Know the difference between "LAWFUL" and "LEGAL"?

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by cloud9 (here)
The point of saying "all rise": when the judge enters the room and all rise is said, people do it automatically without any thinking but at that moment they have entered into a contract because they accepted the order to rise, from there on everything that is said in the court is part of a contract.

When the judge asks: please said your name for the record, the person who says it is accepting the contract and so on and on....

That's why the ones who are fighting the system do not say their name or rise, if they don't the judge has no jurisdiction and there's no case.

Those are some things I remember from the tv show the paper chase and other places.

I know why they do things as they do in the system as it runs now, that is part of the reason they leave me alone.
They figured out it isn't good for them to push me too hard, I bite.

[TheVoyager]

News from the UK:
Lawful Rebellion in action in Birkenhead 7th March 2011
http://worldfreemansociety.org/blog42-England-Live

Cheers!

[kenkyushiryo]

Posted by TheVoyager (here)
News from the UK:
Lawful Rebellion in action in Birkenhead 7th March 2011
http://worldfreemansociety.org/blog42-England-Live

Cheers!

It begins......................

[omeriko]

This is fascinating.

Some questions though, since you all seem to talk of the common law system.

1. What does it mean to live under a civil law legal system?

2. If you live under a civil law legal systme, does that mean you don't have your inalienable rights?

3. Where are these rights given? (even in a common law system)

4. Does 'Civil Law legal system' only pertains to the way the law is interpreted? and the use of precedents?

5. If so, can I claim 'Common Law' jurisdiction in a civil law court? (what I mean by that is, can I claim to be a natural human being, and that only contracts made by me are applicable to me?, and that all statutes are actually contracts?)

I would very much like your take on this, as I'm new to this.

If any of my assumptions are incorrect, don't hesitate to step in. But please explain things like you would to someone who doesn't know.
Some people here explain things as if the other person already knows the answer.
What's the point in that?

[Ella]

This is indeed great stuff,

I second omeriko's request! I used to live in England, and find all this stuff really interesting. However, I now live in Sweden, which I understand by the map above is based on civil law, and I can not find any information on whether all this stuff is applicable here in Sweden...... no one I mention this to has any idea what I'm talking about. It would be great to know what the 'rules' are here.

Anyone got any suggestions?

Thanks.

[Chicodoodoo]

The key points come directly from the summary. The whole legal system is constructed upon "legal fiction." Fiction means it is not true. It's not that you have to claim your rights. That's part of the fiction. We are human beings with unalienable rights. We don't have to claim them -- they are unalienable! That means they cannot be taken away in any manner. The root of the fiction is that inaction implies consent. That's absolute nonsense, because it is not true. It is pure fiction. Saying you have no rights because you didn't claim them at any point in time is pure legal fiction. Saying that you agree because you didn't disagree is also pure legal fiction.

How can there be justice when the justice system is rooted in fiction instead of truth?

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by omeriko (here)
This is fascinating.

Some questions though, since you all seem to talk of the common law system.

1. What does it mean to live under a civil law legal system?

The common law system uses courts based on the adversarial system. The civil code/napleonic code/roman code system uses courts based on the inquisitorial system.
Plus, in common law based systems, you are supposedly innocent until proven guilty, but in the civil code, you are guilty until proven innocent.
Also, in common law systems, you can do whatever you wish, except that which is forbidden and in the civil code, you can only do what the law allows, everything else is forbidden.

Posted by omeriko (here)
2. If you live under a civil law legal systme, does that mean you don't have your inalienable rights?

I like the terminology in the constitution of Eire. They didn't use the term inalienable, they used undefeatable.
The answer is this, you created the government, they are below you in the heirachy of law and you can't NOT have your rights.
See the declaration of independance of the American rebels for their idea on rights, they were correct.
The trick is, there is no common law/civil code line in the sand anymore.
The universal laws today are commercial law which is derived from admiralty law.
This is why the government calls us their clients, why the cops are more interested in writing tickets and so on.

Posted by omeriko (here)
3. Where are these rights given? (even in a common law system)

You are the creator of government, you were born with them. They were probably given to us by those who spliced their dna into hominids to create our ancestors.

Posted by omeriko (here)
4. Does 'Civil Law legal system' only pertains to the way the law is interpreted? and the use of precedents?

Read my answer above.

Posted by omeriko (here)
5. If so, can I claim 'Common Law' jurisdiction in a civil law court? (what I mean by that is, can I claim to be a natural human being, and that only contracts made by me are applicable to me?, and that all statutes are actually contracts?)

No, you can't claim common law in that jurisdiction, nor would you want to. Common law isn't exactly as everyone seems to think. It is very rigid and strict. For example, if you were caught drink driving in an emergency because someone had an accident in the wilderness and you were the only one that could get them to hospital, you would still be convicted. Reasons are irrelevant under common law.
In the law of equity, if you can prove you have been damaged, you have to get your remedy. If one does not exist, you can invent your own, without being unreasonable.
In equity, you can have multiple remedies at the same time, such as a lien, an injunction and an order of specific performance. Another remedy not used so much is a declaration. This is where a judge can declare the status of a contract or part of it as to whether it is legal or not, or they can give you a legal determination as to the legality of a law.
I prefer equity law over others.

Posted by omeriko (here)
I would very much like your take on this, as I'm new to this.

If any of my assumptions are incorrect, don't hesitate to step in. But please explain things like you would to someone who doesn't know.
Some people here explain things as if the other person already knows the answer.
What's the point in that?

Some do know the answers, but I prefer to usually ask YOU the questions and allow YOU to go off and find the answers.
This I find, is a better way to use your intelligence and time to get the answers, rather than me provide them.
There is no wisdom in being given fish, but learning to catch your own is the path to wisdom.

Same for you Ella.

Also, any terms you don't recognise, google em.

Posted by Chicodoodoo (here)
The key points come directly from the summary. The whole legal system is constructed upon "legal fiction." Fiction means it is not true. It's not that you have to claim your rights. That's part of the fiction. We are human beings with unalienable rights. We don't have to claim them -- they are unalienable! That means they cannot be taken away in any manner. The root of the fiction is that inaction implies consent. That's absolute nonsense, because it is not true. It is pure fiction. Saying you have no rights because you didn't claim them at any point in time is pure legal fiction. Saying that you agree because you didn't disagree is also pure legal fiction.

How can there be justice when the justice system is rooted in fiction instead of truth?

Mostly correct.
The reason they call law a fiction isn't what you think it is.
They call it that because it is not tangible, you can't see it, smell it and you know the rest.
They do indeed take your lack of protest or your compliance as consent to whatever.
This is why I behave as I do with the ''authorities'' so that they know I do NOT consent to anything, ever, without my express consent.
You know that old saying the noisiest wheel gets the most oil?
I get ALL the oil.

[Lancelot]

Thanks for this post-
John Harris is a legend!

[king anthony]

People may not want to claim sovereignty under Common Law jurisdiction (or even a constitutional jurisdiction); Common Law jurisdiction is still under the King's Rule. - Natural Law may be what is wanted with equitable remedy being applied with 'sovereign law'.

People have already begun to proceed with arguments and claims using Common Law; I am saying, not as an authority, direction or as legal advice, that actions by those claiming (some sort of) sovereignty has been done in quasi-proper way.

I personally, have briefed some of the material posted above prior to this reply/post - enough to say what I have. There have been people who have pointed out the facts on how the system is now, which has benefited many others.

Anyone currently in practice or still a member of the bar will not fully disclose, either by chance or design how one truly becomes and acts sovereign - in a simply and effective way; which does not involve complex terms or knowledge.

Keep it simple; keep it within the reasonable person's comprehension and abilities; and keep it either fully out of 'their' jurisdiction or not at all.

[bilko]

Thank you so much for posting this. I have learned SO much from that set of videos. I never realized any of it and i will be looking into it a little more.
John Harris is an absolute hero. I didn't know his name before but rest assured i shall be shouting from the rooftops now.
And! as a tube driver i have many friends who will be immensely, IMMENSELY interested in this.

Jesus!
It makes my pee boil to think what they have done, KNOWINGLY!
Can anyone tell me the best and easiest to understand ( i am not an intellectual ) book that i can find all this stuff so i can study it please?

I'm going to watch the other videos now.
Thank you once again, this for me is by far the most important post i have read this year.

[kenkyushiryo]

Posted by bilko (here)
~
Can anyone tell me the best and easiest to understand ( i am not an intellectual ) book that i can find all this stuff so i can study it please?
~

john harris said else where he is in the process of writing a book. he is currently still in that process.

a good thing to read, which is very straight forward to understand is this link someone else on the forum noted:
http://www.yourstrawman.com/

the best advice i think to everyone is just to watch all the videos,
read the site (something like this link here is good) and just help
everyone to understand what has been and still is going on.

quote from the site:

Meet Your Strawman


This is a picture of "The Houses of Parliament" in London, England.

Let's have a little quiz:
1. Who meets there?
2. What do they do there?
3. Do they help you in any way?


If your answers were:

1. "Members of the government"
2. "They represent all the people living in the country" and
3. "Yes, they create laws to protect me and my family"

Then let me congratulate you on getting every one of the answers wrong.


Didn't do too well on that quiz? OK, let's have another go:
4. When was slavery abolished?
5. Was slavery legal?
6. Are you in debt to a financial institution?

Here are the answers:
1. The serving officers of a commercial company.
2. They think up ways to take money and goods from you.
3. No, absolutely not, they help themselves and not you.
4. Slavery has NEVER been abolished and you yourself, are considered to be a slave right now.
5. Yes, slavery is "legal" although it is not "lawful" (you need to discover the difference).
6. No. You are NOT in debt to any financial institution.

[omeriko]

Thank you, Sidious.
The last two times I tried to reply, my computer crashed, so I'll try to be brief.

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

Posted by omeriko (here)
3. Where are these rights given? (even in a common law system)

You are the creator of government, you were born with them. They were probably given to us by those who spliced their dna into hominids to create our ancestors.

What I mean is, all these people quote this constitution or that independence declaration.
In Israel, for example, we don't have a constitution, and the declaration is very vague about the law.
So, say I claim in court that I'm a natural human being, and the only real laws are equity laws. What's to prevent them to laugh in my face if I can't produce a document whereby my country recognizes these things as fact. (e.g. law and equity act in canada, UN human rights...)

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

Posted by omeriko (here)
5. If so, can I claim 'Common Law' jurisdiction in a civil law court? (what I mean by that is, can I claim to be a natural human being, and that only contracts made by me are applicable to me?, and that all statutes are actually contracts?)

....In the law of equity, if you can prove you have been damaged, you have to get your remedy. If one does not exist, you can invent your own, without being unreasonable.
In equity, you can have multiple remedies at the same time, such as a lien, an injunction and an order of specific performance.....
....I prefer equity law over others.

Yes, I actually meant 'equity law jurisdiction' but didn't know the correct term.
By my understanding, in Equity law, you can only be charged if you have done one or more of the following:
1. Harmed another human being.
2. Damaged someone else's property.
3. Used fraud or mischief in your contracts.

Where does all this come from. I honestly couldn't find.

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)
Some do know the answers, but I prefer to usually ask YOU the questions and allow YOU to go off and find the answers.
This I find, is a better way to use your intelligence and time to get the answers, rather than me provide them.
There is no wisdom in being given fish, but learning to catch your own is the path to wisdom.

Also, any terms you don't recognise, google em.

Of course, I did look into it before posting. My problem is with the lack of sources in this field.
I'm trying to translate these things into my country's legal system (and language), and since material about these (freeman) things is practically nonexistent in civil law countries I need to go to the roots here.

I don't want you to hold my hand, but when I reach a dead end, I'm not above asking for directions.



Those other people I referred to, are those who, instead of answering, will spout some nonsensical generalities that don't answer the question, and that I can't understand (I don't think they can either).

[777]

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

Posted by cloud9 (here)
The point of saying "all rise": when the judge enters the room and all rise is said, people do it automatically without any thinking but at that moment they have entered into a contract because they accepted the order to rise, from there on everything that is said in the court is part of a contract.

When the judge asks: please said your name for the record, the person who says it is accepting the contract and so on and on....

That's why the ones who are fighting the system do not say their name or rise, if they don't the judge has no jurisdiction and there's no case.

Those are some things I remember from the tv show the paper chase and other places.

I know why they do things as they do in the system as it runs now, that is part of the reason they leave me alone.
They figured out it isn't good for them to push me too hard, I bite.

I've read this a couple of times from you now, I like it! Could you expand on this when you have time, as I'm very keen to be "left alone" too? Obviously if it's too sensitive or awkward for you I understand. Maybe pm I don't know? But I'm more than keen to approach my own rights studiously, I've neglected my sovereignty for too long.

Another awsome thread!

[bilko]

Thanks for the link Kenkyushiryo, i'll be looking at that link.
Took some notes from the video as well.

Q/ Where do our original birth certificates go? John didn't say in the end.
I'm also unsure as to whether i am infact OBLIGATED to give my name and address to a police officer. Maybe i am legally bound but if i have it right, legality in itself means i do not have to because it is a choice or statute?
I realize that for myself i have just unearthed the tip of the ear of the sphinx here and might be wildly guessing at what lies beneath.

Its no wonder that knowing what John knows he is nearly brought to tears on the stage.

Can i ask; James from wingmakers alway referred to us as 'Sovereign integral'. Do you think he was referring to the very fact that our freedom has been signed away at birth or am i on the wrong track?
Thank you

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by omeriko (here)
Thank you, Sidious.
The last two times I tried to reply, my computer crashed, so I'll try to be brief.

Is that the only time it crashes? Are there any other symptoms?

Posted by omeriko (here)
3. Where are these rights given? (even in a common law system)

Let me quote part of a document for you.

Posted by The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Do you see how they say their rights are a) in existence before government; b) government is formed to enforce and protect those rights and c) they are according to natural law?
That is where they are from.

Posted by omeriko (here)
What I mean is, all these people quote this constitution or that independence declaration.
In Israel, for example, we don't have a constitution, and the declaration is very vague about the law.

I don't like to quote a law at them, other than to tell them how THEIR law controls THEM.
I quoted the one above for you to see the concept, not to quote a law as binding.
I would think that if you put it to them that you have god given rights and israel is a jewish state, how could they not protect you and your rights?
Isn't that what the idf is for? If not, what are they for?
Those are questions for them, not me asking you.

Posted by omeriko (here)
So, say I claim in court that I'm a natural human being, and the only real laws are equity laws. What's to prevent them to laugh in my face if I can't produce a document whereby my country recognizes these things as fact. (e.g. law and equity act in canada, UN human rights...)

You are a man, nothing else, ever.
I would tell you to ask questions of them, don't make claims.
He who makes the claim carries the burdon to prove that claim.
If you asked them about your rights and they laughed at you, I would ask them this;
''What is the point of israel if not to protect the rights of it's people? Isn't that why it was formed? Isn't that why you have military service? If you won't protect my rights, what good are you and your state?''
That might stir them up.

Posted by omeriko (here)
5. If so, can I claim 'Common Law' jurisdiction in a civil law court? (what I mean by that is, can I claim to be a natural human being, and that only contracts made by me are applicable to me?, and that all statutes are actually contracts?)

Common law does not exist in a civil law court, so you can't claim that.
Why not claim natural law jurisdiction? That would also mean they are powerless over you.
Theoretically speaking.

Posted by omeriko (here)
Yes, I actually meant 'equity law jurisdiction' but didn't know the correct term.
By my understanding, in Equity law, you can only be charged if you have done one or more of the following:
1. Harmed another man, woman or child.
2. Damaged someone else's property.
3. Used fraud or mischief in your contracts.

Where does all this come from. I honestly couldn't find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law)

Posted by omeriko (here)
Of course, I did look into it before posting. My problem is with the lack of sources in this field.
I'm trying to translate these things into my country's legal system (and language), and since material about these (freeman) things is practically nonexistent in civil law countries I need to go to the roots here.

I didn't mean you in particular when I mentioned how I like to ask questions, I meant in general.
I can see how this is a problem for you, with you probably being one of very few in israel that is on this path.
YOU will make the sources on your journey.
Comprehend this, the legal system is not binding on you until you do something like you posted about above in the equity section.

Posted by omeriko (here)
I don't want you to hold my hand, but when I reach a dead end, I'm not above asking for directions.

I am happy to help you where I can, don't stress.
I don't have all the answers, but I can certainly think about the issues.

Posted by omeriko (here)
Those other people I referred to, are those who, instead of answering, will spout some nonsensical generalities that don't answer the question, and that I can't understand (I don't think they can either).

Aha, you speak of nuggets.
I too try to avoid them.
Unless they are Avalonuggets, they are ok.

Posted by 777 (here)

I've read this a couple of times from you now, I like it! Could you expand on this when you have time, as I'm very keen to be "left alone" too? Obviously if it's too sensitive or awkward for you I understand. Maybe pm I don't know? But I'm more than keen to approach my own rights studiously, I've neglected my sovereignty for too long.

Another awsome thread!

It isn't sensetive, more like advanced knowledge.
I had to invent some of it along the way, but I won.
I won't disclose more here as I don't like to give shotguns to children.
I don't know who can use the tools I have without getting harmed, so I don't hand them out too often.
If you want to be left alone, I would suggest you study equity and their legal system.
Then once you have that, study the freeman type stuff.
Very few people have the knowledge that will enable them to integrate the two systems.

[777]

'It isn't sensetive, more like advanced knowledge.
I had to invent some of it along the way, but I won.
I won't disclose more here as I don't like to give shotguns to children.
I don't know who can use the tools I have without getting harmed, so I don't hand them out too often.
If you want to be left alone, I would suggest you study equity and their legal system.
Then once you have that, study the freeman type stuff.
Very few people have the knowledge that will enable them to integrate the two systems.'

Wise. I'm on it now.......

[omeriko]

Thanks, I will take all that into account.

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

Posted by omeriko (here)
The last two times I tried to reply, my computer crashed, so I'll try to be brief.

Is that the only time it crashes? Are there any other symptoms?

It happens randomly.
Can sometimes not happen for a month, and sometimes 4 times in a row.
It's not a software issue, since it sometimes occurs in rapid succession, before Windows starts loading.

I don't think it's an 'attack' either (as some here claim to be the recipients of), I'm not privy to any 'special' knowledge, so why bother with me.

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by omeriko (here)
Thanks, I will take all that into account.

Posted by Lord Sidious (here)

Posted by omeriko (here)
The last two times I tried to reply, my computer crashed, so I'll try to be brief.

Is that the only time it crashes? Are there any other symptoms?

It happens randomly.
Can sometimes not happen for a month, and sometimes 4 times in a row.
It's not a software issue, since it sometimes occurs in rapid succession, before Windows starts loading.

I don't think it's an 'attack' either (as some here claim to be the recipients of), I'm not privy to any 'special' knowledge, so why bother with me.

Ok, sounds like a hardware error.
Could be faulty ram.
Do you have anyone that you know who can check it for you?

[Ella]

Hi Lord Sidious!

Thanks for your time in replying here. I totally agree that it is better to search the path yourself. The problem is, is that there is no information out there that I can find in Swedish that can help me fit all this stuff into the system here.

I'm half English half Swedish and have spent most of my life in England. But I now live in Sweden. I think I have a very basic grasp of this from an English point of view, I bought Veronica Chapman's 'Freedom is more than a 7 letter word' a while ago, and it covers this in an understandable way (I highly recommend this book to others, though I imagine if you wanted to use the principles in there then you would need to study this at a deeper level). Where I have hit a brick wall, is trying t figure out how to apply this in Sweden, or even if it is possible. There is absolutely no information about this anywhere (that I can find). Luckily I'm not in a situation where I need to use it, but it feels like it is something that would be useful to have a basic understanding off.

If any Swedes read this thread and are aware of anything about this written in Swedish that applies to our system here, then I would love it if you could point me in the right direction!

Thanks,
Ella.

[Lord Sidious]

Posted by Ella (here)
Hi Lord Sidious!

Thanks for your time in replying here. I totally agree that it is better to search the path yourself. The problem is, is that there is no information out there that I can find in Swedish that can help me fit all this stuff into the system here.

I'm half English half Swedish and have spent most of my life in England. But I now live in Sweden. I think I have a very basic grasp of this from an English point of view, I bought Veronica Chapman's 'Freedom is more than a 7 letter word' a while ago, and it covers this in an understandable way (I highly recommend this book to others, though I imagine if you wanted to use the principles in there then you would need to study this at a deeper level). Where I have hit a brick wall, is trying t figure out how to apply this in Sweden, or even if it is possible. There is absolutely no information about this anywhere (that I can find). Luckily I'm not in a situation where I need to use it, but it feels like it is something that would be useful to have a basic understanding off.

If any Swedes read this thread and are aware of anything about this written in Swedish that applies to our system here, then I would love it if you could point me in the right direction!

Thanks,
Ella.

The thing is, people look at this too superficially.
Yes, there are common law and civil code countries, but no, there are not.
They are all running under the admiralty/commerce system now.
Taking into account the different statutes around the place, the system isn't that different.