A Lawyer Disbarred For Digging Too Deeply

from the US Treasury website:

Quote:

---

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 (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 (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.

---

Attachment 2495

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

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

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.

---

1. Rights can not be taken or even given away.
2. The purpose of government is to secure rights.

ANY violation of either of these tenets is indicative of criminal behaviour.

Remember, the bad guys always try to complicate the simple.
Kind of similar to the gospel of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.

dys

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

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.

---

Yes. A living man can have a person. A person is alegal fiction (created for the purposes of conducting commerce. It is a vehicle or vassal/vessel). A corportation is a legal fiction also. They are both part of the same set/type of entities. In Australia you can have a sole trader. This is another label for person.

Who is the person. Some or most men and women think they are the person. That they are one and the same. We know they are not. You need to inform the Govt that you know you are not. You might have to repeat yourself from time to time or at least demonstrate to them that you have already alerted them to this fact and they have accepted, by aquiesence. As I said earlier you learn when to use on and when not to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Libertytree

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.

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.

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.

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.

Best thread in a long time. Thanks.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

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!

---

here are a couple more forums to check out...

There have been some great sui juris forums online, but I have lived through the demise of at least three of them.

Here are a couple decent ones that sprung from the ashes:

http://www.savingtosuitorsclub.net/index.php

http://www.suijurisforum.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palani

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palani

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

Can you elaborate on that please?

---

Hopefully this is sufficiently elaborate:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bouvier

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bouvier

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."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black's 4th

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black's 4th

AUTOGRAPH. One's handwriting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black's 4th

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

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.

How do we abate please palani?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rubberchicken

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palani

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)".

This was interesting too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rationalwiki

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. 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. 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 (more) 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 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. 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 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 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.img 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]
• Freeman Ben Lowrey is arrested 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 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.
• James-Michael: Tesi arrested. 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. She was sentenced to nine months for contempt.
• A person is a "person", a Canadian judge rules, after freeman[38] David Kevin Lindsay tries to get out of paying tax by asserting otherwise. Lindsay has also been designated a vexatious litigant.[39] (Whether entering into litigation counts as consent to said laws is not clarified.)
• Star: Hills' house is foreclosed upon when her attempts to just stop paying her mortgage fail, and even her fee schedulesimg don't work. Despite having bought the entire $250 package from Robert Menard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

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

---

http://mattstone.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8...72a6970b-800wi

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackstone

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!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dys

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Awoke

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palani

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glass

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?