UK- Freeman on the land wins court case.

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
The did demonstrate that there were some irregularities in procedings at the very least.

Everyone needs to learn about this and beat them within their own system.

People just do not understand that THEY blindly give consent using this almost hidden language.

This could be the basis of the real revolution. Great video.




posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
How? Why? What magic thing is it about the law that every opportunistic lawyer who wants to be a billionaire has somehow missed?

Please don't tell me that lawyers "all know" and close ranks because this is not the case. Trusts exist because lawyers put a lot of time and effort into screwing the monarch out of money and power. If we can do it again and make a fortune in the process, we will



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


Good question, Sherlock and that I am unable to answer, unfortunately.

As I stated, I am fairly new to all this Freeman stuff. I have long felt that we lived in a corporatocracy from the evidence I have seen around me, but had no "real" evidence so to speak, but researching into the freeman subject has led me to evidence that the courts of most western countries have been highjacked and corporatised and corporate law only does apply to you if you consent to contract them them, and it seems that the language of the corporate courts is not the same language that you and I speak. As a result, we unwittingly and unknowingly enter into contract and acceptance.



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sceptical me...researching into the freeman subject has led me to evidence that the courts of most western countries have been highjacked and corporatised...


Would you be happy to share some of your research? I would be interested in the sources and your thoughts on them?


Originally posted by sceptical me...corporate law only does apply to you if you consent to contract...

This is largely accurate, though it also depends on who you mean when you say "you".



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvillerBob

Originally posted by sceptical me...researching into the freeman subject has led me to evidence that the courts of most western countries have been highjacked and corporatised...


Would you be happy to share some of your research? I would be interested in the sources and your thoughts on them?

Unfortunately I am not only my own computer at the moment so cannot supply links to my research. There is such a mountain of information out there and much is contradictary. However, many threads on here and on other sites such as GLP have a great deal of legal (and lawful, there is a major difference) information to dredge through. As for whether a freeman can assume control of charges and dismiss a case, I'm not sure on that one, but another tactic is to refuse to consent and not give them jurisdiction. This sort of obfuscation will likeley delay the case until the common law statutes of limitation expires, as I understand it. But then again, they have a way of getting around this by trying you in absentia. In this case the you in question is still your strawman and not you the man or woman. If this happens you, as a man or woman, not person (legal fiction) or human being (monster, see Black's law dictionary) should appeal the case.


Originally posted by sceptical me...corporate law only does apply to you if you consent to contract...

This is largely accurate, though it also depends on who you mean when you say "you".


see above
edit on 4-10-2010 by sceptical me because: avoiding spelling nazis
edit on 4-10-2010 by sceptical me because: see above



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sceptical me
As I stated, I am fairly new to all this Freeman stuff. I have long felt that we lived in a corporatocracy from the evidence I have seen around me, but had no "real" evidence so to speak, but researching into the freeman subject has led me to evidence that the courts of most western countries have been highjacked and corporatised and corporate law only does apply to you if you consent to contract them them, and it seems that the language of the corporate courts is not the same language that you and I speak. As a result, we unwittingly and unknowingly enter into contract and acceptance.


I once entertained the thought that this ''freeman'' scenario may be actually achievable, but my thoughts were tempered when I researched this subject more thoroughly.

It's not so much that I discount the possibility of attaining ''freeman'' status, it's just that this discussion has been around for at least 10 years, so something would surely have come of it by now.


I agree that the courts are a corporate venture that help to subsidise the State's coffers, but I personally believe that the State, government and courts are one and the same....

If you want to overthrow the system, then you've got to get rid of the whole bloomin' lot of 'em !

Sadly, it'll never happen.



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


I'm still sitting on the fence as to whether it will work or not. The fact that the FBI has listed sovereigns as terrorists suggests that TPTB are afraid of the movement, perhaps primarily because they are losing their control over them.

I think if we could revert to common law only, then we would have a better society. In many ways I agree with you that perhaps the only way to change things is to overthrow the system, but that is one heck of a task when you consider that corporate law controls every aspect of our lives. Maybe this is why so many people crave doom!



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
It would also be very useful for people to confirm their jurisdiction if they are comfortable to do that. I can only speak for the laws of England and Wales; these arguments may have much more validity in other jurisdictions so I could not really comment.

Remember, by the time the US was founded, the concept (and implications) of "freeman" had already changed considerably from when the Bill of Rights was originally written. I think this is the basis of many misunderstandings.



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
It was so good the board decided to post it twice
edit on 4-10-2010 by EvillerBob because: Double post



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by loner007
To clarify he still owes the council money. The Baliff has now been given the debt. The Baliff has limited powers in which when they knock at the door you dont have to answer it. After a certain time as long as they never got into your place of living they will send the bill back to the council who will then can send the unpaid bill to the courts and ask for a jail sentence to be imposed.

[edit on 5/8/2010 by loner007]


No, he doesn't. The "person" that has similar name (but all capitals, and usually last name first) may owe something, but a living, human being doesn't, unless he consents to being governed by a system that can force him to owe that money.

People have been using wrong terminology here. Legal system and Law are two completely different concepts. Common Law has nothing to do with the legal system.

Common Law applies to everyone, Legal system only applies to those who have specifically consented to being governed by it (by performing a joinder between 'strawman'/'person' and him/herself, for example).

It's not a loophole, it's the very BASIS of humans living together on the same planet. Just because a crooked system was created afterwards, and then people were duped to consent being governed by it, doesn't mean that Common Law, the foundation, goes away. It's not just a term for some legal crap - it's The Law that everyone must obey - and the ONLY Law that everyone must obey (besides physical laws and cosmic laws of course).

Legal system is a fraud imposed on clueless people who gladly gave their consent. But you can withdraw your consent, you can stop performing joinders, and you can free yourself of the legal system.

No court, police or other humans or their systems have ANY authority over you, unless you have broken the Law. Common Law. Law of the Land. They will try to make you form contracts with them by all kinds of verbal and written tricks, and it's very easy to fall into one of their clever traps. But no one can order a sovereign / freeman around, if he/she hasn't broken the Law.

If you don't perform joinders, and know what you are doing, you have absolutely no obligation to obey them or pay them any taxes, fines, or any of that legal stuff. Even if they can prove that the "person" is obliged to obey them, it doesn't mean you are.

As far as it making legal sense - it doesn't have to make legal sense. It only has to make LAWFUL sense. There is a huge difference.

Lawfully, no one can force a freeman to pay anything, unless he/she has consented to paying, made a contract which he/she has to honor, or has broken the Law. Unlawfully, anything is possible, of course.. someone can come and threaten to break your bones if you don't pay, et cetera. But that is certainly not lawful activity.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Forgot to mention - they of course use the word "law" in everything, so it confuses things. An ACT or STATUTE can be named "Motor Vehicle Law", for example (this is from the top of my head, I don't really know if such a statute exists). Or in other languages they might say "Law about Renting of an Apartment".

It's like calling a dog a 'cat'. It doesn't change anything - it doesn't suddenly change an ACT or STATUTE into law. Just because it has the word "law" as it's name, doesn't make it a law. Law books are not really law books, they are acts/statute books, that have the word "law" incorporated a lot.

Only Common Law is law - the rest is just acts and statutes - like corporate rules that you only have to obey if you have signed to work for the corporation (and thus given consent to being governed by those rules).

"Law of England" (or whatever country) is really "Act/Statute collection of corporate system of England" (or whatever country).

Just the same way as "Bank of England" is actually privately owned - it has nothing to do with England, except it's name! Federal Reserve is also privately owned - it's not federal at all! But a name dupes the masses...

They are really cruel and tricky bastards, but the reason why they succeeded was that people were not alert, and people were really stupid and didn't check things out.

In any case, there should be more information here:

yourstrawman.com...

and I recommend everyone here watches this 5-minute clip that explains the basics in a humorous, vintage-style:

www.youtube.com...

It's an interesting world we live in .. almost nothing is as it seems, or as people think it to be. Investigating and researching can be shocking, but it is also empowering. When you know where authority really comes from and why, and who has authority over who and why, you can really make some wise decisions in your life, and no one can keep you down endlessly with any bureaucratic bullshít anymore!





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join