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

[danceblackcatdance]

Greets, this is a fascinating video to do with the UK strawman / statutes / fiat money & bank of england being a private company (same as the FED)... and probably applies to the US and elsewhere too..

WE ARE ALL LEGALLY DEAD! and 'in custody' / state property... our currency is not backed by gold / silver but by the population's labour represented by your birth (berth) certificate...


"A F Charters Delivers a Information Packed Episode discussing your PERSON and The Worlds Bankruptcy and how it affects each and every one of us.

This Video goes back to 1666, The great Fire of London, where a major piece of legislation was passed through parliament which viced the entire population of the UNITED KINGDOM PLC"

Sounds like the 'Great Fire' of london was the first FLASE FALG?!

Jv2YUMsG5A0

_feEaLk7vO0

FRQYSnSBRs8

its voluntary! we are born equal under God... if you don't want to fund war with your taxes you don't have to apparently :becky:

EADtWCh30Bg

this sh*t has been going on 2000 years too long...:wave:

h1sxPWwEZ2g

-QMQCcyjriE

Some links:
http://www.tpuc.org/ The Peoples United Community
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/Beat the Banks, Credit Cards and the Debt Collectors totally Lawfully

i know there are posts on this subject but wasn't sure about specific threads? if there are, sorry!

if not please post more info or experiences on this topic please...

all the best :)

[danceblackcatdance]

the strawman, mechanical (nature mimicking) matrix exposed... really wow..:)

there is no money / 'we' are all collateral!!

this man has become the 'agent' for the strawman that represents his name! that is why there is a ™ (trademark) after his name... interesting AND confusing :becky:


there's nto enough gold in the world to support all the debt... so everyone is bankrupt, all the governments are bankrupt... and its all just a big game to see how bankrupt they can become till the house of cards falls down

"J. Anderson discusses the 'Strawman' that is perceived to exist from the standing of the real man in Common Law.

If you are entering into their jurisdiction by submission or under-standing, then you give up any rights and claims unless specifically reserved.

If you have submitted or under-stood (stood under) their jurisdiction then you have no standing to argue about the existence of the 'Strawman' as you are under the rules of their game.

You cannot enter their game and then argue about their rules once you have already submitted and under-stood them."

CphbPm8r9jY
c5v-VNErU9c
g-8rXe2ban0
5_n8HUeWROA
fvBbfCJALDM
ZyJfTr-PI_0
Cqzns7rhwf0
BbieGrsvKMo
N37CAw0fBv0
0ONme3HXcmk

[SKAWF]

personally, i dont care how many threads there are on this subject.

i wish i could carpet bomb the entire world with this subject.

there's no conspiracy in it............ on the surface at least,
its about law.
every man women and child has been affected in exactly the same way.
we dont have to go anywhere near the illuminati
or satan
or mass deaths etc....

what it does do though,
is empower everyone to rebel in a way that the system has no way of countering.

there is the potential to put tptb in their place.

they get their permission to exist on OUR land, from us.
they are OUR SERVANTS.
(i get satisfaction out of taking them down a peg or two, and i dont care how many people see it.)

the thing is, when people get to court for non payment of council tax
and a whole raft of other statutory charges...
they say a couple of phrases in court,
and it doesnt take the court long to realise that the accused doesnt really know what he/she is talking about.
and that leaves people open to being made an example of by the court.

so i post this video by dean clifford
(i also wholeheartedly recommend watching a guy called santos bonnaci)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2pMJyIikCk

cheers

[sigma6]

Great to see people are delving into the occult nature of commerce, that Jordan, Winston Shrout, and now to my utter amazement David Wilcock is looking into, I was amazed by how much he must have absorbed to create the articles he did... I hope he continues to pursue it because I would love to hear his commentaries and summaries given his research abilities and contacts.... many others have been trying to tease out the secrets of Commerce for the last 10-20 years, it has definitely been heating up in the last few years, but be warned this is one very, very, very deep rabbit hole.

The answer lies in understanding how private trusts operate by controlling the title to things, for eg. technically the word property doesn't mean the physical thing, but the 'rights' to 'use of' the physical thing... this is because property is about titles and titles is what is being manipulated in trusts, legal title ('true' ownership, liability) and beneficial titles (beneficial 'use' of) And registration is the hidden system the government (state) gets you to give up legal title. We are brain washed with the concept of registration, in childhood, as exemplified by the nativity (Christmas) story of Mary & Joseph having to go to Bethleham because that is where he was born (registered) or something like that. This Roman system of control of titles is their means of creating contract and jurisdiction. Shrout gets into an analysis of how they have hidden it in biblical text heavily.

And yet with the proper understanding this could be used against them by the same token. It is both fundamental and dizzyingly subtle in all the permutations and variations that trust relationships can take .... (the Rothschilds and other elites like to say... "own nothing, control everything") and when it comes to the study of trust concepts, you will never meet a more squirrelly bunch of paranoid secretive people in your life... there is some kind of dynamic about it, the more they learn the less they want to share it with others... it's just weird (occult)

btw Dean Clifford is one of the most forthcoming and open sharers of this information, but I know he has been in contact with one of the more 'paranoid' researchers (a jerk who likes to charge people for his information and lives in my neck of the woods) so it remains to be seen how he will be affected. This guy has the ability to 'affect' everyone with his 'paranoid' interpretation, secrecy, etc, I have seen whole groups of people who have secret meetings, won't speak about it, etc... all because without knowing it they were influenced by this jerk guy...

Anyhow when it comes the 'Birth Certificate' it is considered by some to be a Cest tu-que vie trust, and through the manipulation of trust interpretation they are taking away our inalienable rights, they give it to you as the Trustees and upholders of the Christian faith (ie. your 'God given' inalienable rights, and our mutual 'stewardship' of the earth) and then take it away through corporate commercial re-manipulation of the same trust interpretation (in a nutshell)

Start Here: What is a "Ces tui Qui Trust" (pronounce set-a-kay) and why should you care?
http://www.relatingtolife.com/index.php?page=173&name=Reclaim%20%22YOUR%22%20Strawman

[danceblackcatdance]

thanks SKAWF, i couldn't agree more... heard about all this a while ago but have only just started delving into it properly... and my how powerful it is, or could be if everyone was clued up.... 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...

[SKAWF]

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.

[Hip Hipnotist]

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.

[danceblackcatdance]

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.

yeah, totally.. i'm going to have to watch it a couple of times too... just found another 2 parts...

kvKu2UNHQpA
J2GaxlGTyAE

cool that you understand the system, i would like to get there too.. if you have any more resources please share, ta!


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.


would you give an example when you have a moment please? :)


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.

inspirational, many thanks!!

[SKAWF]

'would you give an example when you have a moment please?'

okay, so our 'god given' rights are

dominion over the planet.
free and equal access to the earths resources,
we can go anywhere.
we can do anything we like
as long as we cause no harm or loss to anyone,
and we dont breach the peace.

those are the only 'laws' that exist. (gods law is the only one you MUST abide by)

all the others, are not laws.
they are statutory acts. (the policy of the state, is not law)

they only apply to the title. (the name on your birth certificate)

you can choose at any time, to act through your title,
or you can choose to be in 'common law' jurisdiction,
you can swap whenever you want.

the state only has control over its own creation (your title)
so it tricks people into acting through title,
by asking them what their name is.
99% of people will repeat the name on the birth certificate. (nice eh?)
as soon as people give that name, they have effectively given the state power over them.

currently, i have no driving license.

if i were to be pulled over by the law,
i would not identify myself in any way.
i would say that i'm in common law jurisdiction, so i dont need one.
(only agents of the state, and professional drivers need to have a license)

no doubt the police would disagree.
they would probably arrest me (without title or consent = breach of trust)

so here we have, preventing me from going about my lawful business (1)
kidnapping (2)
holding me against my will (3)
false imprisonment (4)
about ten other 'trespasses' against me (5)
and breach of trust (6)

all they have against me, is not having a driving license, which i'm not lawfully required to have.

so they take me to statutory court, and i make sure that any and all documentation has been signed 'properly'
(which means, being signed by the officeholder, and not just the name of the office!!!) (eg signed.... bailiff manager (which btw is a fraudulent document = breach of trust)

because i would be taking them to civil court, and the documentation, would be my evidence)

there, whoever signed the documents against me, like the magistrate, arresting officer, custody sergeant, the inspector at the station,
would be those who i hold liable for the damages commited against me.

they would then have to go to civil court, and provide evidence that they have a lawful reason for doing what they did.

which, as i was in common law jurisdiction, and not acting through any title,
and,
the alleged offence was statutory in nature......

they would have NO lawful justification for at all.

i win.

the same goes for any....... ANY statutory charge.

hope that helps.

[danceblackcatdance]

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.

hey Hip Hipnotist, thx.. had to google what notary was because i didn't know.. what you write of your experiences does sound sinister..!

coupled with what SKAWF says, exploitation of this chink in the system is quite a threat.. seems they will take a hard line with anyone testing it if they can get away with it....

[danceblackcatdance]

'would you give an example when you have a moment please?'

okay, so our 'god given' rights are

dominion over the planet.
free and equal access to the earths resources,
we can go anywhere.
we can do anything we like
as long as we cause no harm or loss to anyone,
and we dont breach the peace.

those are the only 'laws' that exist. (gods law is the only one you MUST abide by)

all the others, are not laws.
they are statutory acts. (the policy of the state, is not law)

they only apply to the title. (the name on your birth certificate)........

.............hope that helps.

cool.. yeh! lots to take in but helps very much... thanks very much :)

have you ever tested this or anything similar?

[SKAWF]

'have you ever tested this or anything similar? '

yes i have, though i should say that when i first started doing it,
it worked, but i was lucky. there were things i wasnt aware of at the time
looking back, i left myself quite open through my own lack of knowledge.

the title thing, is rock solid.
never give them your name,
but tell them that you KNOW they need a title to act against you
and they aint getting one.

always make sure that they are acting in accordance with the oath they swore (to uphold the common law).

close your front door in the faces of all the others. (tv license etc), they get nothing.

'sorry, no title, no contracts'. end of.

i'm yet to sue the police though.

i'm sure they will provide me the rope to hang them with at some point though.

i should also add, if you ever do get arrested for something, and you havnt identified yourself,

dont start effing and blinding in the police station.
and dont let them know your intentions
get a lawyer as a witness, get what you need and get out safely,
THEN start preparing your case.

we dont want any deaths in custody now do we.

there is a very thin line.
if you stay on it, you're fireproof,
stray off it, and your toast.

they will try all sorts of things to wind you up, but hold your position.
play the long game instead.

[Bill Ryan]

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.

[SKAWF]

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.


true.

but most statutory offences dont carry a prison sentence,
also .... usually.... most prison sentences are only handed out if there is no means to give a community based sentence
like a fine, community service, probation, asbo's etc
and also if the gravity and nature of the offence is so serious, that ONLY a custodial sentence is appropriate.

prison.... is the biggest thing they can do to you.
when they see that the threat of it has no effect,
they have nothing else to threaten you with.

i wonder if a magistrate, who has to do his job at the end of the day...
will be so willing to give a harsh sentence, if he thinks he will end up in civil court
having to defend the indefensible.

[MistahMojoRisin]

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.

Bill, I am sure since you were at ECETI a few months ago you heard about the issues James and the staff are having with the loca goverment there. They are going down this route and have had judge after judge appointed because no one knows how to deal with it. Very interesting stiff here. Thanks for the post.

[Christine]

One man's answer.


You asked about a matter concerning a legal name “FIRST MIDDLE LAST” (Property of the STATE OF BIRTHSTATE, which I do not claim, or own, but do use out of necessity in honor of usufruct)

This is the response to your visit, request, and offer to contract...

1. I do not wish to contract with you, nor do I consent to, or recognize your presumption of having any authority over me.

2. I am not a dead fiction, for I live move, breath, and have blood that flows.

3. I am Spirit who is with a unique Eternal Soul, living in the flesh and blood body of a Man.

4. IamcreatedintheimageandlikenessofmyCreator(Genesis1:26-28)and given dominion over all the earth; and furthermore, your corporate fictional military industrial complex recognizes this to be true under International Treaty and honors it through the Rules of Usufruct.

5. I am subject ONLY to the Natural Law of my Creator-God and Father and none other, “For no man can serve two masters.” Therefore, I do not recognize any fictional foreign corporation(s) as my Creator, and thereby do not give consent to be administrated by a dead entity corporation(s) selling my God-given Love, Life, and Liberty for a bowl of soup. I am an Act of God; you are an Act of a foreign Legislature, and limited by same. I have no such limitations!

6. I do not have a NAME and I do not consent to be recognized by a name or any legal name of fictional world construction and/or presumption, for I am Spirit with a Soul in the body of Man. I am called by friends and family by the appellation of “FIRST” but even this does not identify me, therefore, this appellation is not me. For purposes of this communication, see definitions below:

a. Appellation is defined as: “word by which a sentient being is called. Not to be confused with a, “NAME” or any LEGAL NAME constructed for identification.”

b. Name is defined as: “Identifying word that was created by a fiction for a fiction. Ex, the NAME on a Birth Certificate.”

7. Since you disturbed the peace of my home uninvited, I feel compelled to respond so that peace is restored honorable. You are hereby put on notice you are NOT WELCOME to visit my property or any of my family, friends and acquaintances properties regarding any issue pertaining to “talking,” “questioning,” “fact finding,” about the legal name “FIRST MIDDLE LAST,” which is property of the STATE OF OHIO. (See them for all of your questions)

8. Henceforth, all future communication must be in writing, signed in wet ink under penalty of perjury. And the three documents I need are:

a. Answer the enclosed questionnaire. I need to identify who you are.
b. Also, include a copy of your license and registration with the Secretary of
State to do business in the STATE NAME Republic/UNITED STATES.
c. Finally, also include a copy of your Oath of Office.

Respectfully,
John Doe the Christ, Child and Son of Nature’s God

In my mind this is a work of genius. I intend to use some of the wording henceforth in my private contracts and for legal purposes.

This is dangerous folks so I don't recommend anyone using such a document unless you are absolutely, resolutely and irrefutably aligned with the message and prepared to stand in your power. This strikes at the heart of the corrupt corporate power structure, so be careful. I am posting this as an example of what it feels like to stand up in the face of Goliath. Power up!

(Obviously the language could be rewritten to invoke whatever image of divinity that best suits your spiritual belief.)

[danceblackcatdance]

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.

hi Bill, thx for the heads up, seems that there are great risks involved with challenging the system on any front... do you have any more info as to what the case was in any of your friend's scenarios? what were they attempting & how much jail did they do etc?

Dean Clifford in the above videos went to jail for 18 days, sounds like he had a nice time and is now suing the judge / court and whoever else... J. ANDERSON™ has become the agent for his strawman, not quite got to how he's done that yet but seems 'legal'... or what the implications are overall, still digging :)

-------

One man's answer.


You asked about a matter concerning a legal name “FIRST MIDDLE LAST” (Property of the STATE OF BIRTHSTATE, which I do not claim, or own, but do use out of necessity in honor of usufruct)

This is the response to your visit, request, and offer to contract...

1. I do not wish to contract with you, nor do I consent to, or recognize your presumption of having any authority over me.

2. I am not a dead fiction, for I live move, breath, and have blood that flows.

3. I am Spirit who is with a unique Eternal Soul, living in the flesh and blood body of a Man.

4. IamcreatedintheimageandlikenessofmyCreator(Genesis1:26-28)and given dominion over all the earth; and furthermore, your corporate fictional military industrial complex recognizes this to be true under International Treaty and honors it through the Rules of Usufruct.

5. I am subject ONLY to the Natural Law of my Creator-God and Father and none other, “For no man can serve two masters.” Therefore, I do not recognize any fictional foreign corporation(s) as my Creator, and thereby do not give consent to be administrated by a dead entity corporation(s) selling my God-given Love, Life, and Liberty for a bowl of soup. I am an Act of God; you are an Act of a foreign Legislature, and limited by same. I have no such limitations!

6. I do not have a NAME and I do not consent to be recognized by a name or any legal name of fictional world construction and/or presumption, for I am Spirit with a Soul in the body of Man. I am called by friends and family by the appellation of “FIRST” but even this does not identify me, therefore, this appellation is not me. For purposes of this communication, see definitions below:

a. Appellation is defined as: “word by which a sentient being is called. Not to be confused with a, “NAME” or any LEGAL NAME constructed for identification.”

b. Name is defined as: “Identifying word that was created by a fiction for a fiction. Ex, the NAME on a Birth Certificate.”

7. Since you disturbed the peace of my home uninvited, I feel compelled to respond so that peace is restored honorable. You are hereby put on notice you are NOT WELCOME to visit my property or any of my family, friends and acquaintances properties regarding any issue pertaining to “talking,” “questioning,” “fact finding,” about the legal name “FIRST MIDDLE LAST,” which is property of the STATE OF OHIO. (See them for all of your questions)

8. Henceforth, all future communication must be in writing, signed in wet ink under penalty of perjury. And the three documents I need are:

a. Answer the enclosed questionnaire. I need to identify who you are.
b. Also, include a copy of your license and registration with the Secretary of
State to do business in the STATE NAME Republic/UNITED STATES.
c. Finally, also include a copy of your Oath of Office.

Respectfully,
John Doe the Christ, Child and Son of Nature’s God

In my mind this is a work of genius. I intend to use some of the wording henceforth in my private contracts and for legal purposes.

This is dangerous folks so I don't recommend anyone using such a document unless you are absolutely, resolutely and irrefutably aligned with the message and prepared to stand in your power. This strikes at the heart of the corrupt corporate power structure, so be careful. I am posting this as an example of what it feels like to stand up in the face of Goliath. Power up!

(Obviously the language could be rewritten to invoke whatever image of divinity that best suits your spiritual belief.)

makes two of us that thinks this is genius, thx for the info! actually sent shivers up my spine... more and more this really does appear like this is hacking into the control software that programs the matrix :)

[Cjay]

(i also wholeheartedly recommend watching a guy called santos bonnaci)


I had the pleasure of meeting Santos Bonnaci at a meeting of Melbourne Avalonians, earlier this year. Our dear friend, Lord Sidious, was at the same meeting. While I have respect for Santos and his knowledge on a range of topics, Sid-nugget's knowledge on this particular topic is undoubtedly far more in-depth. Rob beat them at their own game and he's not in jail. I wish Rob was still allowed to contribute his wisdom in this forum. We can all (or most of us can) learn so much from Lord Sidious.

[Anchor]

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%20NetiZen%20Show%209%20-%20Freeman%20on%20the%20Land.mp3

http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/showthread.php?10572-NeXus-Netizen-Radio-Show-9-Freeman-on-the-Land

[SKAWF]

(i also wholeheartedly recommend watching a guy called santos bonnaci)


I had the pleasure of meeting Santos Bonnaci at a meeting of Melbourne Avalonians, earlier this year. Our dear friend, Lord Sidious, was at the same meeting. While I have respect for Santos and his knowledge on a range of topics, Sid-nugget's knowledge on this particular topic is undoubtedly far more in-depth. Rob beat them at their own game and he's not in jail. I wish Rob was still allowed to contribute his wisdom in this forum. We can all (or most of us can) learn so much from Lord Sidious.

his wisdom is fine,

but along with it comes other things which do him no favours imo.

in my naivety, when i first heard him call people 'nuggets',
i thought it was a reference to little pieces of gold.

i wish him well though.

and i hope he's doing alright.

[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:
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]

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%20NetiZen%20Show%209%20-%20Freeman%20on%20the%20Land.mp3

http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/showthread.php?10572-NeXus-Netizen-Radio-Show-9-Freeman-on-the-Land

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


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:
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 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents) 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 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents) 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]

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 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents) 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 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents) 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

gILQuRsYJ3I
Yc4NAafMvqM
c4tI7AsSOwg
aWmQRY7qBE8
zYmyIM07qbE
CXAbRQ82EmE
Ku8nl2kM7BI
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

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents) 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 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents) 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]

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
eabYMa0Ht40

[SKAWF]

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


17791

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:
2c27-KQd1Uo
Part 2:
DPIPH1PdFpI
Part 3:
kmUntqCT7qs
Part 4:
X7uVzq6eko0

[sigma6]

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 :)

[Mike Gorman]

Yes, this all illuminates the fact that the finance system to which we are all enslaved is not infallible, and is largely based on our consent, and cooperation.
The Credit system in particular is fraudulent, no-one puts their hands in their pockets to lend you any real money, there is no actual money produced-the uni-lateral agreements are
not worth the paper they are printed on. I have helped a few people get the money scavengers off their backs, largely by requesting verification of the debt, proof that money is both lost
by the vendor, and owed by the creditor. Mary Croft was a pioneer in this area of calling their bluff..yes use all these methods at your own risk-but, courage is often rewarded and extracting yourself from the 'Grid'
and the machinations of finance is possible.

[Anchor]

So I know this is a heavy subject and not joking matter - but I saw this today on reddit and it is relevant and made me smile...

[Warning rude words usage]

http://i.imgur.com/pd6FK.png (http://imgur.com/pd6FK)

[GlassSteagallfan]

From RT:

Government links sovereign citizens to police murders in Louisiana

Authorities now believe that some of the suspected gunmen from last week’s shootout near a Louisiana trailer park are members of the sovereign citizen movement, a collective described by the FBI as domestic terrorists.

Two Louisiana deputies were killed and at least two others were injured following what authorities have described as an ambush at a trailer park near the city of New Orleans on Thursday morning that involved at least 20 shots fired from multiple weapons. Days later, investigators have acknowledged that they believe that several of the suspected gunmen involved in the attack are self-described sovereign citizens, members of an anti-government movement that has attracted criticism from both the FBI and the Anti-Defamation League.

So-called sovereign citizens, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, believe that governments of all kind operate illegally and that the only system of rule worth adhering to is their own.

"Because they believe in particular law enforcement is not legitimate, they can be quite violent. Since 2000, they have linked at [least] six law enforcement deaths to sovereign citizens," former FBI agent and ABC News consultant Brad Garrett explains this week to the network.

“Although the sovereign-citizen movement does not always rise to violence, its members’ illegal activities and past violent — including fatal — incidents against law enforcement make it a group that should be approached with knowledge and caution,” the FBI explains in an unclassified law enforcement bulletin from September 2011.

Authorities have so far arrested seven suspects in connection with last week’s assault. In response to the one Louisiana deputy who was shot during the ambush but survived, Brian Lyn Smith, 24, was charged with attempted first-degree murder. His father, 44-year-old Terry Smith, was one of four other individuals charged with principal to attempted first-degree murder. Two others were charged with being accessories to the crime.

Though evident to the FBI for decades, the sovereign citizen movement has reentered their radar in recent years, especially after a 2010 incident in West Memphis, Arkansas ended with three fatalities. In that instance, a routine traffic stop that targeted a self-described sovereign citizen and his son triggered the suspect to open fire, killing two police officers.

"We are focusing our efforts because of the threat of violence," Stuart R. McArthur, a deputy assistant director in the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, told the Los Angeles Times earlier this year.

According to the FBI’s latest report, the bureau expects to see a surge in sovereign citizen members as the American economy continues to remain stagnant and seminar and Internet sites influence others about the ideology.

"The FBI are very concerned about them, both from a violent standpoint and also from a white collar crime standpoint," ex-FBI agent Garrett adds to ABC.

[angel in disguise]

Mainstream media is being used to portray people of this movement as terrorists. A CBS documentary on 'Freemen on the Land' was played here a while back and I was shocked at how they portrayed them. Having met several myself, I know violence plays no part, however msm made them seem like characters out of 'Natural Born Killers'... Ridiculous!... That in itself shows you that the freemen/sovereigns are onto something ;)

[lake]

I have looked at their law and the freeman movement and while I have contempt for the former and condone the brave attempts by the latter, I do no longer feel that a understanding of their game is of need.

I have been summoned to court and intend to appear.

But my appearance will be with a statement of truth, you may call it an affidavit, but I will not as I do not feel that I have any need to. This I have written and while it may seem quite childish, it is as I know to be THE TRUTH.

It is not complete but I would like to know how quickly you feel I will enter into custody or be sectioned once I have it entered, if possible?




A True Statement Of Being

On this date of 01-01-0101 according to your fiction

To assist all I will use your fiction of English language, in its common usage, so that you may better have comprehension.

So that it helps whomever, in physical form or fiction, I will respond to a 'name', chosen by that which is only of me and only for me. This 'name', I will respond to verbally or in the written form of your fictional sounds and symbols called English, in its common usage only.

The symbol form, in your fiction of English, of this 'name' is 'lake'.

For that which is I to be addressed by any other 'name' apart as chosen by me will be incorrect because of the following:


That which has being, is not a name, nor can be a fiction and is not required by SUPREME DIVINE AUTHORITY to act as such, nor have responsibility for such a name or fiction.

That which is the minuscule spark given by the DIVINE , which is I, is not 'lake', is not a physical form which exists in the reality you perceive, nor a fiction given to the physical form.

There is a fiction, given the name Mr XXXX XXXXXX by your corporate fictions which must comply to all given laws, acts, bills etc, which have been created by fictions. This fiction I am not.

There is a living body, created of nature, given the name xxx xxxxxx by the loving parents, which has inalienable rights given by SUPREME DIVINE AUTHORITY and which must exist by one law and one law only. This law is 'do no harm'. The inalienable rights given to this living body cannot be removed, nor changed in any way except by SUPREME DIVINE AUTHORITY.
This living body I am not but this living body is created by SUPREME DIVINE AUTHORITY and has been granted to me to utilise only, no others.

There is that which I am.
That which I am has been given the use of the physical form, known by other physical bodies at this point of being as xxxx xxxxxx, by SUPREME DIVINE AUTHORITY for the point of being which I have been tasked by SUPREME DIVINE AUTHORITY in order to learn and experience for the SUPREME DIVINE AUTHORITY.
That which I am is not physical and not a fiction in your point of being.
I became in being only as a minuscule glint of DIVINE NATURE that created that which I am.
I create in this reality as you have knowledge of such, bodies do not, fictions do not.
I cannot be commanded nor confined unless by SUPREME DIVINE AUTHORITY

You believe that you have authority over that which I am but your so called laws cannot have authority over that which has been created by SUPREME DIVINE AUTHORITY.

You maybe believe you have authority over the physical form at this point of being, called xxxx xxxxxx but you cannot unless harm is caused by this physical form, which will not occur as I 'lake' am the spark of the DIVINE which has control of said physical form.

You believe you have authority over MR XXXX XXXXXX, a fiction in a world of fictions. This fiction was created by other physical forms acting as fictions at their point of being and then has been forced upon the physical form xxxx xxxxxx without consent and now under duress. This fictional shadow cannot hold any rights over the physical form xxxx xxxxxx, the living body, nor could it ever throughout eternity hold even the most infinitesimal right over that which is held in creation by SUPREME DIVINE AUTHORITY.

I have been tasked to remind you not to confuse the 3 parts.


The physical form xxxx xxxxxx, unless by having caused harm in a natural reality created by the SUPREME DIVINE AUTHORITY, has no requirement of its equals to judge it.

The physical form xxxx xxxxxx is not an agent or employee of any of your fictional governments or agency’s and is not required to consent to their fictional laws.

The physical form xxxx xxxxxx is a natural part of this existence, at this point of being and will be returned to this nature once I 'lake' have completed the task set to me by SUPREME DIVINE AUTHORITY.

I 'lake' state as right that the physical form xxxx xxxxxx has been created for the purpose given to me and is in this point of being, mine and mine alone to utilise.

Your wish to confine or enslave the physical form known as xxxx xxxxxx, by use of fictional pretensions may only create a disharmony for that which you truly are and make for that which you love a expansion of unwarranted harm, so leading to your own judgement.

I suggest that you remove your need for fictional authority over other parts of the DIVINE as this want, in your form, can only hinder your own given work tasked by the DIVINE.

You cannot give any liability to me.
I 'lake' am fully responsible for all and any action of my given vessel.
I relieve you and all other beings or thought forms of all and any requirement to limit the liability of any action by the physical living being known to you as xxxx xxxxxx, as the liability is mine and mine alone as charged by SUPREME DIVINE AUTHORITY

The physical being known to you as xxxx xxxxxx has no requirement of any benefits you wish to give, nor will it be forced to be a member/ citizen/ person or any other form/name you wish to give, of any of your fictional society/ business/ corporations/ groups or the same by any other use of your fictional symbols.

With regard to the complaint.
The complaint being of a fictional nature holds no authority over the physical body xxxx xxxxxx and has no contract which has been consented to by the physical body xxxx xxxxxx.
I know this to be the truth because I am the existence which is the control event of said physical being.
Any form of consent perceived by your fiction, by the fiction, given by you to the physical living being known as xxxx xxxxxx was under duress or /and without equal consideration and even according to your own fictional maxims of your fictional law, cannot stand and must be judged incorrect.

I 'lake' do not require your fictional monetary remedy.

If you, the being, who reads this statement cannot understand the meaning of it and have self knowledge of it, I suggest you find another whom may instruct you.

What you create in this world becomes yours,
What harm you create becomes yours,
What suffering you create becomes yours,
What turmoil you create becomes yours,
You become that which you create.


lake.

[SKAWF]

cfnJ1rOFK7o

as a new opinion, i would suggest that whenever encountering the state,
that we avoid using terms like...'freeman' and 'sovereign'.
those terms are being associated with domestic terrorism.
and at the end of the day, they are just labels.
keep it about law,
common law, trust law, statutes and acts.

[sigma6]

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 :)

Not that simple, what we used to do was go and ask for a court date and when they asked you to 'sign' the docuemt which is btw a legally binding contract which puts you into 'jurisdiction' and (thus they have 'beat' you in the first moves... yes that is how the game works..)

So what we used to do is write for: [autograph (as opposed to 'signature'.. wrong connotation - means surety!)] and very discreetley above that "all rights reserved, without prejudice".... the effect of it was that we would never receive a court date in the mail, as the contract signed couldn't be used in court, without violating the 'without prejudice' clause... of course again they have 'recalibrated' I suspect they are now trying to 'hide' it and recontract with you when you arrive at the court... (so I suggest if you go this route, make sure after you casually sign as such, ask for a photocopy (get their commitment to make one, BEFORE you sign!!!) Like I said the devil is in the details... And you will still have to have a game plan if you do get the 'offer to contract' in the mail...

at which I would be bringing certified, notarized copies of the DL, and the BC with the following,
written on them, preferably entered into the record before you show up (good luck with that btw, bring lots of witnesses and be prepared to have a 'pleasant' discussion; ie. it is not the clerk's concern if they understand the documents, but just their job to see that they are entered into evidence... etc, etc...

(written in a light red ink 45 degrees, over the documents,
this constitutes an endorsement and 'realigns' the trust obligation
the following is NOT a 'literal' accepting and returning it is pregnant
with many layers of trust interpretation, I still contemplate it's
meaning to this day... (truly!)
It's beauty is that it avoids any contracting (agreement)
while avoiding and contempt (disagreement) it is similar to
and akin to saying 'regarding the 'alleged' 'offer'....


Claim Of Right Notice:

Accepted For Value
Returned For A Fair And Lawful Settlement
Based In Truth & Fact, Not Colour Of Law
Your Offer to Contract Is Hereby Waived
I Do Not Consent To This Offer

All rights reserved, Without recourse
for: [authorization ie. your 'autograph']


Anyhow I can't even go down to their office as they are trying to 'arrest' me for going down and making a court date... like I said you are dealing with a crime syndicate, be careful what you expose on them... always have witnesses when you can, never lose your cool, and constantly learn from others, it's a complete reprogramming of your thinking in every regard, SKAWF has the mindset no doubt... (lol)

And finally this is not offered as advice in fact do not do this, not because what is above is not valid, but only a fraction of what you will need before you 'step' into their courts, like I said previously there is a ton of 'things' you must understand in order to not put your foot in your mouth literally every 30 seconds, which you WILL do (their whole system is DESIGNED to do that to you... ) if you go down unawares... eg, even 'recognizing' the charges, is jurisdiction (they must ALWAYS be referred to as alleged charges, you are only going down, because of duress, as the ALLEGED party of interest, in a special appearance, for the purpose of resolving any complaint (principle of NO controversy) if asked who you are, have the BC handy to present, NEVER EVER say you are any NAME on the documents in 'their' house, (see previous)... DO NOT step across the gate, (do not make an outright refusal either, that is contempt) but rather ask straight up, "am I not entering into a legally binding contract by stepping into that gate?" I WILL speak from here (more loudly if necessary, ie they will say stuff like 'you need to speak into the microphone etc, but won't answer your question (lol) Dont' give them anything to give you an 'instruction' ie 'take off your hat' or 'sit down' (always do something else without seeming to pay attention to their 'instructions' (tricky, i know...) anyhow as you can see this is nothing more then an adult version of 'Simon says, and 'Step on crack' and 'put your left hand on your right ear' and jump around 3 times... and DONT ever respond 'yes' "Do you understand?" ... nor say 'I understand' blah blah..

So you see, I am not advising you to go down, unless you are a glutton for punishment... or really have put some study in, I took 18 months, and was lucky... (my biggest regret really lol)

[sigma6]

I was just talking about this topic of the 'Romans' in this very 'Roman' society that we live in, if you don't see it look harder it is just about everything that you are looking at... (ie your government, the school system, courts, banking system, financial system, they have rewritten history and fired and rehired history teachers, (see E Edward Griffin interview with Norman Dodd, absolute classic) anyhow I was mentioning this in several conversations...

1. "Beware Romans bearing gifts" (ie. benefits and privileges...) this is huge because 'their' whole system of taking away our inalienable rights is getting us to sign contracts negating these in exchange for "benefits and privileges"

2. "Let he who would be deceived be deceived..." Everyone has heard of this, not realizing what these people are saying (hiding it in plain sight again...) it is totally anti-thetical of course to 'Christian' (ie. non-Roman might be better (lol)) philosophy, but few discern these subtle things, one of the various reasons, 'they' look down upon us... at least they cam claim they are less hypocritical to their own creed...


Here is another 'story' I transcribed immediately from a friend who is a dedicated searcher... it's rather funny what he 'exposes' read carefully, what is interesting is what the JP 'gives away' just because he is more interested in blowing off my friend... and it clearly show two major things here, one: is Bill Cooper was right, it is ALL about "jurisdiction" and two: they bloody, bloody well know when they have jurisdiction and when they dont'... (like in a heartbeat...)

here is the transcription of what I managed to get down from his experience the day before:

Context: "A" went to court, tried to represent himself as the agent, or authorized representative and was told that he had no standing... the judge tried to have him arrested at one point... but at each attempt "A" stated that he did not consent ... eventually he was "ushered" out of the court and charged inabsentia.
The next day "A" proceeded to go back and request another trial, feeling that his right to due process was violated... at the time he wanted to 'appeal'... So he arranged to see a JP...
[note: I thought this 'pointless' but everything is 'grist' for the mill... ]

The JP immediately started a recording device. Then requested that "A" present a driver's license. "A" did present a driver's license...
[again see how the 'game' is won or lost in the first moves?...]

JP: "is this your driver's license"

A: "No it is the Province Of Ontario's Driver's License"

JP: "State for the record your address of residency"

A: "Only legal entities can have a residency..."

JP: "Well aren't you "John Doe"?"

A: "No I am not a legal entity"

JP: "So why are you in possession of these documents?"

A: "Because I am the legal holder of them, and they were issued to me by the Province of Ontario... and they were issued because of the BC, ("A" pulls out the BC...)
"This is a certificate of the registration of that Name by the Province of Ontario, and here is the registration number, the registration date, and the date of issuance, when it was issued to me... I am nothing more then the holder of these documents..."

JP: "Are you not consenting then to your parents forming that contract?"

A: "No I didn't consent to my parents forming that contract"

JP: "Well then who are you?"

A: "I am a child and heir of God"
[my interpretation here is, among other things, he is clearly defining his standing (in the Kingdom of God) clearly outside the 'jurisdiction' of the 'corporate' statutory 'legal' system or also known as (among other things) 'common law']

JP: (speechless...)

JP: "What can I do for you"
[I wonder if he realized what he has invoked here, apparently not at the time, based on his follow-up... but this is no 'random' response... the JP is now acting as the trustee with obligation, this is subtle, you have to know what to look for... in hind sight he could have told him to have the debt forgiven right there (since he is the creditor also) not "please forgive me", but rather "I forgive this debt, but be more diplomatic, and ask the trustee to 'have' the debt forgiven... get it? .]

A: "I want to set another court date." explained reason why, etc. (ie. forced out of court)

JP: "I can't do that because I don't have any jurisdiction but you can file for an appeal."
[Bingo!]

A: "Is that my only remedy?"

JP: "Yes" You have to do downtown ....

[sigma6]

And finally this from an email from Mary Croft, I love this it points up exactly this interpretation and absolute belief I have that Trust law, true private NON statutory trust law is the bedrock, (it is the LAST layer to dig up, there is nothing more fundamental, etc) remember what it says in the Roman produced and published 'Good book'? Peter (the established bearer of Christ's message is the rock, I find that metaphor intriguing and it fits perfectly)

Here is a little plug for Mary, she is an excellent writer as anyone who has ever read her book, (that nobody I know can ever remember the full title to (Lol) but you can definitely get it at her site (free) http://spiritualeconomicsnow.net/

Anyhow I think her latest blog updates are really hitting it on the head... enjoy
ps. go to her site as well, because she has mentioned she doesn't like some of her stuff copied, only because she does do regular revision and updates...
in peace...


I Stand Corrected Aug 19, 2012
Published by admin under Knowing Who You Are
I have now had the opportunity to listen to Nina and Fred Gutierrez. They are experiencing HUGE and numerous successes with courts, banks, cops, etc. and they are indefatigable in assisting others to do the same. Fred and Nina are taking down the frauds and having WAY too much fun doing so. Whatever our legal problem, they can teach us all to win. I have never, ever, listened to anyone’s lecture more than once, if that, but Fred is so entertaining and funny, I couldn’t help myself. I can’t wait to get my mitts on all their work. Go to: www.setoffdebt.com They have done the bulk of the work for us. We just have to learn what, how, when, where, and who. FINALLY! We can put the thugs out of commission! I’ll post more information when I can.

…



REMOVING SURETYSHIP Aug. 15, 2012
Published by admin under Knowing Who You Are
Remember we learned that all “codes, rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances, by-laws, bills, acts, constitutions, legislations, treaties, policies, and charters” (hereinafter: “CCC” –Criminal Code of Canada– or, all “laws”) apply only to Public Servants and if we were not acting as an employee of the Government at the time of the charge, then the CCC does not apply to us. Close, but no cigar.

I am the authorizing agent for the Beneficiary, Mary Elizabeth Croft, of the CROFT, MARY ELIZABETH Trust Account, one of the many accounts for the Treasury of the corporation, CANADA. If I were to admit to being the Surname (CROFT–name of the Trust, or Croft–name of the Beneficiary of the Trust), not only would this be in violation of §336 (Criminal Breach of Trust), and §403 (Personation) of the CCC but also it would be interpreted as my being a Trustee of the Trust account (or, at the very least, a legal fiction over which Public Servants/Trustees have control) and this would make me liable for any debts against the account. Trustees are sureties –the ones who have been assigned the task of doing all the accounting for the Trust. Man, both male and female, does not have access to the Trust account because man does not operate in commerce. Man does not even exist in commerce. This is why the public must turn us into legal fictions –making us believe we are the Surname, in order to operate in their fictional world. We are not legal fictions, however, in order to function within commerce, as we are wont to do, we must have the Surname to use within the illusion. When we admit to being a Trustee and then we fail to perform accordingly, the Public comes after us for Criminal Breach of Trust (§336). We continue to say we are NOT the Trustee, but they have paper which proves we are, as we used the Surname to sign. Big mistake, but only a mistake, which can be corrected.

The Crown owns (holds legal title to) the Surname, so our signing it makes us the Trustee, or the Beneficiary –also a party to the Trust, the responsibilities of which I sure don’t want. I don’t mind signing as an “agent” for the Beneficiary, but to BE the Beneficiary –a legal fiction– is Personation, a violation of §403. Ergo, I use only Mary or Mary Elizabeth when signing. My mother gave me those names. If someone wants me to sign the “last name”, I would ask, “Are you asking me to violate the Criminal Code?” Never mind that those codes do not apply to man; if we have admitted to being the Surname, we are now Trustees, and they most certainly apply to us now. What these codes read, essentially, is this: “The CCC applies only to Public Servants. It does not apply to man, so in order for us, the Public Trustees, to charge the account, in order to enrich only ourselves, we need the authorization of the agent for the Beneficiary, in order to turn him into a Trustee. Since only Trustees can access the credit of the Trust account, and we cannot do it without the agreement of ALL Trustees, then we must turn the man into a Trustee, get his/her authorization which will agree with our debiting the account. NOW, once he is a Trustee, he can be charged under the CCC and, if he is in violation of any “law”, not only can he be charged as a Public Servant (Trustees are Public Servants) but also this confirms his admission to being a Trustee which now allows us to charge him for ADMITTING to BEING a Trustee !!!” Talk about conniving, eh? “We cannot charge a man without his/her committing a commercial crime (ALL crimes are commercial, for this reason) and the only commercial crimes are “Criminal Breach of Trust” (§336), Criminal Breach of Contract (§422). All law is contract; contract makes the law, and all breach of contract is criminal).

Any seeming violation of the CCC is never, ever a chargeable offence. Charges can result ONLY from Criminal Breach of Trust (and Criminal Breach of Contract, which must be proven with all the requirements of a contract, the most important of which is the parties, i.e.: it must be man-to-man, not public-to-private, as legal fictions cannot contract)), but the ONLY way one can do this is to admit to being the Trustee, thereby making him a Public Servant –the ONLY entities to whom the CCC applies. This is why they will go so far as to threaten us with bodily harm or incarceration to make us admit to being the Surname, which they use ONLY and ALWAYS in upper case, (e.g.: CROFT) which we must be careful not to use, in any form because it is NOT our name. Only our given names are ours. It is exigent that we undo the mistake or at least make clear that we were threatened to admit to being something we are not. i.e.: that we were under threat of arms, etc. to violate the CCC, in which case, only THEN would it apply to us. Is this incredibly scathing, or WHAT?!?!? “Law” does not apply to us, until we break the “law” which does not apply to us. Since the only ‘law’ is Criminal Breach of Trust –all other laws on the books are just dog and pony shows– (except for Criminal Breach of Contract - see above), we have to go where we were never intended to go, ought not to go, have no interest in going, don’t want to go, etc. How did this happen?!?! We have been severely deceived and I go completely wild when I hear, “we allowed them to do this” or “this is due to our apathy” or “we are guilty of the present state of affairs”. NONSENSE ! This was deliberate deception by the Crown and the Vatican.

I suspect that, as long as we never admit to being the Surname, or if we undo our having done so, or explain that we admitted this only under threat, which invalidates our having done so, (one of the stipulations of a contract is “entered into, willingly, knowingly, and voluntarily”) then we do not need to figure out how to off-set their debt. We do not need to know anything about the roles of Trustees, e.g.: discharging, off-setting, balancing, or about any instruments which will allegedly do so. As long as we make it abundantly clear that we are NOT a Trustee, then we are free from having to learn all the details of handling public debt. Why should we? If we belong to the public, then this would make us liable, but, as long as we do not fall into that category, and we remain private, only using public when it suits our present needs, then we will never be held as surety, never be held liable, and never be required to do anything other than enjoy our elite position. Yes, it will be nice when we learn how to access the credit of the Trust account for our own personal use, but, until then, what most of us want is only to be left alone and not have to suffer the repercussions of our inadvertent and unwitting Criminal Breach of Trust, i.e.: claiming to be something we are not –the ONLY crime.

Making them liable: Since any signed document is a valuable security, as it is an authorization to access the Trust’s credit, then, any threat or demand that we sign anything is in violation of CCC §363: “Obtaining execution of valuable security by fraud”. Since the Crown has legal title to all Surnames, including those of Public Servants, e.g.: cops, judges, attorneys, etc., this means that not only is the Crown liable for the debt created but also evidences which public servant has committed the fraud. Letting them know this is how to get ‘them’ to pay.

We DO need to know ‘who we are’, however, it is vastly more important that we know ‘who we are NOT’. If I could change the title of my book, I would add that to the end. “A spiritual Economics Book on $$$ and Remembering Who You Are and Who You Are NOT” We are NOT the Trustee and if we admit to being so, by admitting to being the Surname, we can be charged for Breach of Trust because we, as man, CANNOT BE a Public Servant, unless we say so. Everything is because we say so. Nothing can be true for us unless and until we say so. Ergo, the spiritual side of what we are discussing: “Everything is the way it is because I SAY SO” - Werner Erhard. This describes our personal interpretation of every event of our lives and that includes our operating in the public. Be very careful of what you say, to what you admit, and how you behave, in the public. They are doing everything they can to make us one of them because they need us and, without us, they have nothing.


my note: I would also suggest CC 363... (it's CC btw not CCC, you wont' find that anywhere on the book and if you read the beginning the CC is a UN mandate.. (its still statutory, masqueraded as 'common law' so they can skip into 'statutory' and 'apparently' violate your 'rights' whenever them and their 'freemason' buddies feel like it... )

Anyhow ss 363 deals with "Obtaining execution of valuable security by fraud" which happens basically everytime they dupe you into being the surety... (of course they will try and blame YOU!! if push comes to shove) As it was put to me, if they are trying to charge you (your credit) there is a valuable security SOMEWHERE, you signed something and they are trying to convert into a valuable security...

[Anchor]

sigma,

how much/many of the structures that you are writing about in this thread are specific to Canada? Do these structures apply to all of the judicial systems?

[Vitalux]

I have a simple question.

Can you use this natural law, or common law status, to smoke pot in Canada?

I have reviewed much of these videos, but I have failed to see anyone comment on if the government can prosecute you for consuming natural plants that it has made illegal such as marijuana or magic mushrooms?

Any one know??

:hail: please tell me

[lake]

I still dont get what your trying to achive?

You wish to claim and prove that you are the physical form and not the fiction, when you are not either of these!

You only need to state that which is the fundermental of being which you are.

:confused:

[Mad Hatter]

Me bookmarking thread by way of addition to the discourse... I haven't seen this put up yet, forgive me if it has been elsewhere.

PS this is a loooooong way down but one leg of the rabbit hole so will not make much sense to those new to the subject matter but for those a little more steeped in the nature of the game may find it interesting grist for the mill.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxm2NXsWM3E

[Anchor]

I have a simple question.

Can you use this natural law, or common law status, to smoke pot in Canada?

I guess you could print some law out and roll one up with it!

--

Sillyness aside...

This is interesting to me because it is a good question of how things like this need to be dealt with in my utopian anarchist future. How would it stand the test?

If you were tenacious enough and ready to do it, I am convinced you could eventually show that no-one can stop you growing plants and eating them in the system today... if however you advertise the fact, process them in some way, supply things to others, you will be on a much less certain ground.

In my envisaged future you would have no such problems, but if by cultivating some plant you managed to introduces or encourage some pests or noxious varieties that risk harm to others or the environment, then I suspect there would be a good cause for people to dissuade you.

I wonder how this would work. Maybe for another thread.

[danceblackcatdance]

hey guys :)

was working as a photographer at a festival this weekend and met Dave Murphy, missed his presentation talk but ended up chatting to him for a couple of hours over the weekend anyway, enjoyed very much was very interesting...

he turned down a job in wtc1, ended up working at a bank across the river and saw the 2nd plane hit.. he was saying the freeman stuff is but a part of our spiritual awakening etc

here's some of him...

stopped by the cops in his de-registered car and rescinded driving license! this is great, worth watching!! :)
cP8BGjkGAdg
not DRIVING, but 'exercising his right to travel'
ec-euzvhj28
"and the whole world will know"... brave man. officer pretty much threatens to damage the car to get him out to arrest him and ends up signing an invoice to pay him £20,000 to step out of the automobile... he completes the transaction and does not stand under the authority of the officer arresting him :becky:
lFE7qpFq-G4

his journey...
_qxOi3za_ic

n95i1cLApw4

Practical lawful rebellion, utility companies (they pay themselves twice with a credit slip AND your cheque payment).
QfYNH1AvSN4
tv_Rmyapyos
p4IVjMGXk4c
cyfAlauVZ3k

[Bill Ryan]

-------

Here's a collection of documents which I was sent a little while back. They may be of interest to serious researchers of the subject.

Note that I'm not an expert in any way, shape or form about this. I was told by a good friend, who's very well-informed and who is an expert, that one should not mess with this material unless one is genuinely prepared to go to jail for one's principles.

There's quite a number of educated, highly ethical experts on sovereignty who have been jailed whatever legal arguments they presented. I even met and heard the story of one person who was threatened with psychiatric detention unless he withdrew his case. (He made the decision to do that, and stand down. I might have done the same.)

Whether one is technically right or wrong about this when taking a stand in court, if the judge decides to convict and sentence you, there's nothing else one can do.

http://projectavalon.net/Sovereignty_documents.zip

[danceblackcatdance]

will check those docs out, but i realised i'm not a serious researcher into the subject :) its just another facet of the matrix.. so yeah the guy above went to jail for 20 days, said it wasn't that bad and now has a commercial lien for false imprisonment... just like Dean Clifford did..

cool to hear about these people that are not scared off by the threat of jail..

and will be interesting to know the outcome :)

[Watching from Cyprus]

Thanks bill

[goinghome2012]

uL0revtwAVs

[joamarks]

nice post!

in Holland i have claimed my name by birth certificate and claimed my sovereignty with a 12 pages letter sent to our queen.

as one of a growing group of people in Holland, (100 already done and +/- 600 people still are in the middle of the procedure)
i find the risk of going to jail for this action a small contribution for freedom in general.

it is a new movement going on on worldly scale and can't be stopped by legal justice.

you don't have to be an activist, just claim your name and wait.

let the weight of the big numbers of people attending this party do all the work.

there will be trials, of course. (in holland one freeman already has been sent to a mental house for 2 weeks)
but if the sovereigns are winning, they will share those cases on the internet to benefit all.
its not about you outsmart the government
just let them know there is a growing group of people who are not taking the blue sleeping pill and are full awake for all times



greetings from holland

[danceblackcatdance]

sounds cool joamarks :) i wonder if we have a similar constitution to do the same thing?... in the UK we are all legally dead once registered with the birth (berth) certificate, as i understand it, and we have up until the age of 7 to prove that we are actually alive... but no one knows the procedure to go and prove this :)

yeah i'm sure there will be trials, but to be honest 100k for a few weeks of jail sounds alright to me :becky:

the bottom line is we're all free men and women until we stand under the corporate law of the government... its the FEAR of being put in jail that keeps us in our place... freedom to exist cant be taken away even if incarcerated only freedom to consume in the outside world..

but times they are a changin...

greets from the uk

[Davidallany]

-------

Here's a collection of documents which I was sent a little while back. They may be of interest to serious researchers of the subject.

Note that I'm not an expert in any way, shape or form about this. I was told by a good friend, who's very well-informed and who is an expert, that one should not mess with this material unless one is genuinely prepared to go to jail for one's principles.

There's quite a number of educated, highly ethical experts on sovereignty who have been jailed whatever legal arguments they presented. I even met and heard the story of one person who was threatened with psychiatric detention unless he withdrew his case. (He made the decision to do that, and stand down. I might have done the same.)

Whether one is technically right or wrong about this when taking a stand in court, if the judge decides to convict and sentence you, there's nothing else one can do.

http://projectavalon.net/Sovereignty_documents.zip

Thank you for the documents Bill. Much appreciated, indeed.