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.

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

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".

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

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.

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.

It was so good the board decided to post it twice