Freeman of the Land vs Criminal Bankers - WIN FOR THE PEOPLE

I can't say anything more than what is said in the video. All I can say is that civil matters are civil matters and criminal matters are criminal matters. The banks will try and worm their way around the law by writing and lobbying legislation but ultimately the law boils down to protection of the people. Knowledge is key here and if we stand together and fight we CAN win.

a reply to: TechUnique

tell us where the " bird family " are now [ may 2014 ]

This wouldn't work in the US. They would send in swat and shoot everyone.

Good to see the little guy win for once.

originally posted by: Metallicus
This wouldn't work in the US. They would send in swat and shoot everyone.

Good to see the little guy win for once.

Maybe so.

That being said we all share a common enemy and we all have rights even if they are being stripped away.. just for the inspirational factor alone Americans should see this video even if it does not relate to your laws. Your legal system is of course INTENDED to protect the people even though the COMPLETE opposition is happening.

I really do feel for you guys across the pond!

What a dire situation..

a reply to: TechUnique

Obviously the baliff will be back with properly signed documents, but they are right, it is a civil matter and there should be no violence or threat of violence. In civil terms that I believe would be deemed extortion and if done over and over again by multiple entities, it would be extortion and racketering. The police appear to have done the right thing, short of putting the baliff and locksmith in handcuffs when they trespassed the last time in the video. I'm not a lawyer but it certainly seems common sense.

Cheers - Dave

Good on those police. That was the right thing to do. It's not many times these days we see them acting in favor of the citizen. Bravo..

I freely admit that I did not watch the video. I assume it's another one showing the "Freemen" arguing for their rights, and getting "The Man" to back down.

Of course, what is normally going on is that the Freemen take an unusual or off-beat position that the authorities haven't considered in the last few decades. The court, or whoever, says "WTF, let's talk this out over a cuppa." They do, analyse, figure out what's going on and either say, "It's a 10 pound fine, not worth our time," in which case the Freemen broadcast a huge "Win" over the system; or they say "Mr. Freeman, you're an idiot and you're paying the fine plus costs."

In the US, the Supreme Court (Could be the federal tax court) has ruled that "Freemen arguments relating to the income tax will be considered as meritless, and may be considered for abuse of process sanctions."

Please tell me that this situation is different.

originally posted by: charles1952
I freely admit that I did not watch the video. I assume it's another one showing the "Freemen" arguing for their rights, and getting "The Man" to back down.

Of course, what is normally going on is that the Freemen take an unusual or off-beat position that the authorities haven't considered in the last few decades. The court, or whoever, says "WTF, let's talk this out over a cuppa." They do, analyse, figure out what's going on and either say, "It's a 10 pound fine, not worth our time," in which case the Freemen broadcast a huge "Win" over the system; or they say "Mr. Freeman, you're an idiot and you're paying the fine plus costs."

In the US, the Supreme Court (Could be the federal tax court) has ruled that "Freemen arguments relating to the income tax will be considered as meritless, and may be considered for abuse of process sanctions."

Please tell me that this situation is different.

I like your logic. It is wonderful when one see's the truth: The State is always right. When Stalin killed his 30 million or so a great many folks used this phony notion of "human rights" to avoid being gunned down. They were foolish, as the majority pointed to court decisions ruling that there is no such thing has an inherent human right. In fact, it was plantations that ran into this problem as well, but they too pointed to the correct and righteous court decisions stating that no one has a right to anything the state doesn't give them and the state, being the law, says human beings have no rights at all, none, zero.

You know there was a quirk to this, when the plantation owners decided to free the slave long before the war, the courts said "slaves are slaves" so keep them enslaved or you go to jail. While a quirk, the courts got this right again, as no has any rights not given by the courts, none, zero.

If more people would see the idea the natural right for the horrifying thing that it is, more people would fall in line with the courts. Courts are everything, and they decided what rights people have, not the other way around. Humans have no rights not deemed by the state and this is the greatest thing on earth. Why would people feel they are special, they are criminals in waiting and that's it.

Thankfully folks like you point out the horror that is that line in the constitution where the framers were so confident in the the natural human right they decided it was remedial to include in the writing and simply stated it was "self evident." But of course they were wrong, the courts have shown time and time again that the only rights you should ever have are "given" to you and can be taken away as needed.

a reply to: TechUnique

Keep it simple. No consent.

The difference between Laws and statutes is this.

Law applies to all. We know what is unlawful because those are the things we wouldn't want done to us. Harm, theft, fraud, damage to property. Laws don't have to be written down. They are self evident.

Statutes are written rules. They are written down because otherwise they'd be forgotten. Statutes only apply with consent.

Lawful applies to Law. Legal applies to statutes.

All those benefitting financially from involvement in the legal system have a very strong interest in denying this. They have words. You have words. Use your words. Keep it simple and spiritual. If you get into a legal argument you will be facing professionals with a purely profit driven desire to say whatever will line their coffers. This is where statutes differ from Law. Statutes are commercial. Law is protection.

Statutes came about as a system of controlling large scale trade. As goods travelled from ports inland so the statutes moved with them until now we are surrounded by trade rules. This is hopefully and fraudulently presented as The Law. It's a joke.

As charles1952 so accurately says '..not worth our time..' and '..you're an idiot..' are common responses. Hardly an intellectual argument. If they had a valid argument they'd use it.

a reply to: Kester
There is so much wrong with how you have interpreted Statute Law and Common Law, I really hope you are not a member of any Bar Association.

Let me clear this up for you:
Statute Law - Laws passed by parliament
Common Law - Laws created by judicial decision

Both are written down, both apply to everyone.

Statutes only apply with consent

No, you are bound by statutes even if you dont consent to them--I might not want to consent to being charged for any homicide offences, like my consent matters, its the law.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: TechUnique

tell us where the " bird family " are now [ may 2014 ]

Not living there, they were evicted!

a reply to: charles1952

You should watch the video next time. This isn't in the US and it's not about the "Freeman" fighting over Taxes. This is in the UK and has something to do with banks taking people's property unlawfully. I don't think one has anything to do with the other. But maybe you were just using the "Freeman" thing as an example of something similar here in the US, I don't know. In either case, I still think it's kinda rude and lazy to NOT watch the video first before commenting since the video is what was provided as evidence/information dealing with this topic. If you don't at least inform yourself as to what is being talked about I don't know why you think your input has any reason to be part of the conversation.

crankyoldman
I'm curious as to whether or not your post was actually what you think or was it satire???

a reply to: RifRAAF

I haven't mentioned common law.

a reply to: mOjOm

Dear m0j0m,

I like your response. It has a good mix of criticism (partially personal, but I don't care in this case), with a faint whiff of "Maybe I should stay a little open in case we're missing what he is saying." I think it's a very good position to take, and I mean that completely seriously.

I did not intend my comments to have as many possible interpretations as my worthy fellow posters have found in it. You as well, dear m0j0m, have found an interpretation which was not in my mind when I wrote.

Please allow me to rephrase my thought in a little more direct manner.

No matter what the "Freemen of the Land" or "Sovereign Citizens" argue, their very best result will be to hear "Go away, son, you bother me." On the other hand, they face the possibility of additional fines and jail.

The arguments along those lines in the US and Canada, and I presume, the UK, just don't work. What has me pulling my hair out is the sight of otherwise fine people, doing the same thing over and over, and getting the same bad result over and over.

I understand that movements may very well need martyrs,but it is not a pleasant thing to watch every adherent of a belief walk to the courthouse and say "Chop off my head, please." I want to shout out, "Stop it, just stop it. Find something that has a chance of working. Don't keep saying the same things that get you nowhere."

Would watching the video change the validity of any of the above comments?

With respect,
Charles1952

That being said we all share a common enemy and we all have rights even if they are being stripped away..

That's an oxymoron. You can't have something that's stripped away.

Also, rights can't be 'stripped away'. You have and always will have rights, whether you want it, or not, and there's nothing ANYONE can do about it. No entity, legal, lawful or otherwise, can remove your rights. Not even by surgery. Rights are unalienable - you have them when you are incarnated, and you have them when you are deincarnated. You even have them in the astral world, because they are human rights, and they only cease to exist when you cease to be human (lack of body is not lack of humanity).

Governments, corporations and other human beings can either respect yours rights, or violate them, they can treat you AS IF you don't have rights, or prevent you from using your rights - heck, they can even DUPE you into signing contracts that for all intents and purposes effectively prevent you from using your rights.

All human beings have an unlimited right to contract. So they are free to create contracts that limit their ability to use their rights (as, indeed, most human beings of this planet that have been able to, have done).

So, while rights can be 'effectively disabled', with your consent - they can never be 'stripped away'.

And anyone treating you as if you don't have rights, without your consent, is a criminal, whether she is wearing an uniform of some kind, or not. The problem is, that most people HAVE given their consent to being governed by 'legal system' instead of common law, so they have, in effect, 'signed their rights away' (though not in concrete reality, only on the practical level).

Rights wouldn't be unalienable, if they could be stripped away. That's what makes rights unique, and different from anything human-created, fabricated or artificial; rights are natural. Privileges are created.

Privileges, like 'civil rights', as some of them are called, are manufactured, fabricated, created, given or even 'issued' (beware, when ever someone wants to 'issue' you something, it doesn't mean what you probably think it means, unless you are exceptionally well informed).

So, they can be taken away.

Anything that is given by an entity, can be taken away by the entity. Whether that entity is a corporation, a government, a human being or some legal fiction, like a 'person'. Those things are alienable from you, they can be removed, they can be stripped away.

Liberty and civil right - those can be 'stripped away'.

Human rights can never be 'stripped away'.

(Sidenote: one definition for 'liberty' is 'freedom from government tyranny', interestingly)

The snake always finds a way to dupe adam into eating the apple of ignorance.. if he is forbidden to poison adam directly by biting his leg, he will put his poison in the apple and seduce adam into eating it. That way it's adam's own consent that made it happen - the snake didn't technically do anything wrong..

That's what has happened.

Constitutions and Bills of Rights can only protect people that do not bite the apples. If they eat the apples by their own consent, they can't be protected from the snake poison. Those papers can only prevent governments from acting -overtly- against the human beings. But they can't stop them from DUPING people into consenting into slavery.

Human beings have been duped into signing papers that make them in effect unable to use their human rights, when they need it. It's really as simple as that. Furthermore, they have been duped into taking on their shoulders burdens that are not really their burdens, but the burdens of the legal fiction that they have been duped into representing - it's called "person", and it's a corporation, a dead entity that has -almost- the same name as the human being.

John Smith is the human being, SMITH, JOHN is the person. Very similar, but not identical. Just look at the name you have in all your cards - is 'your' name written a bit differently, like in capital letters, 'surname first'?

In fact, can you find ANY 'legal document', contract or a plastic card with 'your' name on it, that would actually have the name in the normal format; "John Smith", instead of "SMITH JOHN" or "SMITH, JOHN"?

Sometimes it's even just "Smith John" or "Dr. John Smith", "Mr. John Smith" -- basically, it can be almost anything, except "John Smith". And even that is not completely secure; from what I have learned, the only true way of writing your human name properly, so that it cannot be confused with the name of the 'person' is to write it like "John:Smith". (I think the character is called 'a colon')

In any case, rights can't be stripped away.

Other than that, your post creates a bit of hope in me - it's good that this information is finally spreading a little bit. But it's sad to see so many people talking about things of law, legal stuff, etc., and not realize the truth behind the veil.

And it's almost even more sad that even people who supposedly know about this stuff, make a lot of mistakes and don't seem to fully know what they are talking about, and have misconceptions and wrong information, when they try to inform others about this stuff.

"Sovereign Citizens"

This is another oxymoron. A 'citizen' is never sovereign, and a sovereign human being is never a 'citizen'.

The rights and power hierarchy goes like this:

The Creator of the Universe
Human Beings
Governments and Corporations
Citizens / Government and Corporate Employees / Persons / Slaves

Don't be a 'citizen' - it's the surest way to stop being sovereign.

Also, 'fines' and 'jail' doesn't mean much to Freemen on the Land, because they don't break the law, and they know how to BILL for their time - they actually gain lots of money from those kind of proceedings, and they know how to handle the police (and how to NOT verbally contract with them, despite their tricks), they know how to handle the courts, they know how to handle the 'fines' (that they of course do not have to pay, because those can only be given to 'persons', not human beings), and so on.

Anyone who claims such things, simply shows his/her own ignorance about law and the legal system. If there is no consent, there is no governance. Without governance, there are no obligations beyond the Common Law and your own, signed contracts.

Anyone trying to force such upon you, is acting unlawfully, and freemen on the land know how to handle that as well. Any unlawful police will have to pay dearly (often with actual money), and the police departments have already had to pay freemen on the land large sums for unlawfully detaining them, or accepting their fees (by silence, for example).

It's a harsh game, and the police and the 'justice system' doesn't have any kind of monopoly on sending bills and notices and such things. Btw, commercial liens are rumoured to be very powerful in situations where some so-called 'authority' is hassling you.

Law applies to all. We know what is unlawful because those are the things we wouldn't want done to us. Harm, theft, fraud, damage to property. Laws don't have to be written down. They are self evident.

That's pretty well said. (Though you forgot MURDER from that list..)

It's an easy concept, but it's difficult to put to words. Harm can be done to us, if we consent to it (think of SM-people, for example - they want harm because they enjoy it, think of people who pay others to demolish their old buildings or cut down their trees or destroy their old cars or whatnot - harm or damage can be done to us or our property, with our consent).

Consent is very powerful, so just saying that harm can't be done to us is wrong. If a Yakuza member consents to it, they can perfectly lawfully cut off his finger.

So, harm / damage CAN be done lawfully, if you have the owner's consent. But they absolutely can not be lawfully done without the owner's consent.

I am not sure whether murder can be done with the consent of the victim though. Think of the movie 'Fletch' or Doctor Kevorkian for an example.

I'd also go a bit further and say that the reason everyone must obey the law, is because law has to do with UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Those rights are self-evident, as you say, and thus, violation of them can and shall not be permitted - this is law. That's the reason why no one can have the right to break the law, because no one has the right to trample upon anyone else's rights. Rights are protected this way - without protection, rights wouldn't have much meaning.

So, that makes law paramount, and the rights that they protect are the reason for the existence of law. Law and rights are almost the same thing. You can't violate my rights, I can't violate your rights.

That's the reason why everyone must obey the law - it's not an arbitrary rule, it's an extension of our rights, and the existence, respect and protection of the human rights is the core point about it all.

Legal system, however, doesn't carry such a point - why does a legal system exist? To protect human beings? No. To protect rights? No.

Legal system exists to protect governments and corporations, and to oppress, enslave and control human beings by duping them into identifying with their 'persons' that are actually owned by the system. The system has the right to do anything it wants to 'persons' (after all, the system creates them), so anyone that identifies as a 'person', becomes a human being that the system can do anything to.

There is one point about this all, though - there is no FULL DISCLOSURE; I am pretty sure that if everyone knew everything about 'persons', NO ONE would ever consent to what they have too happily consented to for decades!

That's what it means that the POWER comes from the 'consent of the governed' - without consent, there is no governance, no entity can lawfully govern another entity without their consent (that'd be imprisonment or slavery).

Ironically, when they 'freed slaves' or 'abolished slavery', they actually kept the slavery, but just extended it to encompass ALL human beings .. anyone with a SIN (a nicely ominous word for it, though it's SSN in some jurisdictions - Social Insurance Number, Social Security Number) is a slave. It can be considered a cattle numbering system for 'persons'. Identify with a 'person', and you identify with being cattle.

I do have a lot of 'difficult freeman-on-the-land-questions', but I don't know who I would ask them, because I can't seem to find knowledgeable people, and the posters here would just trample those pearls and then rend me.