It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Freeman In Court - Judge Bows to Sovereign. Canada.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:52 AM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Thank you for your reply JPZ! It's always a pleasure to see you post!

In your post you cited a case that, upon scanning, did not seem to me to relate to the issue of cases defended, successfully or otherwise, upon the merits of a sovereign citizen defense.

While I do understand that court documents can be difficult to find upon the Internet, I feel that it is a reasonable assumption that the sites which promote the sovereign citizen movement would have testimonials, or similar, from people who have successfully utilized these arguments.

If such testimonials exist I would be very interested in reading them as they, obviously, would carry a great deal of import to anyone living in the western world. These would be very strong tools, indeed, for finding remedy to a variety of legal situations.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:01 AM
reply to post by Hefficide

If you are referring to the Chalmers case, you are correct, it is not a sovereignty argument, nor was I arguing sovereignty when I went into my preliminary hearing for selling DVD's. I was cited with violating 42(b) of the LAMC, which prohibits street vendors from selling their wares in public in Los Angeles. I challenged the jurisdiction of this ordinance, and when the judge, who seemed to enjoy my presence greatly, wasn't satisfied with the Declaration of Rights I relied upon from the California State Constitution - although he wasn't dissatisfied either - I then relied upon Chalmers v Los Angeles, and this combined with the Declaration of Rights was enough to convince him to dismiss. Of course, I was asking he strike the ordinance down as unlawful, but he wasn't inclined to do so and told me he would dismiss and I could take it or leave it. I took the dismissal and counted it as a win.


It's always nice to see your posts too, and belated congratulations to you as well.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:16 AM
Just signed up do the free rebals web site to ask them to come over and shed some light on the topic for us just waiting for an email

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 09:15 AM
reply to post by Aliensun

I know, some of you are sill under the impression that you are slaves to a criminal justice system. Oh, yes, the court know all about what a Sovereign is, they are Sovereign, and they know all about the Common Law, it is the law of their society, the Law Society. I once cost a County in Indiana $10,000 for being in violation of my rights as a citizen, and I too have had cases thrown out. It is all about knowing who you are, who that are, and being strong enough to stand on your own two feet. I have said these things before in here, all I get is, "show proof, show case files, we do not believe you." I am left to wonder if even one of them typed "Common Law"
into a search engine and did some reading. I'll even bet if those persons get a traffic ticket that either hand heads and pay through the nose, or hire a lawyer.
Know the Law, or be a victim of the Law. My hat is off to the guy in the video. He knows how he is, anyway.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:36 AM
Perhaps I don't understand but what I saw on the video. What i saw was the judge taking a recess. The person addressing the judge then declares that he is done.

Personally, I don't think that the judge or the state was done. I think that there would have been followup by the state.

To me, this freeman stuff is nonsense. If you live in a country, I don't believe that you can declare yourself exempt from the rule of law for that country.

The person in the video had received a traffic ticket of some sort. The car was clearly registered to a person. So the person is using the laws of the land to own and/or register his car. I'd be willing to bet that the freeman shown in the video also using the standard currency of the country that he lives in. If he goes out to lunch, I doubt that anyone is going to accept any other form of payment.

To me, this isn't much different than many of the tax protester movements that claim you don't have to pay tax and then give some reason.

The reason I compare these types of movements is that if you have assets, you put those assets at risk when you try this type of argument. Try not paying you taxes and at some point you're going to find a local marshal evicting you from your property and the property auctioned off while you rest in jail.

Try not registering your car and see how long you get to keep it.

Try not providing a license to a police officer when you get legally pulled over and see how it turns out. I'm pretty sure that you'll be in the back of a squad car heading for jail when you realize your freeman arguments didn't seem to carry much weight with the police.

To me this freeman movement seems like nonsense!
edit on 26-1-2011 by Wildbob77 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 11:45 AM
I searched the freeman movement on google and came up with this link to the Montana movement.

What happens when you try this

Once again, if you have assets don't try this. You'll lose!

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:46 PM
reply to post by Wildbob77

OK, I will attempt to explain this concept to you. Say you get a traffic ticket for speeding. did you break a law? No, you committed an infraction. When you accepted your Driver's License, and signed it, you signed a contract. Your State, I assume yo live in America, your state is a Corporation, as is your government, and even your city. Very few Villages are still just a village, most have incorporated. what do corporation do? They are in the business of making money.

So you go to court over your traffic ticket. What kind of court are you in? Remember, you broke no law. You are in a Criminal Court. Are you a criminal for speeding? Used to be, in my own memory, we had a Justice of the Peace who heard traffic cases and civil disputes. So here you are in a criminal court. If you hired an attorney to represent you, remember, he or she is a member of the BAR, and of the Law Society, and an Officer of the Court, and you are not. Take a good look at the American flag hanging there. does it have a gold fringe? then you are actually in a military Tribunal. Stop here and read the following article:

Now you have a Right to question your accuser. Know this is in the Constitution.

Here is the way the 6th Amendment reads

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Alright, that being said, that traffic cop used a Radar Device to catch you speeding.
Can you question an electronic device? NO! I'll tell you a few other things here too. According the manufacturers of these radar devices, they are to be installed, and calibrated by a "qualified technician." Also, a current FCC License is required to operate the device. So before you even go to court, go to the office of the police officer who issued the ticket and ask to see the FCC license. It must be posted in a conspicuous place, and must be current. My own daughter beat a speeding ticket once because the FCC license was out of date. she simply showed a photo of the license to the Judge, case dismissed. Anyway, put the cop on the stand. Ask them "who installed the device in your car?" I have did this 6 times, and each time the officer will say he installed it, cities and counties do not have the cash to have them installed by a tech, and also, the units are supposed to be re-calibrated every 30 days, riding in a car throws them off. Again, this is never performed. Most radar guns need to be re-calibrated every 30-60 days, and due to ignorance, lack of funding, or laziness, they rarely are. One solid argument for your case is to prove that the measurement device is faulty. In some states the officer must check the calibration after issuing the ticket - usually by using two tuning forks held in front of the radar, which vibrate at the frequencies for 35 mph and 55 mph. Verify whether this was done and documented.

Ask the cop from where his authority lies, who give him the authority to pull you over and charge you? They always answer, "From the State." Well, the State is an Act of Congress, not a piece of land.

Being a Freeman on the Land does not, repeat not, place you above the Law. Do not ever forget this. No body is above the Law, not even a Judge. Not even the President. What it does do is place you above Corporate Rule. That is what a Statute is...
Definition of STATUTE
1: a law enacted by the legislative branch of a government
2: an act of a corporation or of its founder intended as a permanent rule
3: an international instrument setting up an agency and regulating its scope or authority

Read that CORPORATE RULE. Do your work for, or are you under contract with, the CORPORATION know as the COUNTY/STATE that is charging you with the infraction? A little note here that will save you a great deal of explaining and trouble. Sign your Driver's License with your name, and "sui juris UCC-207."

If you are confronted with explaining what the "UCC 1-207" does here is your answer. When you are going to sign a contract ( drivers license, lease, buying a automobile, snowmobile, a building permit, marriage license, devoice decree, or any other document). BEFORE you sign!!! you have the right to draw a fine line through any thing that is not to your liking. It can be a number, a letter, a word or a group of words. At this time you can add any thing you want in the contract. Any changes you have made sign your name close to it and date it. A contract is to have all of the contract in full disclosure at the time of signing. If not the UCC 1-207 will stop you from giving up your rights on the contract you are about to sign and void out any part of the contract that you have not had the opportunity to view. Now how the UCC 1-207 works. After you put UCC 1-207 where your signature is going to be. " your signature" is the last you thing you put on the document. When you pick up your pen from the signed contract it is consummated, you have given up your right to change the contract. Here is some more UCC information. You can go to a public law library for more information.


And you are going to sign your automobile Registration with your name and this:
"All Rights Reserved, Under Duress." Write this clearly, so it can easily be read.
What this does is: Reserves your Rights under the constitution, and show that you didn't really want to sign a contract with the State, but are forces to to keep police from harassing you all the time.

Do these things to prepare, do your research, the County Clerk's office has a set of Law Books, they will tell you you cannot look at them, but you can, ask the Judge, it is your right.

Some more advice:
Even with the right books, legal language reads like hieroglyphics to many pro se litigants. (pro se means you represent yourself)

When you are asked if you know why you were pulled over, just respond with a simple and polite, "No officer, I do not."

Keep in mind that honesty is the best policy especially when you prefer to get off with merely a warning. Avoid admissions of guilt and never make excuses or create outlandish stories.

On the other hand, if you do get you the ticket, and decide to contest it, remember that any admissions you make now, can be used against you later. My advice: Say nothing, just answer the officer's question truthfully. Anything you say WILL be used against you.

Record relevant details, such as traffic and road conditions, weather, time of day, and any extenuating circumstances.

Go to the officer’s original position (whether stationary or moving) and check for any obstructions that might have caused them to have a poor view of the alleged offense or that might have caused the radar to malfunction. (high wires, cell towers, places of business that may have burglar alarms. All emit microwave signals similar signals.

Make a diagram of the road showing where the officer was positioned, which direction you were traveling, where you eventually stopped, and other important details.

Request a trial. Your ticket may include a court date, or you may need to request a trial. Ask for a Continuance. You are entitled to Two continuances only, use them wisely. The more time that goes by, the more the officer will forget.

In almost all jurisdictions, paying the fine is an admission of guilt, so do not remit payment. Instead, follow the required steps to get your day in court. If they have you dead to rights, plead "No Contest." You still pay court cots, but no points are taken from your license.

In most jurisdictions, the police officer who gave you the ticket must show up for the court hearing. If he or she fails to show, your case will be dismissed. Many times officers will schedule many court hearings on a certain day so that they can appear for all of them at once. You can mess this up with a continuance. If you request a continuation (a change of date) you increase the odds that the officer won’t show up. You usually need to do this in writing, and typically you will need to make your request several days in advance of the scheduled hearing. County Clerk's Office.

You might see about choosing a court date that is closer to the holidays - this might increase the odds of your officer being out on vacation.

Some links for you, Read everything, it will help you to understand who you really are as a citizen. Remember, you are not a 14th Amendment citizen, and the name on your State documents is not you, it is a virtual you, a "Strawman."


Barefoot's World

Sui Juris – Getting The Truth in the Record

The World Freeman Society


Ticket Slayer

UCC: uniform commercial code - Site Index

Bar Association History & Who Owns the U.S.


The Two United States and the Law

Freeman-On-The-Land Forum

Think Free, Be Free (Video site)

I have beat many traffic tickets using the Common Law and standing on being a Sovereign, and you can too, all it takes is some research to obtain a working knowledge of the law and confidence. No, you will not win every time. But, if you win several times, and the cops get to know that you will beat them in court, they will not stop you anymore. Remember, you are not an outlaw, you are not above the law, and speeding recklessly may get someone hurt. The Common Law means do as you wish as long as No One Is Harmed, either monetarily, physically, or mentally. Hope this has explained this to you fully.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I searched the freeman movement on google and came up with this link to the Montana movement.

What happens when you try this

Once again, if you have assets don't try this. You'll lose!

Wrong. Research the Montana Freeman. they were issuing false money orders and placing UCC liens on Judges and IRS agents. Using the Common Law is not a criminal act, and it does work for you.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 01:56 PM

Originally posted by birdyat101
Wow but it would never work in the uk

I'm guessing you don't know about the Freeman movement?

Court Case

The Police interview (this is awesome)

edit on 26/1/11 by blupblup because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:16 PM
reply to post by blupblup


Thank you for posting those videos...

At 6:43, in the second video, a screen capture of a court document is shown, with a small portion highlighting a passage that seems to indicate that this gentleman did, indeed, win his case. But upon freezing this frame and transcribing what followed the apparently victorious sentiment, I recorded the following...

The liability order has been awarded and I have enclosed a photocopy of the relevant entry in the list for your information together with the signed summary sheet.

There is currently £308.00 outstanding on your account and as previously stated we will instruct bailiffs to recover the outstanding monies if necessary. Obviously we would like to avoid the involvement of the bailiffs if possible."

I am not a lawyer, but this appears to me to be the notice of a summary judgment against the defendant. This is not a "victory" at all. The defendant left court and was summarily found against.

And this is the reason that I pay attention to "freemen" and "sovereign citizen" threads... Because much of the rhetoric provided by these groups seems to prove out to be misleading, at best, and dangerously irresponsible at the worst.

If any legal experts come into this thread and believe me to be incorrect in my interpretation of the above, I would very much welcome it.

edit on 1/26/11 by Hefficide because: error

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:46 PM
Interesting videos, Interesting articles.

However, I maintain my position. If you have assets don't fall for this nonsense. You will end up losing.

Good luck and have a great life.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by Hefficide

I'm no lawyer.. but you are correct..
The first dumbest mistake is there is no such thing as "abandoning the court" .. the Judge has the ability and right to freeze court proceedings as they see fit, if the Judge calls a recess, it by no means is a "victory" for anyone, it just means a pause.

Otherwise most murderers and so forth would go free, since nearly every court proceeding outside of small claims has a recess of some form.

Second dumb mistake.. Canadian judges wear funny wigs and black gowns, they also follow funny protocols, like bowing. In no way was the judge bowing to the defendant, he has to do this when he leaves the bench, and the court bows back.

Lastly there is no such thing as "individual sovereignty" .. This is a myth, thought up by those unable to understand law I presume.. Sovereignty is the right control and rule over a specific people or place. Brits are Soveriegn. Americans are Sovereign. Canadians are not Soveriegn, they are ruled by an outside Monarch, who is their Sovereignty. Individual Sovereignty is akin to Anarch, ie, no governing body holding power over any individual for any reason without the express permission of the individual.

In reality we are bound by the law, the Constitutions, and our Governing authority. The right to self governing is limited to the ability to elect politicians. While we have rights, those rights are not an absolute guarantee protection against outside governing forces like Government in general.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:12 PM
right this is what i have found out so far its quite long but a good read makes you think. ( this is the uk one dont know how it would work for usa because they have no queen or king)

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 07:20 PM
English free men. a good site explaining all this, for english free men of course.

posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Rockpuck

In reality we are bound by the law, the Constitutions, and our Governing authority. The right to self governing is limited to the ability to elect politicians. While we have rights, those rights are not an absolute guarantee protection against outside governing forces like Government in general.

WE are not bound by our Constitutions - the *Governing Authorities* most definitely are. There are no *rights* granted to us by these documents. These documents were penned to keep our rights safe from the tyrannical sociopaths who seem to have a natural tendency to seek positions of *authority*.

Every time I read a story where the term *official* or *authority* is used, I both chuckle as well as cringe. I chuckle since I know full well these are nothing more than employees who need to be kept in check. I cringe because so many people accept these terms on their face and give credence where it is most certainly not due.

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by bozzchem

We are bound by the Constitution and the Government it sanctions.. the Constitution is the Law Of The Land over the entire Sovereign United States (insert name of any other country). The Government is sanctioned by this document, upheld by her people, and thus is legal and just.

Our ability to govern ourselves is restricted to a unified governing body. That is no one individual may make a law, only a group of people, and these laws MUST be in line with the law of the land.

posted on Jan, 27 2011 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by RUSSO

Well in this article, it says the man in the video was ordered to pay $260, although there is no indication whether he eventually paid it or not:

In any case, the video is not the court abandoning proceedings, as they reconvened at a later date.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 07:21 PM
That will link to the first in a series of 11 segments of a video that will explain a great deal of this material in layman's terms. It's a great soverignty 101 for people who are new to this concept.

posted on Jan, 28 2011 @ 08:02 PM
I have two problems with this supposed concept of being a freeman:

1. Why do we only see these supposed ''success'' stories when they first appear in court ?

Why isn't there ever a follow-up ?

As I previously posted, the local paper reported that the court reconvened - in the case of the OP's video - and adjudicated, in his absence, exactly the verdict and exactly the same fine as he would have had under normal proceedings.

How is this a victory ? We'd have to know whether he ignored the bailiffs, and didn't get this fine taken off his taxes.

We have no follow-up on this case, nor any further information, and therefore we cannot logically assume that this man ''won'' his case.

His ''freeman'' spiel all seemed like complete gobbledygook, and I can't imagine that any court would have taken him seriously in the long-run.

Does anyone actually know whether the court adjournment has anything to with these claims of being a ''freeman'' ?

I mean, if you're in court on a minor charge, don't acknowledge your name, and obfuscate and filibuster your way through a very minor court case, then what happens ?

All in all, are these cases being adjourned because the court is deferring it's authority because of a ''freeman'' making a stand ? Or are these magistrate courts just ignoring someone who appears to be a crank, not co-operating in the proceedings, and who would be far easier to dismiss and apply the fine at a later date without the defendant ?

2. If freeman status was achievable, and you could successfully waive your council tax bills and traffic fines, then don't you think someone would be making an absolute packet out of this ?

There's something like 20m people who pay Council Tax in Britain, with an average bill totalling £100s.

Some entrepreneur or opportunist would operate training schools - for a ''small' fee - to teach these millions of people how to beat the system, and how to not pay Council Tax ever again !

Let's be honest: This whole idea is a complete con, and there are unscrupulous people probably making a mint out of others' gullibility.

posted on Jan, 29 2011 @ 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Let's be honest: This whole idea is a complete con, and there are unscrupulous people probably making a mint out of others' gullibility.

You started off talking about sovereigns and ended up talking about the court system

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in