Firstly, the term 'Freeman' covers men and women.
The full term would be Freeman on the Land. This is deliberate. It refers to law, or more specifically, common law and natural law (God's Law, if you prefer).
Why on the "land"?
Research, years of it, collectively, shows us that the UK (and the USA and others) operate on Maritime Law. Maritime Law is comprised of statutes. Statutes are plastic, Natural Laws are solid gold. Natural Laws concern rights, whilst Statutes concern benefits. The difference between the two is monumental. This should be obvious: statutes are created by men, and are therefore much less valuable than God's Law/Natural Law.
Each time a policeman asks you "Do you understand?", and you say "Yes", you just swapped all of your rights for benefits. You also surrender yourself to the bobby and you have just used Contract Law. You have entered into a verbal agreement to 'stand under' his/her authority. You really, really, really should not do this.
Case in point: last year I had cop after cop showing up at my house to deal with a speeding offence. (As explained in my last post, I wanted to be difficult). When they finally decided to read me my rights, after which the cop said "Do you understand?". I said "No". He asks, "Which part do you not understand?". I said, "All of it". He asks me, "Why don't you understand?". I replied, "Because I choose not to". "Ah", he said, "So you know what the phrase means then?". "Yes", said I.
It's a small thing, at first glance. Seemingly unimportant, but it threw the bobby for six. I had gone off their script and he was clearly unsure what to do next. His partner, (the designated 'bad cop') said, "Then we will take you to Fraserburgh police station to continue the questioning". I said, "Let's go. I have nothing else to do today". (Fraserburgh is a good 1.5 hours away. Why they couldn't take me to Banff (8 miles away) I never did learn). The good cop said (to his partner) "There's no need for that. Not in this case".
This, is essentially what being a freeman is all about. It's about not understanding. It's about not consenting. It's about retaining all of your rights. It's about refusing to accept benefits.
How do you go about becoming a Freeman?
Simply research the movement, read up on the do's and don'ts, discover the difference between legal and lawful, send off a NOUICOR* if you wish, and start thinking and behaving like the free soul that you always were. It's an attitude as much as anything else.
This kind of sums it up:
*a NOUICOR is a Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right. Your autograph needs to be witnessed by three good men and true, or by one Public Notary. If it is unrebutted after you send it off to the PM, or the Home Office, or your local Chief Constable, (or you can send it to no-one at all), it becomes law. Your law. Mine has been in force since 2008. In it, I revoked my consent to be governed. No-one disputed my Claim, and in law, if no-one disagrees, they agree.
So you now know that I am in Lawful Rebellion, and you know that I am a Freeman. The two are not connected. I just decided to notify Mrs Windsor that I was in Lawful Rebellion, and I chose to notify one Gordon Brown and later, one David Cameron, that I had revoked my consent, lawfully, to be governed. Neither wrote back to me. Neither of them disputed my witnessed Affidavits.
You can choose either path but be aware that they are quite different.
Freemen believe that their research proves, beyond a doubt, that when we were born, and our parents registered our birth, a legal fiction was created. This is indisputable, and I will explain why later. They also believe that shortly after our birth, a Bond is created. (The average value of the bond would appear to be around 1 million pounds for a 'working man', but considerably more if your anticipated lifetime earnings are themselves in the millions). The government of the day sells the bond to the BoE and is advanced whatever you are deemed to be worth. These Bonds are then traded on the international stock market, and mine, for instance, is said to be worth 70 or 80 million pounds by now.
Caveat: I have found no hard evidence of this Bond. The theory though, makes a great deal of sense.
Freemen know that we have been bankrupt since the Napoleonic Wars. Since then, the UK Debt Management Office, in cahoots with the Treasury, have operated a double-entry ledger system. Money in, money out, no profit shown. What does that mean, in practise?
Case in point: I was sent a demand by HMRC for 5K. It was in the form of a letter with one of those little giro things at the bottom. I filled in the boxes, added my autograph, and sent it back. They sent me a letter saying "You forgot to put in the cheque". I wrote back saying, "No, I didn't. I animated the bill* by adding my autograph. It is made out to cash. Take it to the Debt Management Office, their accountants will know what to do with it". They didn't do as I instructed and they sent another 'bill'. I repeated the process and sent it back to them. They wrote back saying that I hadn't paid. Again. I said "Fair enough. Send me back both giro-slips so that I can destroy them". They either wouldn't, or couldn't. The giro-slips are used to take payment from your 'Bond Account'. When they wrote again demanding payment, I said "I have already settled this account. I have paid you twice". They never contacted me again after that. This method of payment is called "Accepted For Value". Google the term to learn more.
*Bills-If you read (and you should) the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, you will learn what a Bill should look like. I haven't seen a proper bill in years. Perhaps decades. At least, not from the government. Nor have you, probably. In the Act, it clearly states that an offer accepted after 14 days means that the payment is settled. Since HMRC took several weeks, and in one instance, 3 months to reply, according to the BoE Act, the debt was paid. I could (under the terms of the Act) have offered bananas, potatoes, furry hats, or funny balloons as payment and if the offer was NOT rejected in time, then the offer stands as settlement.
Interesting factoid 1: If you should have bailliffs at your door demanding money, walk them to the pavement, take a witness, and ask them what it is all about. No doubt they will mention the amount owed. Make sure your witness heard it and then thank the bailliffs. It is highly unlikely that they will have read the BoE Act of 1882, so you can gently explain to them that the debt is settled. They will look perplexed, until you further explain that according to the act, a private debt spoken of publicly is automatically settled.
Interesting factoid 2: If you have a Debt Recovery Agent at your door, first ascertain the amount they are after, then ask this question: "Did you/your company buy this debt from XYZ Ltd (the company you allegedly owe)?" If they say yes, simply thank them and close your door. Again, according to the BoE Act, they have settled the debt for you. They chose to pay off your bill. Be grateful, and send them on their way.
The Legal Fiction thing
As our courts operate under Maritime Law, they never see people. They never see human beings. They can only deal with legal fictions and corporations and limited companies. I am none of those. I am alive. I am animated. My heart beats, my lungs breathe, my blood flows, my arms and legs move. A legal fiction/corporation sole/limited company can do none of these things. So when a court calls your 'name', they actually want to do business with the fiction created shortly after your birth. As an experiment, next time you are in court, when they call your name, say "I am acting for that fiction". (It will cause apoplexy, but do persist). The judge/magistrate/sheriff will demand that you step forward (either into the dock or to the counsel tables) but you should refuse, insisting that you "wish to remain on the land". This messes them up entirely. Once you 'crossed the bar' you just left common law jurisdiction and stepped onto the high seas so that they can nail your fiction with Maritime Law.
It is fascinating stuff, but because it is so involved, I will end it here and continue with a second post in a few days time.
Please ask questions, or if you prefer, you can visit www.FMOTL.com and have a look through the various sections they have.
All I ask is that you keep an open mind, for now. It is very easy, having done no research whatsoever, to dismiss this as madness.
If you are fair about it, you will discover a lot of sanity in this fledgling movement.
CR.
All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.
2 comments:
Hmm, yeess… It would indeed be easy, and very tempting, to dismiss it as madness, but I'd rather try to make some more or less reasoned and intelligent comments, and mybe ask a few questions.
I was waiting for someone else to respond, but, to my surprise at least, no one has, so I'll do it myself.
Essentially you seem to be trying to tell the courts that the law is other than what they think it is. That might hold a magistrate for a while; he is not an expert and he would rather research and consult on a, to him, novel and obscure legal argument, than lock up a non-violent person for a minor matter. This speaks rather well of the magistrate in question, it seems to me. Try it on with a high court judge and you will get very short shrift, I suspect. They know exactly what the law is and they are increasingly aware of these manoeuvres.
It is also easy to interpret the actions of the policemen you describe in quite another way. The police, in what we think of as free and democratic countries, try to establish at all times that the person they are dealing with is aware of the reasons for being questioned, detained or otherwise importuned. If, by reason of immature years, lack of competence in the English language, intellectual weakness, chemical impairment or raving lunacy, they are not able to follow what is happening, the police will deal with them in a very different way from the likes of you and me, especially if they are peaceable. So will the courts, which is why we have the concept of fitness to plead.
There is nothing sinister about the word ‘understand’ in English. The police could say ‘comprehend’, ‘appreciate the situation’, ‘know what is going on’, etc and it would make no difference. The word ‘understand’ does not have, and I believe never has had the meaning ‘submit to authority’. The apparent cognate word in German does have that meaning, but there is in any case some doubt as to whether the first element in ‘understand’ was originally ‘between’ or the modern ‘under’. None of this is remotely relevant anyway. When the policeman asked if you understood, I am fairly sure he meant exactly what he appeared to mean. And I assume by asking if you knew what the question meant he intended to clarify that you were not in fact in any of the categories I mentioned above, but were simply refusing to cooperate.
I have read the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, and I can find nothing that might conceivably be interpreted in the ways you say. I could have missed it, of course. Also, the Act seems to be talking about a quite different kind of bill from the one you get from the gas company. Again, I may not have understood.
You say that the government has been bankrupt for 200 years. I wonder what you mean by 'bankrupt', in reference to a country, and why it matters.
As to the business of the bonds, I can imagine a Communist state trying to raise loans within its borders on the strength of an extra ‘unit of labour’, but I don’t think it’s remotely tenable in a free economy. Especially if done in secret. Money needs something behind it, some kind of trust, and if it is hidden I can’t see how it could be worth anything at all. That is, however, not an informed comment, merely an idle thought.
But even if you are right about some or all of these points, the fact remains that this is not how the legal system works in practice, and to imagine that it will because you speak in mystical formulae seems over-optimistic, to put it mildly.
Thank you.
In order then:
"Essentially you seem to be trying to tell the courts that the law is other than what they think it is"
The law is exactly what they think it is. A huge mess, driven by force, always. They know that words we assume to mean one thing, actually have several different meanings in their world.
Some examples:
Must is synonymous with 'may'.
Summons is synonymous with 'invitation'.
When you see the word 'includes', it excludes everything else.
The 'four corner rule' whereby attention is ONLY given to the information contained withing the four corners.
There are many, many more examples.
'It is also easy to interpret the actions of the policemen you describe in quite another way...'
A weak argument, really. You had to be there to see the man's face. The older constable knew what I meant and the young, 'bad cop' was clueless. It clearly demonstrated to me the way training techniques have changed: the good cop was happy to talk and have a discussion whilst the new cop was all for dragging me off to the station for no other reason than he could. Our friend force, yet again.
You read BoE 1882 but did you read the other three, inter-related Acts? They weave a very tangled web and one should not simply read one Act in isolation. I admit that I could have been more helpful by pointing out these other Acts. My apologies, I was trying for a short & swift introduction, not a detailed piece.
You could also study BoE 1681, BoE (Scotland) 1772, and BoE 1917.
'You say that the government has been bankrupt for 200 years...'
Bankruptcy matters because the govt are not permitted to make a 'profit' in bankruptcy yet when they ask (demand) that you pay them money by completing the giro slip AND adding cash or a cheque, they are being paid twice. This is fraudulent.
'As to the business of the bonds...'
To my knowledge, evidence (such as it is) regarding Bonds has not been found anywhere other than first world nations and/or those nations that have English law either as their primary system or where they use some of it. Logic dictates that developing nations would not have the wherewithal to pull off such a complex piece of trickery. Some people (esp.Canadians) have tracked their Bonds on the international market using the unique number on their birth certificates. As I said in the piece, I have never found any solid evidence but I am satisfied that a skint govt could raise billions in this way.
'But even if you are right about some or all of these points...'
I am, but you are absolutely right: there is no way I can be allowed to win.
Mrs Windsor abdicated in 1972. Simple enough to prove, given that she took a solemn Oath to defend us from '..foreign prelates and usurpers..' and then proceeded to allow the EU (EEC as was) to impose their law on our citizens. (For interest, we have not been subjects since 1983).
Every court in the land take their 'authority' from Mrs Windsor, and if she is no longer monarch, then they are acting illegally and unlawfully. No serving policeman/woman has any authority either. Neither does parliament.
The whole house of cards tumbles, does it not?
CR.
Post a Comment