A Lawyer Disbarred For Digging Too Deeply [Archive]

View Full Version : A Lawyer Disbarred For Digging Too Deeply

palani

19th March 2012, 04:33 PM

There could be some truth that if the occupation of law doesn't drive you to drink it certainly will drive you to the unemployment line.

http://www.edrivera.com/

I crossed the Bar when I started telling the truth about law and government in California. Telling the truth about law and government got me disbarred. Learning the truth about the law and government can get you free.

palani

19th March 2012, 05:05 PM

The proof the Articles of Confederation still support the original government, the Confederacy called the United States of America, is found in the first Clause of the first Section of the first Article of the Constitution. The letter of the law, which tells us both the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777 and the Constitution of the United States continue to be viable Organic Laws of the United States of America, is the letter “a.”

Article I Section 1 Clause 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” The letter “a” before “Congress” and “Senate” tells us there is more than one Congress and more than one Senate.

The United States congress legislates for territories. The United States of America congress legislates for the several States.

Actually I go to the Articles to find the word "perpetual". This word is nowhere to be found in the constitution. A great international war was fought in the 1860's over this single word. Was Lincoln acting for the United States (not a perpetual entity) or the Articles when he grew irritated over the south leaving the union?

Awoke

19th March 2012, 06:24 PM

There could be some truth that if the occupation of law doesn't drive you to drink it certainly will drive you to the unemployment line.

http://www.edrivera.com/

I read one of the articles from his page you linked. It is confusing, but he is basically asserting that Washington swapped the official version of the Constitution for another version of the constitution. Now my head is spinning.

Awoke

19th March 2012, 07:06 PM

Some highlights from his "Letter to Captives"

Dear Captive of Government,

You are a fellow Captive of government. We are all captives of government, because we have forgotten what truth makes us free. Government truth is qualified as to people, place and purpose. God’s truth is universal. It is a fundamental tenet of the Christian faith that obedience to God’s laws will make us free. God makes His laws easily known by writing them on every human heart. The Congress of the United States has become the Tower of Babel of written law.

A vacant Office of President makes it impossible for there to be a Constitution for the United States of America. Millions of voters cast their ballots for a President of the United States knowing that they aren’t really going to elect a President of the United States. What would happen if they learned the truth? The truth is the person elected President by the Electoral College should take an oath to hold the Office of President and to support the Constitution as it is written.

Everyone wrongly thinks the President Elect takes an oath to support the Constitution, which was written and ratified just before Washington was elected to the Office of President. The truth is no President has ever taken an oath to support the Constitution or tell the American people the truth. The oath of Office of President of the United States was first whispered by George Washington to an audience straining to hear the truth, was supposed to be a promise to support. Washington whispered the oath to limit the number of witnesses to what he had done. Remember, the President Elect produced no written record of the oath he had just taken and audio recordings would not be possible until there were few if any Americans to question the oath being taken.

These truths and the others that will be revealed can only be known by you, if you read the Constitution literally. For example, the Office of President is not the Office of President of the United States or any other Office.

When these Offices are kept separate, you the Captive of government can be freed. Freedom comes from knowing how government in America was slowly taken over by George Washington representing the military establishment. These truths are hidden in the different names given to the Presidential Offices held by the same person.

http://www.edrivera.com/?page_id=2

Awoke

19th March 2012, 08:11 PM

This is crazy. So then what this author is saying is that the Constitution, as you know it, has never been adopted by any single president, because Washington did not qualify to take the "Office of President", due to the fact that he was not a 14 year resident.

Article VII tells us, also, that the Constitution counts time from July 4, 1776. The fourteen Years residency requirement of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 can’t be met until July 4, 1790. George Washington was conveniently elected before he could qualify for the Office of President.

George Washington was not qualified to the Office of President, when he was elected on February 4, 1789, so on April 30, 1789 he took the oath of Office of President of the United States, an Office without any requirements because it was at will employment.

Every President Elect including Barack Hussein Obama has followed the lead of George Washington by refusing to take the oath of Office of President. No binding oath means no bothersome Constitution to keep the government in check.

The consequence of not taking the oath “to support this Constitution” and taking the oath to be an employee of Congress for the purpose of taking on the administration of territory and other property belonging to the United States of America is the eventual disintegration of government and the economy. Those who know the value of firearms in the preservation of the truth should consider becoming students just to preserve the right to own and use firearms without restrictions.

This piece is in regards to the 2A, found here:
http://www.edrivera.com/?cat=155

I highlighted the word "This" because it is a recurring theme in his writings. The "Office of President" is not equal to the "Office of President of the United States". In similar fashion, the term "This Constitution" is not equal to "The Constitution of the United States".

Dudes, my head is spinning.

Glass

19th March 2012, 11:32 PM

This is correct. I've heard the 14 year issue before, however the real issue is that there are two constitutions and subequently there are/could be two nations albeit with similar but not identical names.

As has been pointed out here before, these creations of mans mind may not apply to territory but to an image of territory or a plane hovering above territory. the USofA looks like it is occupying a large portion of the north american continent but is it really?

These days the story is often presented by saying there was a constitutional government in existance up to a point. Lets say 1933 when Rosenvelt declared the USofA to be bankrupt. Then all of a sudden you have this thing called the US of A. And it also has a Government.

It was so slight a move no one noticed it. Perhaps they did back then cause people were smarter.

The thing is, the organisation which calls itself a government is actually a private corporation tradingh with a similar name.

So what happened to the old government, for the United States? Did it become the property of the creditors who called in the national debt? Was it simply abandoned and everyone was moved over to the new government.

I think it could be either. I'm not 100% sure. There are people out ther who are taking up official posts in original United States on the basis that it has been abandoned.

Most commonwealth countries are operating this way. Australia has a federal government which was registered as a corporation in 1933. Perhaps it's 1935. It's listed in Edgar on the SEC web site. Perhaps you will find Canada there as well.

This is my opinion based on what I believe I know or comprehend. It could be way off or it could be right. When a constitution is created and agreed, this creates a constructive trust. A trust can be explicit, implied, constructive....probably some others. A trust has a Trustee, a Beneficiary and a Fiduciary. Trustee and Fiduciary could be the same AFAIK but a Beneficiary can't be a Trustee.

I believe properly constituted governments are Trustee's of the constructive or implied trust arising from a constitution. They require no corporate registration or vasal to operate. I believe these original trusts have been abandoned and the funds within the trusts have been either pilfered or transfered into the hands of corporate actors masquarading as Trustees

This is my view of things as I see them. This brings the discussion around to deciding which one of these entities you want to exist in. Do you want to be part of the 14th amendment population, subject citizens to the corporatation of the United States of America or do you want to be a part of one of the several states.

Then of course there is the question, does the consitution apply to you at all? Are you a party to it? Were you there? Do you have to sign the thing to be affected by it?

What can you do? You can declare your position. You can declare to be no part of any of it. This has been discussed here as well.

Awoke, you are in Canada, yes? You are very fortunate because your statutes make no bones about somethings politic and with regards to God given rights. I think it's nearly time to introduce you to Claim of Right.

Hatha Sunahara

20th March 2012, 12:51 AM

From his Letter to Captives:

I have proven that the basis of the American criminal justice system is based on a military model. For many years, it has been suggested and firmly believed by many that the United States government courts were admiralty courts and the country was being ruled by admiralty law. There is no denying that the United States Government appears to use military law in its courts and judicial procedure. Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution clearly states that the Judicial Power of the United States of America extends to admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. However, as the Constitution has not been “Adopted,” by the President of the United States of America, the Constitution is not the source of admiralty or maritime judicial power.

Eustace Mullins talked about how the courts in the US use Admiralty law in his book The Rape of Justice. But he didn't say much about the origins of Admiralty law, or why it is used in US courts. This has a better explanation, but still not enough for me. One thing that has fallen in place for me is in the recent NDAA, the President claims the power to 'indefinitely detain' people. That is a concept that is based on 'military' law--not constitutional law.

The indefinite detention provision in the NDAA points to some form of deception that is being used by the government as to how the laws are being interpreted by the government.

We also have 'secret laws'. Ones which the public is kept unaware of how the government interprets laws, such as the Patriot Act. I recently ran into this article:

http://rt.com/usa/news/senators-patriot-government-law-749/

Something is really quite rotten when a government has 'secret laws'. And the legislators aren't privy to how their laws are being enforced. Never in my wildest dreams had I thought that I would be looking at something like Russia Today as a more credible source of news than what I could watch on TV.

Hatha

Glass

20th March 2012, 01:33 AM

Hatha,

Good observations re the origins of the law. Law Merchant Law was the system of commercial arbitration developed by merchants and executed in their Staples. Staple is an interesting historical word but only for curiosity's sake. A Staple is kind of like the gentlemens lounge/club for merchants dealing in a particular type of product. So textiles traders had a staple, spices, narcotics, etc all had staples.

When a dispute arose from a deal between a merchant and another merchant or a contracted boat, these were arbitrated in the Staple. This is where Equity law has sprung from. I've mentioned usrfruct on several occasions. Issues surrounding usrfruct might be common place in a Law Merchant Law arbitration. But there would be other disputes as well. Often a merchant would back a voyage to far off lands in return for some booty. If the booty was not up to scratch, damaged, lost or consumed by usrfruct and not replenished etc then there would be a claim by the backer against the ships owner.

The whole of the modern commerce system stems from the ancient merchant trading customs and laws.

This is what bankruptcy is. There is a dispute over the quality, quantity, value or ownership of some seafaring booty. They scuttle the ship and send it onto the bank. They rupture it on the shore. It can no longe sail.... for 7 years. 7 years for cest e qui, 7 years for bankruptcy.

The great seafaring merchant men are renowned in history. Marco Polo, the spanish, Captain Cook, Chris Coluimbus, the porteguese. All of these people operated on a Letter of Marque.... there is another letters enabling piracy... can't recall it but someone here posted it a week or so ago.

t The British Government appears to have contributed to this remarkable for- bearance I y its tardiness in issuing Letters of Marque. " In last Tuesday's Gazette" says the paper of April nth, 1777, "the Lords of the Admiralty give notice that they are ready to issue commissions to private ships for cruising against the Americans." History of the Liverpool Privateers (http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofliverpo00willuoft/historyofliverpo00willuoft_djvu.txt).

As far as I can tell Admiralty and Law Merchant Law come from the same basic roots. One conducts commerce - Merchants and the other interdicts traffic using force. Literally nothing has changed in 400+ years. We have modern times and more modern pronounciation of words but the system is still the same. It is still people sailing the oceans... you, me as vassals and conducting commerce as merchants and then there is the admiralty which protects its ports and imposes a levy upon all traffic. This power extends to all ocean and inland waters connected to the ocean. Roads i.e. highways are considered inland waterways. Police(e) are part of the admiralty. Some police dress as marines (kakhi). Most dress in Navy blue.

So yes in short you are under military rule. You must be because the National Emergency has never been revoked.

I have a copy of the Merchant Law book. I don't have it with me. I think it was published 1918 or 1910? I'll dig it out later.
(Staples lead to attachment. Attachment means something particular at law. We staple documents. We attached things to other things.)

palani

20th March 2012, 02:42 AM

As to the United States of America I have heard it said that this corporate name was taken by the Virginia Company in the early 1700's. Never verified by me (I have never met a living soul from the early 1700's) so it is simply a possibility worth considering.

Glass

20th March 2012, 03:10 AM

Spot on again palani. The Virginia Co and the East India Co. 2 of the best. East India is a whole other tangent. It's been the largest narcotics trafficking organisation in the world for many centuries. I don't know about the Virginia Co. It could well be the US trafficking arm. They had a thing to do with Tabacco didn't they?

The book is: The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty; in three parts. John E. Hall Esq 1809

It describes a lot to do with secured interests and how to obtain them, requirements there of. When someone encounters the law and goes through process they will be subject to attachment (stapled), lien and secured interests on their person. You are both a vassal and property. Merchants in Admiralty will treat you as such according to the situation.

There is a 3rd way. That is as a secured party of interest in your own person. With the superior claim, read first in time first in line, they will need to negotiate with you for settlement rather than discuss with the judge how to divide up the booty, which is what they do with people who don't know who they are. You are creditor. You have power. Creditors always have power in Admiralty.

palani

20th March 2012, 03:32 AM

If I recall from my Jean Keating studies the Hall book reveals that admiralty (including maritime and commerce) is all about who has the best bond. Whoever's bond is the highest rated wins.

I tend to stay away from debtor and creditor concepts as these deal with money. Once you remove the money issue these notions morph into honor and dishonor. Before you can become comfortable dealing with society in all its possible combinations and permutations of relationships it is necessary to study these concepts so that you can reject them timely (or else dishonor follows).

Awoke

20th March 2012, 04:10 AM

Awoke, you are in Canada, yes? You are very fortunate because your statutes make no bones about somethings politic and with regards to God given rights. I think it's nearly time to introduce you to Claim of Right.

Please, continue.

Awoke

20th March 2012, 05:09 AM

When someone encounters the law and goes through process they will be subject to attachment (stapled), lien and secured interests on their person. You are both a vassal and property. Merchants in Admiralty will treat you as such according to the situation.

I'm really enjoying this thread.

How does a living man or living woman supercede the authority of the legislative courts?
(I am understanding that every court is not an Article III court, and is therefore legislative. Over the last couple days, I am coming to an understanding that the parties who are going to go through the system together need to "create" the Article III court by submitting some forms of paperwork, notifying all involved parties that they are to be held to their Oaths of Office)

If there are two (or more) Constitutions, how do we back up our claim that our rights are unalienable?

Glass

20th March 2012, 05:22 AM

Please, continue.

Something to remember. A claim un-rebutted stands as fact.

Grab a copy of your federal Crimes Act. Take a look in there for Claim of Right. A searchable online version will help. Have a read. It's worth reading the whole act but lets cut to the chase. I guess I better go refresh some brain matters.

dys

20th March 2012, 05:24 AM

Personally I believe that arguments pertaining to the Constitution are a distraction/red herring. One of the best things I ever read when I got into this game is that all of the people making arguments pertaining to consitutional rights should be arguing unaliable rights. What obligates the people to be subject to the 14th amendment, or any constitutional limitation of rights for that matter? Remember, circa declaration of independence- the purpose of government is to secure rights, not to limit or constrain them.

dys

Glass

20th March 2012, 05:31 AM

I'm really enjoying this thread.

How does a living man or living woman supercede the authority of the legislative courts?
(I am understanding that every court is not an Article III court, and is therefore legislative. Over the last couple days, I am coming to an understanding that the parties who are going to go through the system together need to "create" the Article III court by submitting some forms of paperwork, notifying all involved parties that they are to be held to their Oaths of Office)

If there are two (or more) Constitutions, how do we back up our claim that our rights are unalienable?

As palani might tell you, being out of commerce is the only sure fire way to be unalienable. I shouldn't speak for others though.

I think you're on to it. as to courts. I think different courts for different things. Remember a secured party of interest has power. I think the freeman is unalienable. He's been documented since the mid 1600's at least. The Magna Carta was written for him. I think ultimately thats the place to be. At liberty and self governing.

palani

20th March 2012, 05:56 AM

being out of commerce is the only sure fire way to be unalienable.

The ONLY things that are unalienable are the things you CANNOT alien. As far as I know these things that are unalienable have only one single attribute in common: you don't own them. You might try to sell something you don't own but society frowns on this type of activity.

Being an owner has in its root the concept of "owe". An owner might buy on time.

Possibly that is the reason for the shift to the concept of "inalienable", dealing with things your SHOULDN'T alien rather with things that you CANNOT alien. The queen could sell the crown jewels in order to put a new roof on Buckingham Palace but she SHOULDN'T (according to popular opinion).

Awoke

20th March 2012, 05:56 AM

all of the people making arguments pertaining to consitutional rights should be arguing unaliable rights.

Agreed. God-Given, Creator endowed, unalienable rights.

What obligates the people to be subject to the 14th amendment, or any constitutional limitation of rights for that matter? Remember, circa declaration of independence- the purpose of government is to secure rights, not to limit or constrain them.

Given this line of thinking, I would go a step further, and say that the laws that Jesus Christ said were written on our hearts pre-date the Declaration of Independance. Which opens up another can of worms, that Glass touches on...

I think you're on to it. as to courts. I think different courts for different things. Remember a secured party of interest has power. I think the freeman is unalienable. He's been documented since the mid 1600's at least. The Magna Carta was written for him. I think ultimately thats the place to be. At liberty and self governing.

I believe in Jesus Christ, Son of the Father and Creator. Jesus predates and supercedes even the Magna Carta. So what does that mean? Where does that leave me?
I just got a traffic ticket last week. Am I to go to court, and declare it to be void because it is not an Article III court? Am I to refuse to give them the Fiat they demand? Am I to continue driving to work if they remove my Drivers licence?

As palani might tell you, being out of commerce is the only sure fire way to be unalienable. I shouldn't speak for others though.

How can a living man function without being in commerce? As far as the questions above, if I don't pay the fiat, they will "take" my licence from me. Then I supposedly can't drive to my job, which in turn will mean I can't pay my mortgage, etc.
How would a living man make any of this apply?

I am not posing these questions to be difficult: These are real questions. I need some answers. I don't know where to find them.

Here is the biggest hang up:
Afaic, the law of God predates and overrules any man made laws, including the Constitution, the BNA act, the Articles of the Confederacy, the Magna Carta, etc.
So how can a living man claim himself to be sovereign, and then refer to ANY of those documents to "prove" he is sovereign? Given that Gods Law on our hearts trumps any other man made law, why would the living man need to refer to any of these documents at all?

I really appreciate you guys taking time to address these issues. I have a real desire to shake of the shackles.

palani

20th March 2012, 05:56 AM

I just got a traffic ticket last week. Am I to go to court, and declare it to be void because it is not an Article III court? Am I to refuse to give them the Fiat they demand? Am I to continue driving to work if they remove my Drivers licence?

Why argue? That is the path of dishonor.

Counteroffer instead. Of course the time to do this was along the side of the road.

How can a living man function without being in commerce? As far as the questions above, if I don't pay the fiat, they will "take" my licence from me. Then I supposedly can't drive to my job, which in turn will mean I can't pay my mortgage, etc.
How would a living man make any of this apply?
You are still in the fiat world. As long as you stay there someone will have their hands out to take your fiat from you. If you don't have any fiat then there are two paths: impossibility or involuntary servitude. It is impossible to do something that is beyond your ability so there is no dishonor. If you try to do something to get fiat for someone else then you have engaged in involuntary servitude (unless you agree to do it).

Awoke

20th March 2012, 06:57 AM

Why argue? That is the path of dishonor.

Counteroffer instead. Of course the time to do this was along the side of the road.

Could you please post a fictional dialogue that might have taken place between myself and the NWO pig if I had have counteroffered as you recommend?

You are still in the fiat world. As long as you stay there someone will have their hands out to take your fiat from you. If you don't have any fiat then there are two paths: impossibility or involuntary servitude. It is impossible to do something that is beyond your ability so there is no dishonor. If you try to do something to get fiat for someone else then you have engaged in involuntary servitude (unless you agree to do it).

So how can a living man be sovereign and also own a home and vehicles, and purchase/aquire food for his family?

palani

20th March 2012, 07:09 AM

Could you please post a fictional dialogue that might have taken place between myself and the NWO pig if I had have counteroffered as you recommend?

coppiceman: "Let's see your license." [NOTICE] [GRANTS RIGHT TO INQUIRE]
you: "Can state any authority that requires me to have one when I am not engaged in commerce?" [COUNTEROFFER .. CANCELS HIS OFFER WITH HONOR] [YOU ARE INQUIRING INTO HIS AUTHORITY]

So how can a living man be sovereign and also own a home and vehicles, and purchase/aquire food for his family?

I don't believe sovereign is the proper route. Perhaps "self-determined" or autonomous might be a phrase closer to the status you are looking for.

I only use gold or silver as required for a responsible State. I find darned few people to do business with yet still have the same needs as anyone else. So I make corporations work for me rather than working for them. A corporation was created for the sole purpose of doing these funny money transactions. I don't contract with this corporation directly. I contract with the entity that created the corporation. Anything purchased by the corporation belongs to the corporation and I claim no ownership. I am a principal. They are an agent. Or maybe they are the principal and I am a service user.

Awoke

20th March 2012, 07:12 AM

coppiceman: "Let's see your license." [NOTICE] [GRANTS RIGHT TO INQUIRE]
you: "Can state any authority that requires me to have one when I am not engaged in commerce?" [COUNTEROFFER .. CANCELS HIS OFFER WITH HONOR] [YOU ARE INQUIRING INTO HIS AUTHORITY]

OK, and if he refuses my counteroffer?

I only use gold or silver as required for a responsible State. I find darned few people to do business with yet still have the same needs as anyone else. So I make corporations work for me rather than working for them. A corporation was created for the sole purpose of doing these funny money transactions. I don't contract with this corporation directly. I contract with the entity that created the corporation. Anything purchased by the corporation belongs to the corporation and I claim no ownership. I am a principal. They are an agent.

So did you exchange PM's with a living man to aquire your house or vehicle?

I'm really trying to understand all this.

palani

20th March 2012, 07:45 AM

OK, and if he refuses my counteroffer?
Anything he says is another offer. Send him another counteroffer. "Can you show me your oath and bond or are you acting in the capacity of a de facto officer rather than a peace officer?"

So did you exchange PM's with a living man to aquire your house or vehicle?

I'm really trying to understand all this.

I own no property other than $5 in gold and $21 in silver. Vehicles can be owned by corporations. So can real estate. In fact a corporation has several advantages over me. They can hire an attorney to protect their interests whereas I lose all natural rights when I accept representation. They can be insured whereas there is no common law concept of insurance and I am prohibited (by dealing only with gold or silver) from being irresponsible.

Glass

20th March 2012, 07:50 AM

It's a can of worms alright. Maybe thinking of it this way might help. We talked about how there are different planes where Governments exist from the OP. Think of yourself in the same way. You have a persona (person) but you also have the flesh and blood you. One is an act, the other is the real deal. One is a utility for the purposes of conducting commerce in public, the other is you in the private. The freeman. Can you choose when to be one or the other? Some people are 100% persona a.ka. sheeple. Others are 100% private. They are out there, you just don't hear so much about them. And then there are the people who move between the two. They might be 100% freemen but they are secured creditors to the persona. Actually everyone is a creditor but most people think they are debtors. Being a creditor gives you more control. It gives you better standing.

Mans laws are repugnant to Gods' laws.

I think in the US you can be sovereign but you need to move to the USofA, a state thereof.

I believe that in the commonwealth you can be a freeman. A freeman is usually a land holder. If no land then the popular term is freeman upon the land. Sovereign claims trouble me a bit. It is no longer a capital offence. I believe all people are sovereign but there are complications.

in commerce the contract is the law. A claim unrebutted becomes fact. If a claim in a contract negotiation is unrebutted it becomes a term of contract. The Govt writes these contracts. Counter offer. Write your own. Unrebutted it becomes a fact. Then you learn how to write to them in a way they can't rebutt.

The ideology of being free is great. The only way to be free is to exit the system. No contact points at all.

I want to mention the bible. To me it is a collection of law, of case studies, applications, complications. At it's core it''s a book of law. The book says "render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers". It's debatable but for now.

So I get to thinking we mostly accept that FIAT currency is fake money right? If Ceaser renders unto us something which is fake, what are we obliged to render unto Ceaser? If he gives us a negotiable instrument why can't we revert in kind?

Ah Honour/Dishonour. This is at the root of everything. You need to be in honour. It sounds ominous but it's mostly process. I give it one line now but it's the most important part of all. It is in everything.

ok bit tired now. hope it makes some sense. I think it might seeing as you guys been talking about it while I've been peckin the keyboard.

Awoke

20th March 2012, 08:29 AM

Anything he says is another offer. Send him another counteroffer. "Can you show me your oath and bond or are you acting in the capacity of a de facto officer rather than a peace officer?"

So if I was in this position, and him and I keep offering counteroffers until he becomes frustrated, and arrests me and drags me to jail or the police station, am I to sue him for kidnapping or something?

At some point, his NWO pig testosterone is going to get the better of him and he will lay hands on me. What then?

I own no property other than $5 in gold and $21 in silver. Vehicles can be owned by corporations. So can real estate. In fact a corporation has several advantages over me. They can hire an attorney to protect their interests whereas I lose all natural rights when I accept representation. They can be insured whereas there is no common law concept of insurance and I am prohibited (by dealing only with gold or silver) from being irresponsible.

Do you have a vehicle at your disposal, that you can drive around in at your leisure?
Did you form/create a corporation to use to aquire a vehicle?
Did you form/create a corporation to aquire your living space/residence/home?

Again, I'm just trying to understand all this.

palani

20th March 2012, 09:08 AM

So if I was in this position, and him and I keep offering counteroffers until he becomes frustrated, and arrests me and drags me to jail or the police station, am I to sue him for kidnapping or something?

At some point, his NWO pig testosterone is going to get the better of him and he will lay hands on me. What then?
Hard to say. I must say I am unable to forecast all the actions that a criminal might take. If you are just talking and not rubbing salt in an open wound I would say he has no reason to injure you. If he brings up necessity though be prepared for a battle to the death.

Do you have a vehicle at your disposal, that you can drive around in at your leisure?
Did you form/create a corporation to use to aquire a vehicle?
Did you form/create a corporation to aquire your living space/residence/home?

I have several corporate vehicles I use all the time. Corporations also have the ability to acquire property.

palani

20th March 2012, 09:11 AM

So I get to thinking we mostly accept that FIAT currency is fake money right?

Fiat money is money of account rather than money of exchange. Nothing changes hands when you use a fiat dollar. Corporations are not required to carry a bag of equal measures with them. Fiat dollars are corporate dollars. Only corporations handle them or possess them.

jimswift

20th March 2012, 09:56 AM

Fiat money is money of account rather than money of exchange. Nothing changes hands when you use a fiat dollar. Corporations are not required to carry a bag of equal measures with them. Fiat dollars are corporate dollars. Only corporations handle them or possess them.

Excellent post.

Awoke

20th March 2012, 10:18 AM

sirgonzo420

20th March 2012, 10:54 AM

So then, based on that post, every person who uses fiat currency is a Corporation?

So then how can a living man use fiat dollars, and still not be a corporation?

I suppose you would have to be both, as the situation calls for it? Flipping back and forth between a self governing living man and a fiat swapping corporation? Fuck I wish I could get some straight, simple answers.

here's a little somethin' for my brothers in Canada... eh

Here is Title 12 USC 411 for the US:

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/411

Here is this too:

(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may issue United States currency notes. The notes— (1) are payable to bearer; and
(2) shall be in a form and in denominations of at least one dollar that the Secretary prescribes.
(b) The amount of United States currency notes outstanding and in circulation— (1) may not be more than $300,000,000; and
(2) may not be held or used for a reserve.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5115

Anyway, make a demand for redemption in "lawful money" and record your demand.

Here's something specifically for Canada:http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1527/nonendorsementcanadaboc.jpg

Here's an article:

Convincing Congress to Abolish the Fed
Freedom League, Sept/Oct 1984
When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks. United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example, suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion. To finance the appropriation Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury's checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral. When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed. Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed. Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned.
However, if anyone else accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve banksters. Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according to 'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own." This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.
In 'Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co.' 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty -- i.e., charge or fee -- which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance): 'Bouvier', p. 459. Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation. The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 Am.Jur. 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur. 33, pgs. 58, 59. The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979). A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself. Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large." It is the voluntary use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment. However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated. Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying allodial title.
Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins. One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income. Under 26 USC 7609 the IRS has carte blanche authority to summon and investigate bank records for the purpose of determining tax liabilities or discovering unknown taxpayers: 'United States v. Berg' 636 F.2d 203 (1980). If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.
On June 5, 1933, the day of infamy arrived. Congress on that date enacted House Joint Resolution 192, which provided that the people convert or turn in their gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. Through the operation of law, H.J.R. 192 took us off the gold standard and placed us on the dollar standard where the dollar could be manipulated by private interests for their self-serving benefit. By this single act the people and their wealth were delivered to the bankers. When gold coinage was thus pulled out of circulation, large denomination Federal Reserve notes were issued to fill the void. As a consequence the public money supply in circulation was greatly diminished, and the debt-laden private credit of the Fed gained supremacy. This action made private individuals who had been previously exempt from federal income taxes now liable for them, since the general public began consuming and using large amounts of private credit. Notice all the case law prior to 1933 which affirms that income is a profit or gain which arises from a government granted privilege. After 1933, however, the case law no longer emphatically declares that income is exclusively corporate profit or that it arises from a privilege. So, what changed? Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin. In recent years the Eisenhower dollar coin received widespread acceptance, but the Treasury minted them in limited number which encouraged hoarding. This same fate befell the Kennedy half dollars, which circulated as silver sandwiched clads between 1965-1969 and were hoarded for their intrinsic value and not spent. Next came the Susan B. Anthony dollar, an awkward coin which was instantly rejected as planned. The remaining unit is the privately issued Federal Reserve note unit dollar with no viable competitors. Back in 1935 the Fed had persuaded the Treasury to discontinue minting silver dollars because the public preferred them over dollar bills. That the public money system has become awkward, discouraging its use, is no accident. It was planned that way.
A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source. So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax, which is a banker's dream but a nightmare for everyone else. Through the combined operation of the Fed and H.J.R. 192, the United States pays exorbitant interest whenever it uses its own money deposited with the Fed, and the people pay outrageous income taxes for the privilege of living and working in their own country, robbed of their wealth and separated from their rights, laboring under a tax system written by a cabal of loan shark bankers and rubber stamped by a spineless Congress.
Congress has the power to abolish the Federal Reserve System and thus destroy the private credit system. However, the people have it within their power to strip the Fed of its powers, rescind private credit and get the bankers to pay off the National Debt should Congress fail to act. The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States: 'Julliard v. Greenman' 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884); whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103); 524 F.2d 629 (1974). Anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption in public money -- i.e., legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder. The Fed maintains a ready supply of United States notes in hundred dollar denominations for redemption purposes should it be required, and coins are available to satisfy claims for smaller amounts. However, should the general public decide to redeem large amounts of private credit for public money, a financial melt-down within the Fed would quickly occur. The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled. Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable. If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided. If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income. It is that simple! Federal Reserve notes are not money and cannot be tendered when money is demanded: 105 So. 305 (1925). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money (31 USC 392; rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974); 12 USC 411.
It would be advantageous to close out all bank accounts, acquire a home safe, settle all debts in cash with public money and use U.S. postal money orders for remittances. Whenever a check is received, present it to the bank of issue and demand cash in public money. This will place banks in a vulnerable position, forcing them to draw off their assets. Through their insatiable greed, bankers have over extended, making banks quite illiquid. Should the people suddenly demand public money for their deposits and for checks received, many banks will collapse and be foreclosed by those demanding public money. Banks by their very nature are citadels of usury and sin, and the most patriotic service one could perform is to obligate bankers to redeem private credit. When the first Federal Reserve note is presented to the Fed for redemption, the process of ousting the private credit system will commence and will not end until the Fed and the banking system nurtured by it collapse. Coins comprise less than five percent of the currency, and current law limits the amount of United States notes in circulation to $300 million (31 USC 5115). The private credit system is exceedingly over extended compared with the supply of public money, and a small minority working in concert can easily collapse the private credit system and oust the Fed by demanding redemption of private credit. If the Fed disappeared tomorrow, income taxes on wages and salaries would vanish with it. Moreover, the States are precluded from taxing United States notes: 4 Wheat. 316. According to Bouvier, public money is the money which Congress can tax for public purposes mandated by the Constitution. Private credit when collected in revenue can fund programs and be spent for purposes not cognizable by the Constitution. We have in effect two competing governments: the United States Government and the Federal Government. The first is the government of the people, whereas the Federal Government is founded upon private law and funded by private credit. What we really have is private government. Federal agencies and activities funded by the private credit system include Social Security, bail out loans to bankers via the IMF, bail out loans to Chrysler, loans to students, FDIC, FBI, supporting the U.N., foreign aid, funding undeclared wars, etc., all of which would be unsustainable if funded by taxes raised pursuant to the Constitution. The personal income tax is not a true tax but rather an obligation or burden which is voluntarily assumed, since revenue is raised through voluntary contributions and can be spent for purposes unknown to the Constitution. Notice how the IRS declares in its publications that everyone is expected to contribute his fair share. True taxes must be spent for public purposes which the Constitution recognizes. Taxation for the purpose of giving or loaning money to private business enterprises and individuals is illegal: 15 Am.Rep. 39; Cooley, 'Prin. Const. Law', ch. IV. Revenue derived from the federal income tax goes into a private slush fund raised from voluntary contributions, and Congress is not restricted by the Constitution when spending or disbursing the proceeds from this private fund. It is incorrect to say that the personal federal income tax is unconstitutional, since the tax code is private law and resides outside the Constitution. The Internal Revenue Code is non-constitutional because it enforces an obligation which is voluntarily incurred through an act of the individual who binds himself. Fighting the Internal Revenue Code on constitutional grounds is wasted energy. The way to bring it all down is to attack the Federal Reserve System and its banking cohorts by demanding that private credit be redeemed, or by convincing Congress to abolish the Fed. Never forget that private credit is funding the destruction of our country. [Reprinted from `Freedom League', Sept/Oct 1984]

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

here's another link to an article: http://freedom-school.com/money/nod.htm

Awoke

20th March 2012, 11:59 AM

palani

20th March 2012, 12:13 PM

So then, based on that post, every person who uses fiat currency is a Corporation?

So then how can a living man use fiat dollars, and still not be a corporation?

Fiat money to a living breathing man is death by slow strangulation. Avoid them entirely. You may be forced to accept them but you commit fraud when you pass them on to another.

This is not the case with corporations. They are already dead being legal fictions.

sirgonzo420

20th March 2012, 12:19 PM

Gonzo, that is an absolutely amazing article. Thanks for that. Wow! I totally understand the income tax scam now. I really appreciate that article. Seriously, thanks.

...but it is really talking about that USA, not Canada. I have found that Canadian law quotes are much harder to find than American ones.

You're welcome.

About the best I can do for you regarding Canada, of the top of my head, is to refer you the Bank of Canada Act... I posted a picture of a pertinent part. The picture points out that you can "endorse" (or non-endorse, if you make/record a demand for "lawful money") however you like, although they will try to push their "uniform system".

Here's something else that may shed some light on Canada:

http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/3474/goldrequirements.pdf

Awoke

20th March 2012, 12:38 PM

sirgonzo420

20th March 2012, 12:53 PM

OK so I just read the other article you linked, and it seemingly contradicts the first one.

So in the first one, it makes it plain and clear that people are obligated to pay income tax because they are voluntarily (Unknowingly) using private credit, via exchanging FRNs.

However the other link (This one: http://freedom-school.com/money/nod.htm (http://freedom-school.com/money/nod.htm)) expressly states that when you have a "Pay Cheque" given to you in return for your labour, you are receiving "Worthless Securities", and therefore are not obligated to pay income tax because you are not receiving income.

What am I missing?

Ok. The income is received (or not) when the check is deposited or CASHED.

So I suppose a "paycheck" is a worthless security because you never know if your boss has the funds in his account to cover it.

Anyway, if you "endorse" a paycheck, then you claim to receive "Dollars" as stated on the face of the check, and are presumed to be voluntarily using private credit. If you non-endorse (by putting something like "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE. By: Given Name" or "REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY"), then you are making known your intent to separate yourself from the private credit system, and making a demand for lawful money.

The idea is to demand lawful money from the initial transaction.

This whole system was not designed to be clear to the common man... quite the contrary....

Awoke

20th March 2012, 01:14 PM

Libertytree

20th March 2012, 01:25 PM

Is everyone who operates as a "freeman", "sovereign" either....

A. A homesteader living off grid with barterable skills?

B. Someone who has set up a corporation to function through?

C. Both?

sirgonzo420

20th March 2012, 01:29 PM

Thanks Gonzo.

One last question I have is the statment he stamps onto the cheques: "DEPOSITED FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUNT OR EXCHANGED FOR NON-NEGOTIABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES OF FACE VALUE"

This is saying two damning things:

1) Will accept Credit on account (Private credit, that is IRS taxable)
2) Will accept FRNs of face value (Private credit, that is IRS taxable)

So how is that a Non-endorsement?

"non-negotiable federal reserve notes" are not the same as FRNs, because they have ALREADY been negotiated into a higher form of currency (USNs) by the demand.

and credit as it is normally thought of is not taxed... like a credit limit on a credit card.

It is a NON-ENDORSEMENT because you are making the check into a bill of exchange in which you receive NON-NEGOTIABLE FRN's of face value, and not "dollars" (which are regular old FRNs that are endorsed by your failure to make and record your demand for "lawful money").

make any sense?

sirgonzo420

20th March 2012, 01:32 PM

Is everyone who operates as a "freeman", "sovereign" either....

A. A homesteader living off grid with barterable skills?

B. Someone who has set up a corporation to function through?

C. Both?

if you "know who you are" and your relationship to "your" (not really) birth certificate and things of that nature, you can function at arm's length and keep yourself separated somewhat.

That being said, I'd still love to get off the grid and be a homesteader with barterable skills for many reasons.

Libertytree

20th March 2012, 01:51 PM

jimswift

20th March 2012, 03:01 PM

from the US Treasury website:

What are Federal Reserve notes and how are they different from United States notes?

Federal Reserve notes are legal tender currency notes. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks issue them into circulation pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A commercial bank belonging to the Federal Reserve System can obtain Federal Reserve notes from the Federal Reserve Bank in its district whenever it wishes. It must pay for them in full, dollar for dollar, by drawing down its account with its district Federal Reserve Bank.

Federal Reserve Banks obtain the notes from our Bureau of Engraving and Printing (http://www.moneyfactory.gov/) (BEP). It pays the BEP for the cost of producing the notes, which then become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, and obligations of the United States Government.

Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy.

What are United States Notes and how are they different from Federal Reserve notes?

United States Notes (characterized by a red seal and serial number) were the first national currency, authorized by the Legal Tender Act of 1862 and began circulating during the Civil War. The Treasury Department issued these notes directly into circulation, and they are obligations of the United States Government. The issuance of United States Notes is subject to limitations established by Congress. It established a statutory limitation of $300 million on the amount of United States Notes authorized to be outstanding and in circulation. While this was a significant figure in Civil War days, it is now a very small fraction of the total currency in circulation in the United States.

Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are parts of our national currency and both are legal tender. They circulate as money in the same way. However, the issuing authority for them comes from different statutes. United States Notes were redeemable in gold until 1933, when the United States abandoned the gold standard. Since then, both currencies have served essentially the same purpose, and have had the same value. Because United States Notes serve no function that is not already adequately served by Federal Reserve Notes, their issuance was discontinued, and none have been placed in to circulation since January 21, 1971.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 authorized the production and circulation of Federal Reserve notes. Although the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (http://www.moneyfactory.gov/) (BEP) prints these notes, they move into circulation through the Federal Reserve System. They are obligations of both the Federal Reserve System and the United States Government. On Federal Reserve notes, the seals and serial numbers appear in green. 2495

palani

20th March 2012, 03:25 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender

Legal tender is a medium of payment allowed by law or recognized by a legal system to be valid for meeting a financial obligation.[1] Paper currency is a common form of legal tender in many countries.

For instance, if you owe someone $100 USD in the United States, you can try to pay it back in Mexican Pesos or valuable jewelry or gold metal, or even a cheque or a charge card, but they don't have to accept any of those as payment. They must accept US $20 dollar bills, however, because that is legal tender in the United States.

Read that last line over and over again until you realize that a $20 bill is legal tender IN THE UNITED STATES. Now what is the UNITED STATES? It is a municipality aka THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Now what is a MUNICIPALITY? According to Bouvier:

MUNICIPALITY. The body of officers, taken collectively, belonging to a city, who are appointed to manage its affairs and defend its interests.

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (AKA THE UNITED STATES) IS NOT FOUND ON A MAP ... IT IS A BUNCH OF PEOPLE ACTING AS OFFICERS. Chief among these people is one de facto president known as Barack Obama.

Are YOU in this body of officers? That depends upon whether you claim to be a citizen or not. If you do then you MUST accept that $20 bill as legal tender. If you are not a citizen you accept it under your own discretion (and frankly you would be better off asking if there is any better security).

dys

20th March 2012, 05:38 PM

Glass

20th March 2012, 06:19 PM

Just to clarify the legal tender aspects. Legal tender can be many things. There are statues and codes that express this.

What people need to realise is they have options for which type of legal tender they will tender.

While redeeming FRN's for lawful money is an explicit option for USofA residents it is not the only option.

I said earlier. Render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers'. Lets change that to Tender unto Ceaser that which is Ceasers'

FRN's are Federal Reserve Notes. A Note is a special kind of tender. Its a promissiory note. It's a promise to pay. If there is no money how do you settle things? With promises. FRN's are a promise to pay but there are other forms of promise out there. You may choose to tender something other than FRN's, It is up to you and the level of knowledge you have.

All that matters is that you tender something and stay in honour. If the Govt stipulates that they deal in promises then give them one when they ask for it and everyone will be happy.

Glass

20th March 2012, 06:25 PM

palani

20th March 2012, 06:33 PM

Yes. A living man can have a person. If you assert a right you create a person. If you are charged with a duty (servitude/traffic ticket/criminal charge/misdemeanor/felony) then it is the person who is charged with this duty rather than you.

Glass

20th March 2012, 06:39 PM

I've always found this fascinating and a worthy goal. I seem though to hit major roadblocks trying to fully understand it all, wishing there was a book for dummies on the topic. I've read all the threads here and other places and am still as much in the dark as I ever was. Maybe I'm just too damn dumb to be truly free of their system? But I still dig what you guys have accomplished even though when the day comes I don't think they'll be worried what our status is and it's just a matter if we bow down or fight, leaving us all in the same boat.

These are the same things I have experienced. I got turned on to this stuff in 2008 and I'm still working on it. I have the basics down. I have enough examples of Govt backdowns and sly ways they have tried to present the circumstances to know this stuff is correct. I've seen examples where bills just zero out after accept for value. I've seen the Tax office fail to show. This discussion is not quite there yet and there is so much information that some of it comes before we fully grasp what we have already uncovered so it's hard to see how some of it plugs in.

Also I find a lot of initial euphoria over soveriegn freeman redemption concepts being discovered. This can kind of cloud the mechanics of what people are doing. People are using the same processes the Govt has laid out to get things done they way they want to do them. This system is a double edged sword. The main thing is it is a process. Step 1, step 2 step 3 etc.

If you don't respond to one of the steps then you are in dishonour. This is all that they need to give to a court (if it gets that far). They only need to demonstrate dishonour. If the court is summary judgement then you lose. Doesn't matter what you say in court. It's irrelevant.

Now if you know the process and can see the flaws in it, then you can work the system until THEY DEFAULT. Then that's all you need. If it's a clear default and you know how to inform the court. Standing up and yabbering is not how to inform the court, then most times they, the Govt will withdraw. They will pull their claim or most often they will fail to show They have left the battle field through forfeit. Order to Dismiss with Predjudice please your Honour.

They make try to plea deal with you. Why plea deal when you have won?

As to the last point. Yes at some point all the facade of civility will be removed and then it becomes the true battle. You pit your life against someone else.

Glass

20th March 2012, 06:56 PM

Awoke

Driving is a commercial term. It is synonymous with operating. Driving a vehicle and operating a vehicle are commercial activities. You would do both for a fee.

In Western Australia the Road Traffic Licencing Act defines Traffic as: The carrying of passengers or freight for a fee.

You might get an infringement from the policee officer that refers to an Act empowering the officer to issue the infringement. If the infringment claims the Traffic Licencing Act, or the Act referred is different but it also referes to the TLA then the question becomes:

Were you carrying passengers for a fee or were you carrying freight for a fee?

So if you are not operating a vehicle for a fee, are you driving? I'd say no. I'd say you were travelling. I would also say anyone who is with you is your travelling companion.

If the officer pulls you over and says can I see your drivers licence please and you give it I think you have just confessed that you are driving for a fee. Even though you may not be, your confession is what they need. Most convictions are due to self incrimination.

How about the officer gets a conditional acceptance on his claim, conditional on proof of claim, affidavit made under oath that a) the officer did in fact determine that you were subject to the TLA because you had either a fee paying passenger or that you were transporting freight for a fee and b) some other stuff you might like to include.

Remember I said you write write your letters in such a way as to make rebuttal difficult if not impossible.

Most officers will not make an oath as to the verasity of their claim. This gives them liability and this is not what they want. We live in limited liability world.

If someone comes to you with an insturment (a claim) they must also provide the remedy. If they do not then they become liable for the instrument.

Glass

20th March 2012, 07:05 PM

ok, I'm hogging the thread today. Last one for a bit.

Awoke,

Check out world freeman society forum. These are Canadians. You will find some good info there. You will also find some trolls and some people who are still a bit in the clouds. You will find good references to Statutes and so on that can help.

This is Robert Menards stuff. He's an interesting guy. He pretty much got the whole Claim of Right movement going. He has some good videos on the net.

Glass

20th March 2012, 07:13 PM

ok, this is really my last one.

For everyone else who is interested in the commercial side of things, honour, dishonour, how to get superior standing over other claims such as Govt, cops, Tax depts, etc have a look at Winston Shrout. People promote his stuff as sovereign freeman redemption but it is not quite that. It's commerce. He is also interesting. A lot of people who do this stuff often don't grasp how powerful it can be. Winston does his stuff so that anyone who claims against him ends up paying him. The courts often pay him as well or instead of the other party. Remember he who brings the claim must also bring the remedy. Winston knows this and uses it.

You can find Winstons videos on google vid and I think YT. The Kelowna?? seminar is the best one. You need 5 or 6 hours. You need a note pad also.

milehi

20th March 2012, 07:28 PM

Best thread in a long time. Thanks.

Awoke

21st March 2012, 04:42 AM

You're not hogging the thread, Glass; you're posting from Austrailia. A majority of the GSus membership is sleeping when it is your most active time to post, I would think, being that you're pretty much on the other side of the globe.

Thanks for all your amazing posts in this thread. You make things understandable to a noob like me.

Awoke
Driving is a commercial term. It is synonymous with operating. Driving a vehicle and operating a vehicle are commercial activities. You would do both for a fee.

Were you carrying passengers for a fee or were you carrying freight for a fee?

Obviously no, it was a leisurely day trip. Just Travelling.

How about the officer gets a conditional acceptance on his claim, conditional on proof of claim, affidavit made under oath that a) the officer did in fact determine that you were subject to the TLA because you had either a fee paying passenger or that you were transporting freight for a fee and b) some other stuff you might like to include.

Remember I said you write write your letters in such a way as to make rebuttal difficult if not impossible.

So in order to literally go through this process with the cop, at some point I would need to give him my licence and accept the copy of the ticket, right? Then you're saying I should write a letter?
I just don't get it.
I know the bastards will suspend my licence if I let the ticket go without paying for it.

Most officers will not make an oath as to the verasity of their claim. This gives them liability and this is not what they want. We live in limited liability world.

They are cowards and don't want to be culpable for anything.

If someone comes to you with an insturment (a claim) they must also provide the remedy. If they do not then they become liable for the instrument.

Are you telling my my fine is an "instrument"? So how and who would I show that they are responsible to provide the remedy?

Awoke

21st March 2012, 07:15 AM

Awoke,

Check out world freeman society forum.

My first impressions are that the forum is heavily moderated by Mods that abitrarily ban whomever they decide they don't like. Not necessarily only agents/trolls either.
After learning how to school trolls on GIM and here, I was really surprised to see members getting banned for simply disagreeing with a theme. They need thicker skin over there. Not too much freedom for a forum based on free and living men.

But I will continue to check it out. I hove only checked out the noob portion of the forum, not the more advanced topic sub forums.

Thanks for the lead either way!

sirgonzo420

21st March 2012, 07:18 AM

palani

21st March 2012, 07:51 AM

Are you telling my my fine is an "instrument"? So how and who would I show that they are responsible to provide the remedy?

If a vacuum sweeper salesman shows up at your door and manages to convince you to shell out some shekels for his product you have 72 hours to reverse your decision. Same is true with roadside chats with coppicemen. Sign whatever they want you to sign ... whether under duress or, my favorite, R. vi Et Armis ... the king under force and arms... and then abate the nuisance within that 72 hour grace period while far downrange.

Smile the whole time. Chat it up. Offer him a donut (don't have any? carry coupons or gift cards). Be sociable and leave the attitude for later. Ask him if he had training in the use of that weapon on his hip (settles the fact that he is a trained assassin). After all, he is only there as part of the benefit you agreed to.

Awoke

21st March 2012, 08:00 AM

Sign whatever they want you to sign ... whether under duress or, my favorite, R. vi Et Armis ... the king under force and arms... and then abate the nuisance within that 72 hour grace period while far downrange.

Funny you mention that. Since you mentioned the R. vi Et Armis signature, I have made a mental note of it, and I was going to sign the ticket with my "Name" and use the R. vi Et Armis as the suffix.
So if my name was Bob Rae, I would have signed it as "Bob Rae R vi Et Armis"

However, I didn't sign anything. He just handed me a ticket. It was a computer-printed slip, really.

palani

21st March 2012, 08:05 AM

So if my name was Bob Rae, I would have signed it as "Bob Rae R vi Et Armis"

They tend to read things when a signature is too long. Otherwise they don't even glance at it.

Also, many people err in providing an autograph when a signature is asked for. The first is your property. The latter is a copy.

And the coppiceman is usually diligent in making sure you get the COPY of the instrument. Presumably that makes him holder in due course (for all that is worth until you cancel it).

Awoke

21st March 2012, 09:09 AM

Also, many people err in providing an autograph when a signature is asked for. The first is your property. The latter is a copy.
Can you elaborate on that please?

palani

21st March 2012, 10:03 AM

Can you elaborate on that please?

Hopefully this is sufficiently elaborate:

SIGNATURE, pract. contr. By signature is understood the act of putting down

a man's name, at the end of an instrument, to attest its validity. The name

thus written is also called a signature.

2. It is not necessary that a party should write his name himself, to

constitute a signature; his mark is now held sufficient though he was able

to write. 8 Ad. & El. 94; 3 N. & Per. 228; 3 Curt. 752; 5 John. 144, A

signature made by a party, another person guiding his band with his consent,

is sufficient. 4 Wash. C. C. 262, 269. Vide to Sign.

SIGN, contracts, evidence. A token of anything; a note or token given

without words.

2. Contracts are express or implied. The express are manifested viva

voce, or by writing; the implied are shown by silence, by acts, or by signs.

3. Among all nations find and at all times, certain signs have been

considered as proof of assent or dissent; for example, the nodding of the

head, and the shaking of hands; 2 Bl. Com. 448; 6 Toull. D. 33; Heinnec.,

Antiq. lib. 3, t. 23, n. 19; silence and inaction, facts and signs are

sometimes very strong evidence of cool reflection, when following a

question. I ask you to lend me one hundred dollars, without saying a word

you put your hand in your pocket, and deliver me the money. I go into a

hotel and I ask the landlord if he can accommodate me and take care of my

trunk; without speaking he takes it out of my hands and sends it into his

chamber. By this act he doubtless becomes responsible to me as a bailee. At

the expiration of a lease, the tenant remains in possession, without any

objection from the landlord; this may be fairly interpreted as a sign of a

consent that the lease shall be renewed. 13 Serg. & Rawle, 60.

4, The learned author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, in

his 44th chapter, remarks, "Among savage nations, the want of letters is

imperfectly supplied by the use of visible signs, which awaken attention,

and perpetuate the remembrance of any public or private transaction. The

jurisprudence of the first Romans exhibited the scenes of a pantomime; the

words were adapted to the gestures, and the slightest error or neglect in

the forms of proceeding was sufficient to annul the substance of the fairest

claim. The communion of the marriage-life was denoted by the necessary

elements of fire and water: and the divorced wife resigned, the bunch of

keys, by the delivery of which she had been invested with the government of

the family. The manumission of a son, or a slave, was performed by turning

him round with a gentle blow on the cheek: a work was prohibited by the

casting of a stone; prescription was interrupted by the breaking of a

branch; the clenched fist was the symbol of a pledge or deposits; the right

hand was the gift of faith and confidence. The indenture of covenants was a

broken straw; weights and, scales were introduced into every payment, and

the heir who accepted a testament, was sometimes obliged to snap his

fingers, to cast away his garments, and to leap and dance with real or

affected transport. If a citizen pursued any stolen goods into a neighbor's

house, he concealed his nakedness with a linen towel, and hid his. face with

a mask or basin, lest he should encounter the eyes of a virgin or a matron.

In a civil action, the plaintiff touched the ear of his witness seized his

reluctant adversary by the neck and implored, in solemn lamentation, the aid

of his fellow citizens. The two competitors grasped each other's hand, as if

they stood prepared for combat before the tribunal of the praetor: he

commanded them to produce the object of the dispute; they went, they

returned with measured steps, and a clod of earth was cast at his feet to

represent the field for which they contended. This occult science of the

words and actions of law, was the inheritance of the pontiffs and

patricians. Like the Chaldean astrologers, they announced to their clients

the days of business and repose; these important trifles wore interwoven

with the religion of Numa; and, after the publication of the Twelve Tables,

the Roman people were still enslaved by the ignorance of judicial

proceedings. The treachery of some plebeian officers at length revealed the

profitable mystery: in a more enlightened age, the legal actions were

derided and observed; and the same antiquity which sanctified the practice,

obliterated the use and meaning, of this primitive language."

Copyright

Under British law, the appearance of signatures (not the names themselves) may be protected under copyright law.[5]

Under United States Copyright Law, "titles, names [...]; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" are not eligible for copyright;[6] however, the appearance of signatures (not the names themselves) may be protected under copyright law.[7] It has been deemed illegal to publish signatures[clarification needed] in Canada.

Signature. The act of putting down a man's name at the end of an instrument to attest its validity, the name thus written. A "signature" may be written by hand, printed, stamped, typewritten, engraved, photgrpahed, or cut from one instrument and attached to another, and a signature lithographed on an instrument by a party is sufficient for the purpose of signing it; it being immaterial with what kind of instrument a signature is made. Smith v. Greenville County, 188 S.C. 349, 199 S.E. 416, 419. Maricopa County v. Osborn, 60 Ariz. 290, 136 P.2d 270, 274. And whatever mark, symbol, or device one may choose to employ as representative of himself is sufficient, Griffith v. Bonawitz, 73 Neb. 622, 103 N.W. 327, 339

AUTOGRAPH. One's handwriting.

under the heading "sign" ... The word "subscribed" is more restricted than the word "signature". The word "signature" in its origin involves merely a sign, the word "subscribed" involves a writing. The signing of a written instrument has a much broader and more extended meaning than attaching one's written signature to it implies. When a person attaches his name or causes it to be attached to a writing by any of the known methods of impressing his name upon paper with the intention of signing it he is regarded as having "signed" in writing. Hagen v. Gresby, 34 N.D. 349, 159 N.W. 3,5, L.R.A. 1917B, 281

Glass

23rd March 2012, 12:32 AM

My first impressions are that the forum is heavily moderated by Mods that abitrarily ban whomever they decide they don't like. Not necessarily only agents/trolls either.
After learning how to school trolls on GIM and here, I was really surprised to see members getting banned for simply disagreeing with a theme. They need thicker skin over there. Not too much freedom for a forum based on free and living men.

But I will continue to check it out. I hove only checked out the noob portion of the forum, not the more advanced topic sub forums.

Thanks for the lead either way!

I haven't really got caught up in forum politics. I prefer just to read and agree with people I agree with. I don't like to openly disagree with people. It creates controversy. It's best to go about your business and let others mind theirs IMO.

I did have some disappointment that after 3 years a lot of people have made little progress there. I also thought there were one or two moderators who were anti freeman information. Seemed like it had become hijacked like the suijuris web sites and GIM1 & 2. Same kind of infiltration. I don't think it's anywhere near as bad though.

There is good research there. I assume you have looked at the CoR stuff? Seen Menards CoR? Made one up yourself?

a CoR is simply the re-writing of your contract with the organisation calling itself the Govt. Hatha just poked the Strawman thread where I mentioned contracts based on palani's post to you in this thread. Contracts occur explicitly and implicitly. Often a contract comes in to existance by aquiescence. If you send a CoR, chances are you will get no response. This is good. This is aquiescence.

Glass

23rd March 2012, 12:33 AM

How do we abate please palani?

palani

23rd March 2012, 04:46 AM

How do we abate please palani?

The topic is well covered here http://usa-the-republic.com/abatements/Abate_0.pdf

Another source is ticketslayer.com ... but they charge for their documents .. and no longer call it an abatement.

Another alternative is administrative procedure. Whatever agency you want to engage in a contract with you send them NOTICE (the initial phase of due process) and give them an opportunity to respond. After a period of time (a week, 10 days) if no response is received you send them a FAULT letter. Wait a bit more and if no response you send them a DEFAULT letter. Do these registered mail. Use the registered number in the body of the letter. At the end of this procedure you can claim they engaged you in a contract by their silence.

These sort of things must be performed timely within 72 hours of the event that caused the affair. So best have the procedure down pat rather than waiting to learn it when you need to.

sirgonzo420

23rd March 2012, 05:24 AM

The topic is well covered here http://usa-the-republic.com/abatements/Abate_0.pdf

Another source is ticketslayer.com ... but they charge for their documents .. and no longer call it an abatement.

Another alternative is administrative procedure. Whatever agency you want to engage in a contract with you send them NOTICE (the initial phase of due process) and give them an opportunity to respond. After a period of time (a week, 10 days) if no response is received you send them a FAULT letter. Wait a bit more and if no response you send them a DEFAULT letter. Do these registered mail. Use the registered number in the body of the letter. At the end of this procedure you can claim they engaged you in a contract by their silence.

These sort of things must be performed timely within 72 hours of the event that caused the affair. So best have the procedure down pat rather than waiting to learn it when you need to.

I believe that I have ticketslayer-type documents on one of my computers or drives somewhere. I'll search and post them. It's the "common law default" system.

Rubberchicken

23rd March 2012, 11:45 AM

Isn't it great to live in a society where the penalty for lying to a congressman can be up to 30 years in jail, but the penalty for a congressman lying to you is another two years in office

JDRock

23rd March 2012, 04:57 PM

Isn't it great to live in a society where the penalty for lying to a congressman can be up to 30 years in jail, but the penalty for a congressman lying to you is another two years in office
nicely done....

Awoke

26th March 2012, 06:28 AM

I haven't really got caught up in forum politics. I prefer just to read and agree with people I agree with. I don't like to openly disagree with people. It creates controversy. It's best to go about your business and let others mind theirs IMO.

I am not a member and I don't post there, I only read, so I don't get caught up in the forum politics there either. Be seeing how the threads go, with quick bans being handed out on people who question certain members, definately makes me think I will never be an active poster there. Just a lurker.

I did have some disappointment that after 3 years a lot of people have made little progress there.

Under the "Help... I need help" subforum, there is a really interesting thread about Freeman Terry getting illegally arrested. He got a traffic infraction, pulled out is CoR, etc, and was drug through the court system. I was riveted to that thread, and read the progress/drama as he worked through the system, hoping to get some closure, but he just stopped posting in the thread, even after Menard said he had some help/direction for him.
So I don't know if there was victory or defeat, and to be honest, I was extremely disappointed that the author never went in with an update, to clarify that the courts recognized his freeman status or not. He is a Canadian as well, so it was of special interest to me.

There is good research there. I assume you have looked at the CoR stuff? Seen Menards CoR? Made one up yourself?

a CoR is simply the re-writing of your contract with the organisation calling itself the Govt.

Haven't had time to looking into it in detail, just reading the term in random threads. Can you link me to a concise summary?

palani

26th March 2012, 07:22 AM

He is a Canadian as well

Canada is a federation of independent states, as is the U.S., Mexico, U.K., E.U. and the Swiss Federation.

Identifying oneself as a Canadian is analogous to id'ing onself as a U.S. citizen. It eliminates all these "freemen" concepts and puts one directly under the thumb of whatever "law" is thrown at you. He lost before he went in. All he had was argument and that puts one in dishonor (unless one has a BAR license to argue for pay).

Awoke

26th March 2012, 07:35 AM

Canada is a federation of independent states, as is the U.S., Mexico, U.K., E.U. and the Swiss Federation.

Identifying oneself as a Canadian is analogous to id'ing onself as a U.S. citizen. It eliminates all these "freemen" concepts and puts one directly under the thumb of whatever "law" is thrown at you. He lost before he went in. All he had was argument and that puts one in dishonor (unless one has a BAR license to argue for pay).

He never idetified himself as a "Canadian", I did.

Now then, let's cut the shit and get right too it them. The concept of being a "free" man, a man created by the creator, in the image of God, is good.

My stumbling block is this: The Freeman movement and sovereign movement seem to be stuck on "Organic laws" and older documentation such as the Magna Carta, etc.

WHY?

If you are a "Free man", and recognise God as the absolute authority, what makes referenceing the Magna Carta any more legit than submitting to the Patriot act? As a free, flesh and blood man, what would ANY man-made, man-drafted document have to say that could make the law of God subordinate?

This movement is good, in the sense that people are asserting their right to live unencumbered, but so far I have not found one victory over teh corrupt system that is in place today.

I was reasearching Terry Nicholas Bouffard's name, trying to find out the final outcome, and ran into this WIki called "rationalwiki". Obviously written by a statist, and extremely sceptical of the movement, but the proof is in the pudding, and so far I haven't found any freedom pudding.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land

Pay special attention to the statmen on Menard, which leads to footnote #15, 16 and 17, under the title "How it works (or not)".

Awoke

26th March 2012, 07:48 AM

This was interesting too.

Freeman failures

Despite the numerous failed attempts to use freeman legal methods, freemen will always insist that they do work, even clinging to this delusion when arrested and thrown in the cells. Below are some examples.

Judge challenged to produce oath by man disputing summons. (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0811/1224302232246.html) Full panoply of Freeman delusion on display here, down to Black's Legal Dictionary being produced in court. End result: conviction, and when The FreeMan Bobby of the Family Sludds wanted to appeal—"I can’t accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can’t be verified," the Judge said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.
Two men are arrested and charged with growing cannabis. (http://news.scotsman.com/glasgow/Freemen-are-told-they-will.6676742.jp) They claim to be "freemen on the land", but the courts state that they have "no personal circumstances applying to them which affords immunity to prosecution", that there was "no legal significance" to the term "freeman on the land" and that they would be tried anyway.
Freeman Mark of the family Bond gets arrested (http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/norwich_court_case_posted_on_youtube_1_751533) (more (http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/norfolk_man_s_dramatic_stand_off_over_unpaid_counc il_tax_1_745837)) after refusing to recognise the court and giving police his notice of intent. He gets a suspended 3 month jail sentence anyway, on condition that he pays off his debt
Freeman "Brian-arthur: alexander" tries to get out of speeding (http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/20101224/KAMLOOPS0101/312249983/-1/KAMLOOPS01/kamloops-freeman-says-laws-do-not-apply-to-him) by telling a judge the law doesn't apply to him. The judge disagrees and the police suggest further charges of obstruction and mischief for his freeman shenanigans.
Mika Rasila gets stopped by the police for not having a licence plate. (http://news.nationalpost.com/tag/mike-rasila/) He tells them that he doesn't consent to their laws and that he isn't an employee of the "corporation of Canada". It doesn't work and they arrest him and impound his van. A judge later gives him a fine of $1,250.
Freeman Darren Pollard gets arrested (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww-rAeNElj4&feature=player_embedded) despite telling the police officer he doesn't consent or contract. Not surprisingly it fails and they take him into custody anyway
Darren Pollard gets arrested again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5TeBpsOTE4&feature=related) after refusing to appear in court despite trying to claim that he was "Darren of the family Pollard" and not the legal fiction of Darren Pollard they were looking for.
Freewoman Mary Gye recollects her account of being arrested for not having road tax or car insurance and having her "conveyance" impounded. (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80419&page=5)img (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Capture_76f9da8d41350b3cb3e2ddd94738909fa04d8 cb2.png) This in spite of all the freeman woo she tried. She was later sentenced to 14 days in HMP Styal women's prison for criminal contempt when she brought a tape recorder into a court hearing over nonpayment of council tax.[37] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land#cite_note-36)
Freeman Ben Lowrey is arrested (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTicurNEEOQ) for driving a motorcycle without registration, insurance, MOT or a crash helmet. Subsequently fined £500.
New Hampshire resident Ian Freeman (AKA Ian Bernard) arrested, tried and jailed for 93 days (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlcT-3niVes) for dumping a couch. Within seconds of his trial commencing, he was rearrested and hand-cuffed for refusing to sit down when asked. He has since attempted using the freeman woo while defending a parking ticket. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6IS-edTEH4&feature=related)
James-Michael: Tesi arrested. (http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/21/3238352/man-in-sovereign-citizen-group.html) After refusing to pay a fine for not wearing a seatbelt, he flooded the court with woo-woo documents basically refusing to pay. The court ignored this, and issued an arrest warrant. A police officer pulled him over, which resulted in gunfire and Tesi being wounded.
A Freewoman attempts to use the entire panoply of freeman woo to deny a court's jurisdiction in child custody proceedings. (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/B15.html) She was sentenced to nine months for contempt.
A person is a "person" (http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100618/bc_legal_person_case_100618/20100618), a Canadian judge rules, after freeman[38] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land#cite_note-37) David Kevin Lindsay tries to get out of paying tax by asserting otherwise. Lindsay has also been designated a vexatious litigant.[39] (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land#cite_note-38) (Whether entering into litigation counts as consent to said laws is not clarified.)
Star: Hills' house is foreclosed upon (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/caedce/1:2010cv01871/215063/7/) when her attempts to just stop paying her mortgage fail, and even her fee schedules (http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=149145)img (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/File:Capture_ee4cdf1f8e4f2e7a854c4df94c4ab8c7f7bfb c96.png) don't work. Despite having bought the entire $250 package from Robert Menard.

Awoke

27th March 2012, 04:56 AM

My stumbling block is this: The Freeman movement and sovereign movement seem to be stuck on "Organic laws" and older documentation such as the Magna Carta, etc.

WHY?

If you are a "Free man", and recognise God as the absolute authority, what makes referenceing the Magna Carta any more legit than submitting to the Patriot act? As a free, flesh and blood man, what would ANY man-made, man-drafted document have to say that could make the law of God subordinate?

No takers?

Book

27th March 2012, 10:17 AM

Now then, let's cut the shit and get right too it...the law of God

http://mattstone.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bffb053ef0133f53b72a6970b-800wi

::) "law" according to Charlton Heston in that jew hollywood movie?

Awoke

27th March 2012, 11:38 AM

Another non-contribution from the local Nambla rep.

No, jew, I follow the laws that God wrote on our hearts; the ones Jesus reminded us of. You wouldn't know anything about it.

dys

27th March 2012, 02:55 PM

I believe that a lot of the freeman/sovereign stuff has been sabotaged and/or is led by the enemy. Just like everything else, of course, but in this case using this stuff in practice can land a man in jail very easily....rendering the threat of the particular man effete or considerably diminished. I've tried some of this stuff, I speak from experience.
That is not to say that there is no value or no truth to a great deal of it. As I've said in a previous thread, one guy I would recommend is Marc Stevens (he doesn't call himself a sovereign/freeman, though).

dys

palani

27th March 2012, 03:18 PM

If you are a "Free man", and recognise God as the absolute authority, what makes referenceing the Magna Carta any more legit than submitting to the Patriot act?

THE law of nations is a system of rules, deducible by natural REASON, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world

Of course you can cite the Magna Carta or the Patriot Act, in part or in whole, as long as the passages cited support REASON. With REASON you take it where you find it. The communist manifesto or mein kampf might include REASON as well (and most probably do), in part, until the REASON that is found is canceled by another REASON. When the REASON is gone the Law associated with that REASON also evaporates.... poof ... GONE!!!

palani

27th March 2012, 03:18 PM

As I've said in a previous thread, one guy I would recommend is Marc Stevens (he doesn't call himself a sovereign/freeman, though).

I don't either. I am palani.

Glass

27th March 2012, 06:42 PM

This was interesting too.

[/LIST]

I've seen the list and been through several of the cases. Why there is disappointment in reading the list, in some cases you can see where problems have arisen. Many of the penalties are for things like contempt.

If you are in a controversy you have an honour/dishonour issue. Contempt is not a charge against the claims of a sovereign or freeman, it is against behaviour in someone elses jurisdiction.

I've mentioned before that a lot of people get caught up in a kind of ephoria when they hear about sovereign freeman information. A lot go off half cocked without understanding what it is they have discovered and they jump right in.

This is not a game. This is deadly combat. In fact courts replace deadly combat as an avenue to resolve controversies. The stakes are very high and the house decides the rules. The best instruction I have heard is from Winston Shrout. You don't want to be arguing in court and you don't want to be the Defendant in court. You will lose. You want to be the Plaintiff only. Depending on the situation at hand it might be possible to call in co-defendants to divert or dilute the force being brought to bare against you if your are the defendant.

The govt will abandon a claim if it looks like they are going to lose so there is no record of the counter party's success.

Glass

4th April 2012, 05:13 AM

The book is: The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty; in three parts. John E. Hall Esq 1809

I have been reading this book with more focus this time. It is extremely interesting where it describes in detail the process that is adhered to with these courts. If you have spent any time spectating in a court, and I recommend every one do this, magistrates or county court, you will see what is described by Hall as occuring in these courts. It helps to know what you are looking for.

Here is a electronic copy of the book at google. You can download it from here by clicking on the cog icon (http://www.google.com.au/books?id=x3M9AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false).

This was written a long time ago which the language shows.

If I recall from my Jean Keating studies the Hall book reveals that admiralty (including maritime and commerce) is all about who has the best bond. Whoever's bond is the highest rated wins.

I tend to stay away from debtor and creditor concepts as these deal with money. Once you remove the money issue these notions morph into honor and dishonor. Before you can become comfortable dealing with society in all its possible combinations and permutations of relationships it is necessary to study these concepts so that you can reject them timely (or else dishonor follows).

the point on Bonds is true. You must have a bond when you go into court. If you do not you post yourself as surety. This is a key point in Winston Shrouts material. You have to have a bond regardless of what party you are or you could end up in the slammer.

Should you check that other parties are bonded or can you assume they are appearing with Bond? You have 3 parties. Not the correct number of parties but that's what you have. 2 lawyers and a defendant if you are called as defendant. It should be 2 judges, a defendant and a lawyer.

palani

4th April 2012, 05:32 AM

Should you check that other parties are bonded or can you assume they are appearing with Bond?

If you have a question on this why not ask the judge to order the other party to produce theirs?