is a reason they are called acts. To have dominion over you or me these 'laws' must first be enacted into law. This is done by 2 consenting parties entering into a contract between themselves. Until the act is enacted by a contract then it is just a rule.

The most common route to the contract in any given situation is through the use of legalese to make a verbal contract. This is language which sounds natural but which has different meanings accorded to it by the law society. Example is when asked 'do you understand?' we take this to mean 'did you get what I just said?' but in law language this means literally 'do you stand under me?' An affirmative here is not in your best interests.

With the TV company enforcers I followed the simplest advice from Harris. Tried and tested. When the man was stood at my door I only replied "I am not obliged to answer your questions" He persisted a little but soon walked away. If you answer either yes or no to anything they ask they may find cause for the contract to have been enacted.

Not that I watch TV anymore, it's all guff now.

[D-Day]

This is a good video series for anyone seeking a more "spiritual" perspective on Freeman/Sovereign principles.

Enjoy...

Divine Law And The Holy Grail

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gILQuRsYJ3I

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc4NAafMvqM

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4tI7AsSOwg

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWmQRY7qBE8

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYmyIM07qbE

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXAbRQ82EmE

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku8nl2kM7BI

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QctxPQBBOf4

[D-Day]

Here is the 2nd installment of John Harris' 'It's An Illusion' for anyone who enjoyed his first presentation which was posted above by Butangeld. The updated version below does rehash some of the basic Freeman principles outlined in the 1st installment but it also covers a bit of new territory as well.

Worth a look IMO...

John Harris: It's An Illusion 2

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgAjssXbIGg

[iceni tribe]

ive seen John Harris speak twice and he is full of rubbish ,he can talk for hours and did without anything of any substance , Albert Burgess previously from the British Constitution Group gave John Harris a copy of the black laws book ,and John told him he didn't need it because he never does any research.
John is a fraud in my humble opinion, and has led people into a bigger mess than they would have been by taking his advice.
he should have stuck to carpentry .

[D-Day]

Posted by iceni tribe (here)
ive seen John Harris speak twice and he is full of rubbish ,he can talk for hours and did without anything of any substance , Albert Burgess previously from the British Constitution Group gave John Harris a copy of the black laws book ,and John told him he didn't need it because he never does any research.
John is a fraud in my humble opinion, and has led people into a bigger mess than they would have been by taking his advice.
he should have stuck to carpentry .

IMO John has done some fantastic work in raising awareness about Freeman principles and promoting the movement.

Granted, he may not have all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle perfectly slotted together yet... but who does??

To suggest that he is "full of rubbish" is an unfair statement to make IMO.

I think John's presentations and information bring considerable value to anyone who is just starting out and wants to get a handle on basic Freeman principles before beginning their own journey of self discovery/education.

John does state very clearly when presenting his information that people should not accept what he says as being absolute fact. He actively encourages people to do their own research with a view to validating [or refuting] the information he has offered them.

As you may well appreciate, one of the key aspects of being a 'Freeman' is taking personal responsibility for your actions and the decisions you make. Point being, if people choose to take what John says as fact without doing their homework only to find they end up getting themselves into trouble... then who should they be blaming for that??

The way I see it, the Freeman movement is still in its infancy and our understanding of the legal premise/s that it's based upon have been [and still are] in a constant state of review and alteration. Those brave enough to test themselves, their understanding/interpretation of the information, and the system itself, have been learning very much through trial and error... and this has often meant learning their lessons "the hard way".

It's a learning process, and each of us are at different stages and levels of understanding. This includes John Harris... and I'm sure he would freely admit that.

[sigma6]

Posted by SKAWF (here)

Posted by danceblackcatdance (here)
thanks SKAWF, i couldn't agree more... heard about all this a while ago but have only just started delving into it properly, watching that vid now

and thanks to sigma6.. thats interesting info too, Winston Shrout is doing a semiar in the UK in sept..

i am curious about resistering the birth certificate at all...

nice one,

i had to watch it a couple of times.
its a new subject, so the chances of getting everything thats said the first time, is very slim,
but for me.... i understand the system now.

any time the system does something, that i consider to be

not in my interests, or for my benefit,

then they are in breach of trust.
i can swear out a statement of the damages they caused me,
and another for the remedy

and then i can take the state to civil court where i have ten times the power that they do.

its about having the balls to go from a state of insecurity in relation to their apparent power
into being in control of them, not being afraid to put pressure on them,
and threatening them, actual loud words, in court, telling them what to do.

regards the birth certificate....

its a good thing. really.

its a document that binds them.
evidence of the trust created when your birth was registered.

basically, we are free.
we have rights given to us by god.
the state (as a non living entity) need's OUR permission to conduct its business on our land.

which begs the question.......

why do i need the permission of my servant for anything?

i'll close by saying.

the state has turned its weapons on those it is entrusted to look after.

so dont be afraid to use your own weapons on them.

they are OUR 'slaves',
and its about time they were put in their place.

I am hesitating to join this thread (LOL) ... but here we gooo...
Whoa SKAWF I like your spirit, but I would be careful, yes there are some stories of people who ... (and here comes the magical phrase...) "KNOW WHO THEY ARE..." But if you mistep you could be dragged off in a heartbeat, there is a lot going on in a court room. So although I agree in principle with what you are saying, the devil is in the details... Consider this... the Birth Certificate itself is not evidence that it 'identifies' you, we have it on direct communication that it is not to be used as IDENTIFICATION... That came direct from the deputy registrar general for Ontario in an actual conversation of a friend and lead researcher... But think about that for a minute... for me personally I am still absolutely confounded sometimes!

It surely begs the question... if it is NOT to be used for identification then WHAT or HOW is it to be used.... and this is where the can of worms is opened as there are a multitude of possible interpretations... I am only taking these posts one at a time, but 'maybe' if we are lucky we might get someone who has studied trusts, and even then they have will need a few 'adjustments' to really know what is going on here... and the truth is I am still getting to the bedrock ... still going through various interpretations...

And let's be clear what identification is... legally it means when the two become one, so when the police officer asks you for your driver's license and looks at it and then asks you "are you JOHN DOE?" and you say yes... you have just made yourself 'one' with the 'legal entity' ... well first off you have done many things right there... for one you have consented to be under his jurisdiction by virtue of that, which now means two, you have made yourself the surety for the name by saying that you will stand in for said legal entity, and you are technically committing a crime, since you ARE not said legal entity... Also that piece of identity (and that is an 'identity' that was created USING the Birth Certificate... is evidence that you signed a contract, yes they have a piece of paper filed in their office, in their registry with your 'unqualified' signature, meaning they can construe the relationship (which has a trust interpretion hidden in there) anyway they want... and that will be the 'construed' or 'constructive' trust, (in legal land according to Christian Walters constructive is derived from the word 'construed'...

So lets summarize, you have consented to being a citizen, a legally defined fictional entity, subject to their jurisdiction, by signing a contract, unconditionally and then giving (the definition of giving is to handle over legal title with no consideration) to them the legal property (was created when you applied your signature, which represents your credit) The fact of you doing this unawares, is also evidence of your incompetence, so in their interpretation that is why they created that institution and register of course... to look after you as the guardian and trustee of the trust... think about it how much 'control' do children even as the benefactors have in a trust... not very much until the reach a certain age or some criteria ...

I could go on and on ... but I just scratching the surface here and make no claims to a complete understanding myself... also they are not our 'slaves'... but yes they are our government servants if you know how to invoke that... ;p...

btw the definition of a slave according to Winston Shrout was a person who consent to work off a debt for another. See even our historic understanding of all these words is incorrect (part of the trap) in this 'Alice in Wonderland' world of theirs... in fact I haven't found the proper word for what you think you are referring to... for ex. the blacks were never actually slaves, because they were taken against their will... That is NOT slavery... (according to this definition and interpretation, and remember every word counts... it was INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.... so think SLAVERY = VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, and (word I haven't figured out yet) = INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

If you are thinking this sounds all topsy turvy you are starting to get an inkling, brother could I tell you some stories.... ha!

And when most people walk into court they put themselves into jurisdiction within 30 seconds... don't forget it's their house (with rare exception, I will grant) therefore their rules, their interpretation, as much as you may or may not like that...

It has to do with 'presumption' think of it as automatic default settings... and the tricky part about presumptions, is that if you dont' SPECIFICALLY rebut them, then it is PRESUMED you have consented to them... so again you are playing a dangerous game, if you step on a crack (ie. miss one presumption) that is all they need...

and to make things worse sometimes you even do everything right, but there may be no witnesses or people to oversee they do the right thing and they will may cheat (commit a criminal breach of trust) and take you anyway, (like if they don't like you because you are trying to educate yourself in their secret ways... as that is 'threatening' to them... )

anyway that is all can touch on for now... so just saying... words and deeds.... words and deeds... two different things, and they both have to line up when you are in their court...

[sigma6]

Posted by Butangeld (here)

Posted by danceblackcatdance (here)
This is a top video too thank you for posting... interesting on the TV license thing.. they seem to say there is legislation...

Which legislation authorises the BBC to collect the TV Licence fee?

Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being shown on television without a TV Licence.
Section 365 of that Act requires that a person to whom a TV Licence is issued must pay a fee to the BBC. The nature and quantity of this fee is set out in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended).

Since 1991 the BBC, in its role as the relevant licensing authority, has been responsible for collecting and enforcing the TV Licence fee. The BBC contracts companies to do this work under the BBC trade mark ‘TV Licensing’. The BBC (and contractors acting on its behalf) must comply with the law in collecting and enforcing the licence fee. The BBC Charter further requires that these arrangements be appropriate, proportionate and efficient.

These look like laws but there is a reason they are called acts. To have dominion over you or me these 'laws' must first be enacted into law. This is done by 2 consenting parties entering into a contract between themselves. Until the act is enacted by a contract then it is just a rule.

The most common route to the contract in any given situation is through the use of legalese to make a verbal contract. This is language which sounds natural but which has different meanings accorded to it by the law society. Example is when asked 'do you understand?' we take this to mean 'did you get what I just said?' but in law language this means literally 'do you stand under me?' An affirmative here is not in your best interests.

With the TV company enforcers I followed the simplest advice from Harris. Tried and tested. When the man was stood at my door I only replied "I am not obliged to answer your questions" He persisted a little but soon walked away. If you answer either yes or no to anything they ask they may find cause for the contract to have been enacted.

Not that I watch TV anymore, it's all guff now.

I'm skipping ahead but just caught this, I think you are on the right track, I have been saying this for a while now... acts and codes and statutes (even though they fake it up by calling them statute laws or statutory law... (oxymoron imo) are NOT LAWS, so what is the game, to my best interpretation is this... they are corporate policy, but you are still on the hook, because you chose to be a member of their 'society' (ie. legal club) by signing a bunch of contracts, evidencing your consent to be under their jurisdiction... (to me jurisdiction is EVERYTHING...) For example if you work at McDonalds, you sign a contract... in effect obligate yourself to follow their 'rules' which is the same thing going on in the government, we are only dealing with a private corporation, a defacto government, but you signed a contract, ie. health card, SIN/SSN, driver's license, etc... so you are saying you want to be an employee and receive the 'benefit' of a paycheck in exchange for following their rules... they got you, but unlike McDonalds, it's hard to find the exit door to say "I quit" this is where me and a lot of people are putting all our efforts, how to outside their jurisdiction, how to become a non-resident legal alien, just a visitor, because then you fall back into your living soul, flesh and blood man, living on the ground, not a fictonal 'vessal' floatin on the sea, in Admiralty laws... (laws of commerce) so when you become an 'employee' of McDonalds their policys become your laws... ie you have given up your usual inalienable rights... sorry this is rushed, hope it gives the basics (all I really know..)

[gripreaper]

I've scoured the Strawman/Freeman, Common Law/Admiralty Law rabbit hole for years and here is what I have finally come to:

The powerful elite have done everything in their power over the last several millennium to take control of the assets of this planet, and to control us, and they have succeeded quite handsomely, mostly due to their perseverance and our ignorance and acquiescence to it.

It started with earnest back in the late 1200's with the Cestui Que Vie trusts and the "curse" put on all of us, as declarations went out that the Vatican owns everything and everyone, and we basically acquiesced to it. Some say all we need to do is rebuke these adhesion contracts and assumptions placed on us, and extricate from the system and become free and sovereign again. I basically agree with this concept, yet I do not see it happening on an individual basis one on one. The system is too ingrained and there are way too many obstacles to us slaves jumping the fence and leaving the slave plantation. Too many who have tried to go it alone have died trying or wound up in prison. The elite do not like their slaves leaving the plantation.

So, here is what I do: Extricate as quietly and as under the radar as possible, by not entering into adhesion contracts, not eating their poisonous food, drinking their tainted water, listening to their propaganda, and operating in full commerce with the corrupt corporatocracy. Then, keep studying and following those who are organizing and attempting to get free.

On a basic level, it's energy vampirism we are dealing with, all of this stuff. The more we stop giving our power away with savior memes, and the more we rescind our connection to this vampirism, the more sovereign and free we will become. This shift in consciousness is in every step we take, and deprograming and reloading new software is a daunting task, but it is the only way to get free and STOP giving our life force to the parasites, both incarnate and carnal.

[SKAWF]

Posted by sigma6 (here)
I am hesitating to join this thread (LOL) ... but here we gooo...
Whoa SKAWF I like your spirit, but I would be careful, yes there are some stories of people who ... (and here comes the magical phrase...) "KNOW WHO THEY ARE..." But if you mistep you could be dragged off in a heartbeat, there is a lot going on in a court room. So although I agree in principle with what you are saying, the devil is in the details... Consider this... the Birth Certificate itself is not evidence that it 'identifies' you, we have it on direct communication that it is not to be used as IDENTIFICATION... That came direct from the deputy registrar general for Ontario in an actual conversation of a friend and lead researcher... But think about that for a minute... for me personally I am still absolutely confounded sometimes!

It surely begs the question... if it is NOT to be used for identification then WHAT or HOW is it to be used.... and this is where the can of worms is opened as there are a multitude of possible interpretations... I am only taking these posts one at a time, but 'maybe' if we are lucky we might get someone who has studied trusts, and even then they have will need a few 'adjustments' to really know what is going on here... and the truth is I am still getting to the bedrock ... still going through various interpretations...

And let's be clear what identification is... legally it means when the two become one, so when the police officer asks you for your driver's license and looks at it and then asks you "are you JOHN DOE?" and you say yes... you have just made yourself 'one' with the 'legal entity' ... well first off you have done many things right there... for one you have consented to be under his jurisdiction by virtue of that, which now means two, you have made yourself the surety for the name by saying that you will stand in for said legal entity, and you are technically committing a crime, since you ARE not said legal entity... Also that piece of identity (and that is an 'identity' that was created USING the Birth Certificate... is evidence that you signed a contract, yes they have a piece of paper filed in their office, in their registry with your 'unqualified' signature, meaning they can construe the relationship (which has a trust interpretion hidden in there) anyway they want... and that will be the 'construed' or 'constructive' trust, (in legal land according to Christian Walters constructive is derived from the word 'construed'...

So lets summarize, you have consented to being a citizen, a legally defined fictional entity, subject to their jurisdiction, by signing a contract, unconditionally and then giving (the definition of giving is to handle over legal title with no consideration) to them the legal property (was created when you applied your signature, which represents your credit) The fact of you doing this unawares, is also evidence of your incompetence, so in their interpretation that is why they created that institution and register of course... to look after you as the guardian and trustee of the trust... think about it how much 'control' do children even as the benefactors have in a trust... not very much until the reach a certain age or some criteria ...

I could go on and on ... but I just scratching the surface here and make no claims to a complete understanding myself... also they are not our 'slaves'... but yes they are our government servants if you know how to invoke that... ;p...

btw the definition of a slave according to Winston Shrout was a person who consent to work off a debt for another. See even our historic understanding of all these words is incorrect (part of the trap) in this 'Alice in Wonderland' world of theirs... in fact I haven't found the proper word for what you think you are referring to... for ex. the blacks were never actually slaves, because they were taken against their will... That is NOT slavery... (according to this definition and interpretation, and remember every word counts... it was INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE.... so think SLAVERY = VOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, and (word I haven't figured out yet) = INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

If you are thinking this sounds all topsy turvy you are starting to get an inkling, brother could I tell you some stories.... ha!

And when most people walk into court they put themselves into jurisdiction within 30 seconds... don't forget it's their house (with rare exception, I will grant) therefore their rules, their interpretation, as much as you may or may not like that...

It has to do with 'presumption' think of it as automatic default settings... and the tricky part about presumptions, is that if you dont' SPECIFICALLY rebut them, then it is PRESUMED you have consented to them... so again you are playing a dangerous game, if you step on a crack (ie. miss one presumption) that is all they need...

and to make things worse sometimes you even do everything right, but there may be no witnesses or people to oversee they do the right thing and they will may cheat (commit a criminal breach of trust) and take you anyway, (like if they don't like you because you are trying to educate yourself in their secret ways... as that is 'threatening' to them... )

anyway that is all can touch on for now... so just saying... words and deeds.... words and deeds... two different things, and they both have to line up when you are in their court...

i hear what you're saying.

the birth certificate is to be used as evidence, that your birth, along with your god given rights,
was acknowledged by the state, and that a trust was created. the cestui que vie trust.
i wouldnt use it to prove my identity, as it relates to the title, not the man.
(even though i have used it as ID in the past)

the fact that i have used it in the past, but wouldnt use it now,
i would say, goes some way to showing that full disclosure was never given.
on ANY contract or agreement that i entered into with the state.

plus the fact, that it wasnt me that entered into the original trust agreement.
this was done on my behalf.

can anyone provide an original document, with my signature in ink,
where i agreed to this trust?........ nope. no such document exists.
what does that say for the validity of any agreements i subsequently entered into?
the full terms of which, were never explained.

but none of this matters

right this second, i have common law jurisdiction.
this makes every state agent, my trustee.
there to act on my behalf, and for my benefit.

if they try to act against me, they will have problems as i wont identify myself as the title.
they will also have bigger problems if they persist, as i will sue them for breach of trust, and whatever else i can think of.
whatever they try will result in them being nailed to the floor.

the basic premise is,

they..... as a non living entity, do not have my legal status.
they are not my equal.
i can sign my own contracts...

the state cannot. it has to have officer do that for it.

a non living entity, and its officers, do not have the same status as a natural human, with god given rights.
(you may be familiar with corporations trying to achieve the same status as as humans)

the title they give is, is owned by, and subordinate to the 'authority' of the state.

but in common law, the state is subordinate to natural human beings.

if they attempt to criminalize me in any way,
they are not acting in my interests or benefit
and they will get nailed. no debate.

i spose the only thing they can do, is sue me for breach of any existing contract...
but i would argue that full disclosure was never given, which renders the contract null and void.

if they try to run me through a statutory court, then i would argue that a fraud is taking place (no title ) plus, statutes only apply to agents of the state, and titles, of which i am neither.

but the nub of what i'm saying is.....

whatever they try and do to me,
will result in massive consequences for them.

we have far far more power and weight than they do.

always because of our god given rights, which they dont have
and that the terms of the cesui que vie trust means,
they MUST act on our behalf and for our benefit,
otherwise they are liable for a breach of trust.

we give them permission to conduct their business on OUR land.
provided they act on our behalf, and for our benefit.

the irony is,

a huge corporation like nike,
doesnt even have the legal status of a child they employ to work in one of their sweat shops!
the state is a corporation

steve

[sigma6]

Again I agree in principle, but as soon as we figure this out, they reinterpret their rules, to create new ensnarements, what worked for us last year, now they are acting like it has no basis today... we still press on, we still study and are working on new approaches as we speak... and I think we are getting closer and will be arriving at a solution.

And I agree again that the only thing that speaks their language is threat of enforcement, a charge of criminal fraud, breach of trust etc.... but most don't know how to do that properly, especially if they call your bluff... so now one has to know how to sue properly and quickly get the paperwork in, especially a criminal complaint against an errant government employee, which is a death knell to them... but they will do everything to try and prevent you from doing that, including hiding their names, lawyers, and police who will refuse to process paperwork, clerks who will refuse paperwork, or if they accept it, they refuse to enter into evidence in their back offices, or it goes missing, or they apply it to the wrong file, etc. and all manner of dirty, dirty business... including grabbing you.... you are dealing with a crime syndicate...

A long time ago I learned to separate understanding theory from understanding practice or physical step by step application. I think a lot of people have an excellent idea of a lot of what is going on, but again the devil is in the details, and few have the proper actual step by step procedures for putting these things into practice.

And when they know what you are trying to do it, at least where I live, they will treat you worse then the most vilified criminal, they will treat you like your criminally insane... It is just a full blown display in your face that they will lie, cheat, steal, and kidnap in order to suppress your efforts, I have been in back room courts (no public, but a dozen government agents, they want to let you know they are breaking the law and there is nothing you can do about it, short of bringing a gathering of a dozen witnesses to act as the 'people' but good luck trying to mobilize that at least here anyway, people are either too stupid or too afraid. And with the economy and previous financial attacks as many have been financially burned, so alot don't want to participate, especially if they feel it is not well planned out. I mean man, it's like you have to join a 'militia'!!!

So one really has to have the skill of a lawyer regarding paperwork procedure in order to be able to follow up on the enforcement, and I have to admit that is something I am still working on... and I have learned to tread carefully... I know many who have gone to jail, lost their apartments, their vehicles, their homes, their jobs.... it may not be right, and it may not be legal... but it will still damage you and your ability to move forward... I don't think Canadians are as educated about the court system as in the US although technically we are supposed to have even greater protections for our sovereignty (at least according to Sam Kennedy when he studied our laws) Personally I would rather deal with criminals because they at least are honourable enough to label themselves for who they are, and tell you straight up what the deal is, so just saying to you all out there, understand you MUST ABSOLUTELY know what you are doing...

they don't lie down, and they don't roll over unless you get the pitch just right... and it is getting more difficult all the time, as they are starting to more clearly identify us and apply specific counter measures, and they are definitely making examples of people who get mis-step, it's clearly getting more vicious, as they want to influence the ones who are still unsure to make them think we are insane... court is a formalized form of warfare, that is one of the secrets, these people are acting as professional pirates (parasites), their job is to plunder your wealth...

update: attorney is the same definition as 'strawman' in Black's Law.... think of the implication...
and attorney comes from the French I believe meaning 'to turn over' from when they turn would over money and assets to the 'King'

one doesn't go in with guns blazing...

[SKAWF]

the only details you need concern yourself with, are your god given rights.
they do not change, and cannot be taken away.

i dont care what new rules or acts the state brings in.

without a title, they cannot act against you.
their jurisdiction only applies if you agree to act through title
(they do this by asking you your name. if you repeat the name on your birth certificate, they have you. because its not your name. its theirs.)
without that, they cannot touch you.


otherwise you have common law jurisdiction.

you can prove with your birth certificate,
that your inherent rights exist.

but they cannot prove that you are acting through title.

thats why i say it doesnt matter what they do.

without your consent.... they have nothing against you

so powerful are they, that they need you to allow them to act against you!

if you are stopped by the police for something..

you remove their statutory authority by establishing your own common law jurisdiction.
then you establish that they are acting in accordance with the oath they they swore (to uphold the common law, and to maintain the peace)

once you have done that, you have removed from them, any power they have over you.

then you ask them if you are being detained, (they do not have the title, therefore the authority to detain you)

when they say no, you walk away. its that simple.

dont be afraid of them. in fact, have a smile on your face as you do it.

i was nervous the first time i did it,

(waterloo train station, in full view of everyone that was stood around me and him)

when it worked.......

it was the most empowering feeling ive experienced.

up till that point i used to think that They had all the power

but the realisation that actually, WE have the power, is great!

enjoy it.

freedom...... is how life should be for us.

they are not going to give it to you...
your freedom is not theirs to give or take away.
its US that relinquish our own freedom, when we act through their title.

one day, you'll try it, and it will work, and i guarantee you'll have a massive smile on your face.

it feels good.

steve

[D-Day]

Pretty sure I haven't seen this one posted here yet.

Anyways, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong ...

In the following video presentation Robert Menard delivers what I consider to be a MUST WATCH for anyone who is interested in learning about basic Freeman concepts and principles.

During the presentation Robert delves into a broad range of topics including; the illusion of the 'person', what words in 'law 'mean, consent, acceptance, honor & dishonour, bills of exchange, and much more.

Even if you consider yourself a seasoned veteran of the Freeman movement, if you haven't watched this presentation yet I would encourage you to do so... it's well worth a look IMO.

Bursting Bubbles Of Government Deception

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eabYMa0Ht40

[SKAWF]

there's some very good stuff in that vid D Day.




cheers

[D-Day]

Another good one... I love both of these guys.

Max Igan is one of my all time favourite alternative info personalities, and Dean Clifford is one of the leading authorities on Freeman info getting around today IMO.

Both of them like to keep things simple, which is always a good thing (especially for me ).

The following interview/discussion is no exception, just two guys who know their sh*t layin' it down for anyone willing to listen.

Some really good stuff in here.. enjoy.

Max Igan in Conversation with Dean Clifford

Part 1:

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c27-KQd1Uo

Part 2:

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPIPH1PdFpI

Part 3:

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmUntqCT7qs

Part 4:

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7uVzq6eko0

[sigma6]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Hip Hipnotist (here)
I am ( also ) a Notary Public and was working with a gentleman a few years back who was filing 'presentment' after 'presentment' doing his darndest to fend off the 'wolves at his gate'.
This is where I learned just how ( seemingly endless ) this freeman / strawman, fiat money, the legal fiction and Admiralty law rabbit hole actually is.
IMO this subject/topic/reality is the most sinister ( might be putting it mildly ) of all things discussed here on Avalon -- and perhaps anywhere.
The gentlemen I was working with ( as a notary ) won some and lost some but ultimately caved in as the wolves finally crashed through his gate and wore him down to the bone -- his family, too.
I was also cautioned ( threatened ) by the local district attorney's office for lending services to a person engaged in 'felonious activities' and that my commission was in the process of being revoked.
Three years later I'm still a notary.

Thanks for that personal story. I have a good friend myself who involved himself deeply and actively in this material a few years ago.
He told me recently, totally seriously, that one should not get involved in the sovereignty movement as an activist (i.e. actually trying to amend one's own or someone else's status) -- unless one was prepared to go to jail.
He told stories of good friends of his (who I don't know) who were brilliant minds, and knew the law inside out --- but it didn't make any difference. If the judge rules against you, you're screwed -- whether you are right or wrong.
George Green also has friends who are in jail because of exactly this activism -- and I've heard this from other friends of mine also. It's heavy-duty stuff, and the courts are not amused by it one bit.
I'm not in any way discouraging anyone from getting involved. Just stating the evident risks.

This is precisely correct, I have had an experience in court, after 18 months of study and I was very lucky, I am considering forwarding the email, which I wrote the same day when I got home, my head was buzzing, I had practiced for weeks in advance to mentally prepare myself, in the end I got a senior prosecutor to state that she would be contacting the MTO and requesting they withdraw the charges... (long story short) I then beat 15 parking tickets (as a test) but eventually started building a 'reputation' and they become very 'vicious and vindictive'... you absolutely have to be ready to go to jail, (they will test you)

Thing is a lot of the basic idea of what others is saying is fairly accurate, but have a fundamental understanding isn't good enough when stepping into their 'house'. And I hear a lot of people that speak from their point of view and their interpretation, but don't seem to have an inkling of how things are interpreted from the court's point of view, you have to either submit a list of words and your definitions or know the definitions according to how the 'court' defines it,

I once made another email of a list of all the presumptions that you need to rebut in court, miss one of these and they can and will 'take' you... for example one thing to NEVER do is step through the gate, the courts are set up like a foreign jurisdiction, and stepping through the gate upon their invite is like boarding a ship, you 'just stepped into their jurisdiction' and a dozen other 'games'. It's like going to someone's house, and they have a sign beside the door before you enter with a set of rules (rules of civil procedure) ie. take off your shoes, bring a bag of chips, we're playing RISK tonite, etc, or be 'jailed' ...then if you don't follow the rules and want to play monopoly instead, your going to be 'jailed' (contempt, etc)

Before I dig up my email, I went to a traffic court, 'sparred' with a 'magistrate' for half an hour and avoided contempt, by speaking only in questions and never stepping through the gate, and introduced myself as "Do you understand I am the trustee, and grantor in fact with special interest in the name?" eventually she became speechless (long story short) but they suckered me into a another trial date, changed jurisdiction to a criminal court, when the 'real' judge asked me, "who are you?" I said the same thing, and this time he immediately got up and left the court... and then came back in 5 seconds (he just changed jurisdiction to another higher venue, and came back to make another attempt) called an adjournment as a misdirection to 'cover' his action (as everyone was totally confused, during the 'adjournment' a criminal lawyer was trying to get me to 'cast witness upon myself' then offered to 'represent' me for free (no thanks) then literally followed me into the court and stepped through the gate and started speaking on my behalf until I 'lost it' and said "what is going on here!!?" at which point she 'cringed' and literally cowered away and sat back in the bench area (there were many bizarre things like this that day!) I was asked a second time who I was, to which I replied the same again, never flinching, at which the judge raised his hand for me to be silent and proceeded to 'go after the prosecutor'.... until she caved...

I called her as follow up and confirmed what she said (recorded it) (as I was stunned and in disbelief...) and she confirmed everything like nothing had happened... just previously she and an additional assistant were going to take my license for a year...

It was as close as 'pulling back the curtain' I knew I saw stuff happening in front of my eyes, that at the time I was barely comprehending... anyhow this is far from conclusive, I do NOT recommend anyone try this... Sam Kennedy did a Sunday special on it, analyzing what I had done... 2009/08/16 http://www.4shared.com/folder/It49qNXZ/Sam_Kennedy.html I have since gone back to the court and have been rebuffed when attempting this again, (just like in the Matrix, they 'recalibrate' each time) ...analyzing what they are up to, they are essentially now saying that "JOHN DOE" has 'failed to appear' and try to issue an arrest warrant, (to which I believe we are required to present the BC, but have since haven't had the chance to test it...) Anyhow this is just a little taste of one of many, many, many things to expect...

On another note there is an excellent talkshoe on Dean getting arrested (he has studied this for over 15 years, and he is sharp...) and he did get himself out after 17 days... so even people who have a 'good sense' dont' have the whole answer, and I think he is far from simple, again his ideas make sense, but if you listen carefully, he also has a 'paperwork' component to his process, he is a hard act to follow in reality... and I don't agree trying to sue the courts and the police is the answer, threatening them with a criminal charges/complaints before hand or immediately during, yes, but trying to lien, or bill them, or get money.... tricky, on thin ice, I wouldn't even go there...

Now I do have a collection of stories on successful outcomes, each one is what I call a 'supernatural event' because they are all associated with 'strange' anomolies occurring that are indications of this 'hidden' world that they are hiding... and they reveal that there IS SOME WAY to get your self 'recognized' as outside of their jurisdiction... but each one is incredibly mysterious, and sometimes can be debated endlessly as to exactly what actually happened...

that's my bit for now, I find even discussing this stuff now, has a weird effect on me I can't explain (they 'get' to you in many ways... much like a real mafia would...)

You are entering a pit of vipers, make no mistake about it... and I personally believe it is absolutely necessary to understand private trust law in order to be able to comprehend what is going on... that is reading a bunch of 800-1500 page books that Christian Walters recommends as well as a huge set of quotes from the Corpus Juris Secundum (A Legal Encyclopedia with all kinds of reference to trust interpretations) I won't go back until I perfect enforcement techniques, specifically filing criminal complaints and charges on my own, as back up in case they decide to call your bluff.

[sigma6]

Here's a hint of some very intriguing examples of unusual successes, and the direction I am focusing on... these stories are third party, I wasn't there but know the people, and respect their understanding very much... and they have strong networks...

one guy is in a foreclosure, up against Barbara Dam (a well known 'freeman' hunter') asks the judge what proof does she (the prosecutor) have that she has the authority to adminstrate the 'NAME Estate' ... Judge replies that is a good question and gives her 10 days to comply... she withdraws from the case....

another guy (in a small town) gets a summons (something to do with his dogs) he is 'instructed' to say the following... "This document says that I have been summoned to appear in her Majesty's name" (carefully note the wording here...) He then produces the long form of the BC (in this case) and 'presents' it by holding it up to the 'judge' (or whoever it was) and says "I present to you ...her Majesty's NAME..." the judge then apparently gives him the order of the court (the charge) everyone was stunned, (as this has never happened before) the guy is stunned, but they finally figure out to A4V it and give it back to the judge and he dismisses the case (note: it was noted btw that the document was not signed, therefore the judge was 'testing' (cheating) but when I heard this story it harked back to a Winston Shrout explanation where you say "I hold the claim, does anyone here have a superior claim!?" "then release the order of the court to me!" Now think about it, when was the last time anyone every tried that in court ... ??? ;-)

[danceblackcatdance]

i'm very behind here, much appreciated for all the invaluable info and experiences! Trying to catch up on th videos now..

My partner just got a parking ticket and the 'informal appeal' (that we live here and was unpacking the shopping!) was rejected.. Now I know you're supposed to send the ticket back unopened with 'no contract' written on it but have to be prepared to face the consequences..

Thanks to SKAWF, sigma6 and all for sharing, eye opening for sure