INTRODUCTION
"Freeman on the Land"
a paradigm shift in law and politics "None are more hopelessly
enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe
Unilateral contracts
& defacto corporate systems all rely on our own consent. Regardless if
you have voted or have a 'drivers' licence or registered your car or
created a fiction/person at the registry office or have a bank account
or sign on the dole or get tax credits or pay tax etc. None of it binds
you to any system of control or government. They are contracts and
considering there is not full disclosure means they are null and void
anyway.
Remember folks, it's all a fiction. It's not real. It's just words of
entrapment for those that haven't learned the manipulation techniques
and so can't comprehend the truth behind it all.
The created can never be higher than the creator. The legal person is
theirs to command, man isn't. People are not legal fictions.
We are all equal, so no-one has authority over anyone else. Simple
really.
No harm or loss! That's all we need. Common Law true!"
What has caused you to think this? The only possible answer is that
someone, whom you believe to have authority over YOU, has told you that
you have authority over another. In other words, because we are all
created equal, in order for you to believe in a concept which is
contrary to this truth, you must have been programmed to believe a lie.
What is true is that, unless one Man grants to another his God-given
authority, it is impossible for another to have it.
No one would willingly, knowingly, or intentionally grant another Man
authority over his property, his body, or his life.
So, if you believe that someone has authority over you, it is because
you have either willingly granted it or you have been deceived into
granting it to him and if you believe you have authority over me, it is
because you believe in a false concept. Accordingly, you must provide
proof that you do, indeed, have true – not what you might have obtained
against my will – but, true authority over me. If you can’t prove it;
you don’t have it.
1) 'Lawful' is what it is all about. 'Lawful' .vs. 'unlawful'. Do not
get trapped into discussing 'legal'/'illegal'.
2) In order to empower a representative, you must have the power
yourself. You cannot give to anyone something you, yourself do not
possess. You cannot give them any more than you, yourself, possess.
Consequently you can look at anything any representative does, and say
"I must be entitled to do that myself, without - necessarily -
empowering someone else to do it for me".
3) In a democracy, 'a majority' does not depend on 'large numbers'. A
majority can be as low as ONE. And that ONE must, of itself, (therefore)
carry sufficient empowerment to put any motion into practice. (The US
Supreme Court has 9 Members. A 5 - 4 majority carries any ruling. That's
'democracy')
4) Consequent to (3) no Government has more power than you do yourself.
The powers are equal. The only difference is that your power is
inalienable - it can't be taken away from you - whereas a Government can
be replaced by some other set of role players. Consequently YOU are
'supreme'.
5) 'Requesting permission' is the act of a child. 'Licencing' is
'begging for permission' and 'submitting to someone else's will'. Adults
do not beg permission for something they are lawfully entitled to do,
and prepared to take full responsibility for so doing. Anything for
which a licence can be granted must, by definition, be fundamentally
lawful (otherwise it would be incapable of being licenced), and there
is, therefore, absolutely no need for an adult to 'ask such permission'.
The act of 'obtaining a licence' is the act of throwing away a
fundamental Right, and substituting a (revocable) privilege instead.
6) 'Registration' of anything transfers superior ownership to the entity
accepting the registration. Once an item has been registered, you are no
longer the OWNER (even though you will still be paying for the item),
but instead you become the KEEPER. This includes cars, houses, children
(who become 'wards of the state' by virtue of a birth registration),
etc. ('regis ...' = handing ownership to The Crown ... which, by the
way, is the British Crown in Temple Bar, and NOT Elizabeth II)
7) When parts of the Magna Carta were 'transferred' into Statutes what
was actually happening was that fundamental Rights were being
transferred into privileges. Thus they were being watered down.
Diffused. Being rendered powerless.
8) In all cases you are always being OFFERED A SERVICE - which includes
'benefits' - in the form of privileges. You are always fully entitled to
waive such services, and of course you will also be waiving the
attendant benefits, as you so choose. Your choice is - ultimately - to
either assert your (inalienable) Rights, or accept (revocable)
privileges.
9) The law can give rise to a FICTION, but a fiction cannot give rise to
a law. Consequently a legal fiction called THE GOVERNMENT has no power
to make LAW. It is, in point of fact, BOUND BY LAW (like everyone else,
and including all other legal fictions). PARLIAMENT is another legal
fiction entity. Statutes created by Parliament are not, therefore, the
LAW. They are 'legislated rules for a society' and ONLY APPLICABLE TO
MEMBERS OF THAT SOCIETY. Join a different society, and you would be
bound by a different set of rules. (If this were not the case it would
be impossible to become, for example, a Freemason and be bound by the
rules of Freemasonry). Statutes are nothing more than the Company Policy
of THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, or THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, etc. (See 'society', below)
10) Only a sovereign flesh and blood human being, with a living soul,
has a Mind. Only something with a Mind is capable of devising a CLAIM.
Legal fictions are soulless, and do not possess a distinct Mind. They
cannot, therefore, in LAW, make a CLAIM.
11) Consequent to the foregoing, and since the Judiciary in a court de
facto derives all its power from colour-of-law/Statutes, then no court
de facto has any power over you as a sovereign human being, IN FACT
(although, of course, they don't bother to tell you!). A court de jure
is the only kind of court to which you are subject under Common Law, and
there are none of those left (unless you insist that the court operates
de jure, by demanding a Trial by Jury. But they will attempt to resist
that with every fibre in their 'corporate', soulless, 'bodies').
12) YOU, and your fellow countrymen, constitute the entire and total
'wealth' of your country. The resources may be considered as assets, but
without you & your fellow countrymen they are worthless. A field must be
ploughed, and seeded, before potatoes will grow. Once grown they must be
dug up, bagged, and transported before they can do the worthwhile job of
sustaining life. Without the efforts of you, and your countrymen,
NOTHING can happen, and your country itself is a worthless lump of soil.
13) A Society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of
like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by
mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. A
society makes its own rules, and its Members are duty-bound to follow
them. Different societies can exist, having their own unique set of
rules. One way of 'choking' the action of a court de facto is to claim
membership of a society that only exists in Common Law jurisdiction. The
World Freeman Society has been set up precisely for this purpose.
14) Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A
CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO,
it must comprise the following:
A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you
should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of
making the contract.
B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of
the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both
parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other
party's CONSIDERATION.
C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties
agree.
D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES,
as made by two human beings.
Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful
contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been
followed. (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!). Standing
on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating
just about every action that may be taken against you. (See No. 16,
below)
15. Agreement to pay. Consequent to (14) above, all 'payment demands',
that could result in court actions against you, can be stopped by
'conditionally agreeing to pay the sum demanded', subject to proofs that
the 4 rules were followed in the first place. (Make sure you send this
letter by registered post, heading it 'Notice of Conditional Agreement'
and including 'Without Prejudice' in a suitable place). In almost all
cases no proofs are possible (because the rules were never followed
lawfully). However, by 'agreeing to pay' you have removed all
CONTROVERSY. Thus a court action, which is only there to adjudicate on
CONTROVERSY, cannot take place. If you receive a Summons, you can write
back (registered!) with a copy of your agreement to pay, subject to the
proofs being presented. The court will consider that any further action
is 'frivolous', i.e. a complete waste of its time, since there is no
CONTROVERSY on which it can adjudicate. (The court may even consider
whoever applied to the court to be in contempt). (See No. 16, below)
16. "I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn
thing! When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours
in the first place. You created the 'money' when you signed the Loan or
Credit Application. By doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument
called 'the money'. They cashed this in(*), and then used that to loan
you back your own money. You don't owe a damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an
apology at the very least - for applying this confidence trick on you -
AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU ALREADY GAVE THEM.
(* Actually they just could have walked away with your cash. But they
didn't, because they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they
could get you to pay everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on
top of that. Thus they had already been paid in full ONCE when they
cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it back to you, and
reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'. Are you
just beginning to feel slightly less sympathetic? If not, I don't know
what else to say.
"Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way.
Banks are not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held
by them 'in trust'). Loan Companies and Credit Card Companies (etc.)
have no Deposit Money in the first place! Do they? So how else could
they do it, then?)
17. 'Responsibility' .vs. 'Authority'. You can DELEGATE authority, but
you can only SHARE responsibility. In other words, if you task
(delegate) someone to do something, you still retain the RESPONSIBILITY
for getting it done, and for anything that may happen as a result. If,
for example, a Police Officer carries out any order, given by a
superior, then that Officer is personally responsible for what may occur
as a result, and all those up the chain of command are considered
accomplices, in LAW.
(That's what the Nuremberg Trials were all about)
Therefore it is important that, if you delegate authority, you delegate
to the right individual or group of individuals. You delegate to an
individual who will accomplish the task without come-backs. And who you
choose is your choice, and your responsibility.
Freeman on the Land: what does it mean?
This is an introduction to what is meant by a Freeman (or woman) and
its’ implications. Take this information, share it with your friends,
copy it, post it to your blogs, do whatever you want with it. Remember
though, it isn’t legal advice, and neither is it a substitute for your
own research. Check everything I write, and you will find I write the
truth.
A freeman (I mean woman too, throughout this piece) is someone who knows
who they are. Think how you would define yourself. Most of you will say
human being, some will say person. I intend to show you, that you are
not a person. YOU are a flesh and blood human being.
You were born free. Unfortunately, you were born into a system that
requires your slavery. Yes, I said slavery. Each of us, before we could
express a choice, was sold into this system. In exchange for benefits,
for certain “rights” and privileges (more on this later). How did this
happen? Your parents registered your birth. Innocently they registered
you, with the threat of a fine, and the imposing, pressurising word
“MUST” upon their heads. What they didn’t know, was that the word “MUST”
means something different. It does not mean you are obliged. In the
legal world, MUST is another word used for MAY. So, in essence, your
parents were tricked into registering your birth. Why, then, are the
government so desperate to have us all registered and counted, checked
and filed? Because their system relies on us, selling our labour, paying
taxes, paying their fixed penalty notices to keep the massive deception
going.
What happens if you REGISTER something? You are simply recording it,
right? Showing it is your property and you are the rightful owner,
right? WRONG. By registering you are giving away your owner’s rights,
and you are retaining rights of use and enjoyment on their terms. Car,
house, kids. By registering you, your parents gave up the right to have
a say in how you are brought up. They did not do this deliberately, they
were tricked. By registering you, they are creating the LEGAL FICTION
that is your PERSON. A corporation (for that is what our government is)
cannot act upon a flesh and blood human being. They need to create
something which can CONTRACT with them. And that thing is the PERSON.
Your birth certificate is evidence of your PERSON.
So, right now, you are thinking, this is nuts. She is talking rubbish.
Who is she calling a slave? I am free to do as I please. I vote, I
follow the news, this is not possible. We have elected government and
they work for us, right? WRONG. You have been given the illusion of
change of government. Put simply, when you vote for a political party
you are voting in a different set of directors for the corporation that
is the United Kingdom (UK PLC, United Kingdom LTD, etc). Don’t believe
me?
Party politics is an illusion, it does not
exist. The politicians are so removed from the people that they are not
even bothering to keep up the pretence anymore. Witness David Cameron
thanking Demos, the left wing think tank, for their input into his
policy. Witness Peter Mandelson and George Osborne sniggering together
about their little trip on a yacht with dodgy Russian businessmen.
Witness MPs from around the country stating on the record that they are
NOT there to represent the people. Still think our government represents
us?
Our government is a company. Like any other company, it has rules. These
rules are what we think are the Law of this land. But what we are not
told is there are different types of law. How many times have you heard
someone say, “Oh, you can’t do anything about that, it’s the law”, or
words to that effect? Most of what we think is law is, in actual fact
STATUTE. There is a very crucial difference between statute and law.
A STATUTE is “an Act of Parliament given the force of law by the consent
of the governed.” Look at that: CONSENT. If you don’t consent to it, it
doesn’t apply to you. There is only one true law in this country, Common
Law. You only break the law if you harm another person or their
property, steal from someone or breach the peace. That is all you need
to know. Have you ever wondered how it is that you can be governed by
all these “laws” but actually, when you read them, you don’t understand
a word, and you need a lawyer to tell you what the law is? How can a
human being be bound by something that he doesn’t understand?
The law of STATUTES is the law of CONTRACT. And we, as human beings,
have the right to decline to contract. But, if we don’t know that we are
being invited to contract, our silence acts as acceptance. What has this
got to do with the PERSON? Remember I said that the corporation needs a
way of contracting with you and bringing you into their system,
providing them with money? They do it through your PERSON. You are not a
person, you HAVE a person. They do it through tricking you into thinking
that you are a PERSON and there are obligations that you MUST fulfil.
Remember what MUST means? As a flesh and blood human being you have the
right to say no thanks, when offered a contract. Get this straight: you
are not a PERSON. You have a PERSON.
So what does this mean then? Let me give you an example. You receive a
fixed penalty NOTICE through the post, for speeding. (Remember, forget
how you have been taught...speeding is not a common law offence that
hurts or causes loss to another human being). What do you think when you
get this NOTICE? You think it is a demand for payment, because you have
done something wrong and you must pay for it. WRONG. A NOTICE is an
OFFER to contract. You can decline. If you sign the notice and send
payment, you (as flesh and blood human being) are agreeing to act for
your PERSON. You are under no obligation to do so.
Money
“There is no more direct way to capture control of a nation than through
its credit and money system.” - Phillip A. Benson, President of American
Bankers’ Association, 1939.
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the
sword. The other is by debt." -John Adams.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its’
laws." - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild.
What is money, and where does it come from?
Take a bank note out of your purse or wallet. Look carefully at the
front. What does it say?
It says: “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of.....pounds.”
What does this tell you? That money has no value in itself. It is a
piece of paper, given value by common agreement, by belief in its value.
Money is printed by a private company (Bank of England, Federal Reserve
etc.) and lent to the government, with interest. In return these
governments give the banksters (bankers/gangsters) bonds or gilts. Every
single bank note has interest attached to it. In effect, this means that
the system is propped up with debt. Debts can never be repaid, as all
there is to pay the debt is more debt. This continues for perpetuity, or
until the system implodes. The system is imploding now, as we speak, and
governments are desperately trying to prop up the system by pumping more
debt into it.
When someone gives you a demand for payment, what can you pay it with,
if money itself is debt?
Credit cards, loans, mortgages etc.
When you borrow money from a bank in the form of credit, all that
happens is that new money is created, and given to you. They take your
signature on the signed credit agreement, and use that as a promissory
note, i.e. the promise of your future labour. There was no liability
created by them lending the money.
This money that has been created, and that is backed by your signature,
is your money.
So you are paying your own money back to the banks WITH INTEREST!
Why do you think banks are so keen to get your signature? Because that
signature (your property don’t forget) is a valuable commodity.
I will leave it to you to work out the implications.
Freeman on the Land is a
rapidly growing area of interest for all people that value their
liberty. As we approach some nodal point of global change many are
looking for alternatives, and the Freeman on the Land concept can only
become more popular as more end up losing everything and ergo, have
nothing to lose.
(As simplified as I can make them, based on the work of Robert-Arthur:
Menard, Mary-Elizabeth: Croft and (to some extent Winston Shrout and
Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst). Basically it is their work, tweaked a bit by
re-writing, and removing 'God' - thereby reducing it to absolute
fundamentals)
1) 'Lawful' is what it is all about. 'Lawful' .vs. 'unlawful'. Do not
get trapped into discussing 'legal'/'illegal'.
2) In order to empower a representative, you must have the power
yourself. You cannot give to anyone something you, yourself do not
possess. You cannot give them any more than you, yourself, possess.
Consequently you can look at anything any representative does, and say
"I must be entitled to do that myself, without - necessarily -
empowering someone else to do it for me".
3) In a democracy, 'a majority' does not depend on 'large numbers'. A
majority can be as low as ONE. And that ONE must, of itself, (therefore)
carry sufficient empowerment to put any motion into practice. (The US
Supreme Court has 9 Members. A 5 - 4 majority carries any ruling. That's
'democracy')
4) Consequent to (3) no Government has more power than you do yourself.
The powers are equal. The only difference is that your power is
inalienable - it can't be taken away from you - whereas a Government can
be replaced by some other set of role players. Consequently YOU are
'supreme'.
5) 'Requesting permission' is the act of a child. 'Licencing' is
'begging for permission' and 'submitting to someone else's will'. Adults
do not beg permission for something they are lawfully entitled to do,
and prepared to take full responsibility for so doing. Anything for
which a licence can be granted must, by definition, be fundamentally
lawful (otherwise it would be incapable of being licenced), and there
is, therefore, absolutely no need for an adult to 'ask such permission'.
The act of 'obtaining a licence' is the act of throwing away a
fundamental Right, and substituting a (revocable) privilege instead.
6) 'Registration' of anything transfers superior ownership to the entity
accepting the registration. Once an item has been registered, you are no
longer the OWNER (even though you will still be paying for the item),
but instead you become the KEEPER. This includes cars, houses, children
(who become 'wards of the state' by virtue of a birth registration),
etc. ('regis ...' = handing ownership to The Crown ... which, by the
way, is the British Crown in Temple Bar, and NOT Elizabeth II)
7) When parts of the Magna Carta were 'transferred' into Statutes what
was actually happening was that fundamental Rights were being
transferred into privileges. Thus they were being watered down.
Diffused. Being rendered powerless.
8) In all cases you are always being OFFERED A SERVICE - which includes
'benefits' - in the form of privileges. You are always fully entitled to
waive such services, and of course you will also be waiving the
attendant benefits, as you so choose. Your choice is - ultimately - to
either assert your (inalienable) Rights, or accept (revocable)
privileges.
9) The law can give rise to a FICTION, but a fiction cannot give rise to
a law. Consequently a legal fiction called THE GOVERNMENT has no power
to make LAW. It is, in point of fact, BOUND BY LAW (like everyone else,
and including all other legal fictions). PARLIAMENT is another legal
fiction entity. Statutes created by Parliament are not, therefore, the
LAW. They are 'legislated rules for a society' and ONLY APPLICABLE TO
MEMBERS OF THAT SOCIETY. Join a different society, and you would be
bound by a different set of rules. (If this were not the case it would
be impossible to become, for example, a Freemason and be bound by the
rules of Freemasonry). Statutes are nothing more than the Company Policy
of THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, or THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, etc. (See 'society', below)
10) Only a sovereign flesh and blood human being, with a living soul,
has a Mind. Only something with a Mind is capable of devising a CLAIM.
Legal fictions are soulless, and do not possess a distinct Mind. They
cannot, therefore, in LAW, make a CLAIM.
11) Consequent to the foregoing, and since the Judiciary in a court de
facto derives all its power from colour-of-law/Statutes, then no court
de facto has any power over you as a sovereign human being, IN FACT
(although, of course, they don't bother to tell you!). A court de jure
is the only kind of court to which you are subject under Common Law, and
there are none of those left (unless you insist that the court operates
de jure, by demanding a Trial by Jury. But they will attempt to resist
that with every fibre in their 'corporate', soulless, 'bodies').
12) YOU, and your fellow countrymen, constitute the entire and total
'wealth' of your country. The resources may be considered as assets, but
without you & your fellow countrymen they are worthless. A field must be
ploughed, and seeded, before potatoes will grow. Once grown they must be
dug up, bagged, and transported before they can do the worthwhile job of
sustaining life. Without the efforts of you, and your countrymen,
NOTHING can happen, and your country itself is a worthless lump of soil.
13) A Society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of
like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by
mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. A
society makes its own rules, and its Members are duty-bound to follow
them. Different societies can exist, having their own unique set of
rules. One way of 'choking' the action of a court de facto is to claim
membership of a society that only exists in Common Law jurisdiction. The
World Freeman Society has been set up precisely for this purpose.
14) Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A
CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO,
it must comprise the following:
A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you
should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of
making the contract.
B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of
the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both
parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other
party's CONSIDERATION.
C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties
agree.
D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES,
as made by two human beings.
Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful
contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been
followed. (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!). Standing
on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating
just about every action that may be taken against you. (See No. 16,
below)
15. Agreement to pay. Consequent to (14) above, all 'payment demands',
that could result in court actions against you, can be stopped by
'conditionally agreeing to pay the sum demanded', subject to proofs that
the 4 rules were followed in the first place. (Make sure you send this
letter by registered post, heading it 'Notice of Conditional Agreement'
and including 'Without Prejudice' in a suitable place). In almost all
cases no proofs are possible (because the rules were never followed
lawfully). However, by 'agreeing to pay' you have removed all
CONTROVERSY. Thus a court action, which is only there to adjudicate on
CONTROVERSY, cannot take place. If you receive a Summons, you can write
back (registered!) with a copy of your agreement to pay, subject to the
proofs being presented. The court will consider that any further action
is 'frivolous', i.e. a complete waste of its time, since there is no
CONTROVERSY on which it can adjudicate. (The court may even consider
whoever applied to the court to be in contempt). (See No. 16, below)
16. "I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn
thing! When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours
in the first place. You created the 'money' when you signed the Loan or
Credit Application. By doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument
called 'the money'. They cashed this in(*), and then used that to loan
you back your own money. You don't owe a damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an
apology at the very least - for applying this confidence trick on you -
AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU ALREADY GAVE THEM.
(* Actually they just could have walked away with your cash. But they
didn't, because they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they
could get you to pay everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on
top of that. Thus they had already been paid in full ONCE when they
cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it back to you, and
reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'. Are you
just beginning to feel slightly less sympathetic? If not, I don't know
what else to say.
"Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way.
Banks are not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held
by them 'in trust'). Loan Companies and Credit Card Companies (etc.)
have no Deposit Money in the first place! Do they? So how else could
they do it, then?)
17. 'Responsibility' .vs. 'Authority'. You can DELEGATE authority, but
you can only SHARE responsibility. In other words, if you task
(delegate) someone to do something, you still retain the RESPONSIBILITY
for getting it done, and for anything that may happen as a result. If,
for example, a Police Officer carries out any order, given by a
superior, then that Officer is personally responsible for what may occur
as a result, and all those up the chain of command are considered
accomplices, in LAW.
(That's what the Nuremberg Trials were all about)
Therefore it is important that, if you delegate authority, you delegate
to the right individual or group of individuals. You delegate to an
individual who will accomplish the task without come-backs. And who you
choose is your choice, and your responsibility.
www.youtube.co.uk
David Icke, Jordan Maxwell, The AntiTerrorist, Rob Menard, John Harris,
Brian Gerrish.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 1st, 2nd and 8th editions
Below is the Articles 1-2 of
Hitler's Enabling Act. Plain and simple.
Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Empire
The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is
hereby proclaimed with the assent of the
Reichsrat, it having been established that the
requirements for a constitutional amendment have
been fulfilled:
Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the
constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted
by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws
referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and
Article 87 of the constitution.[1]
Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate
from the constitution as long as they
do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the
Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain
undisturbed.
Below is 22(3) of The Civil Contingencies Act
2004
Emergency regulations may make
provision of any kind that could be made by
Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal
Prerogative; in particular,
regulations may—
(a) confer a function on a Minister of the Crown, on the
Scottish Ministers,
on the National Assembly for Wales, on a Northern
Ireland
department, on a coordinator appointed under section 24
or on any
other specified person (and a function conferred may, in
particular,
be—
(i) a power, or duty, to exercise a discretion;
(ii) a power to give directions or orders, whether
written or oral);
(b) provide for or enable the requisition or
confiscation of property (with
or without compensation);
(c) provide for or enable the destruction of property,
animal life or plant
life (with or without compensation);
(d) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to
or from a specified
place;
(e) require, or enable the requirement of, movement to
or from a specified
place;
(f) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies
of specified kinds, at
specified places or at specified times;
(g) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at
specified times;
(h) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other
specified activities;
(i) create an offence of—
(i) failing to comply with a provision of the
regulations;
(ii) failing to comply with a direction or order given
or made under
the regulations;
(iii) obstructing a person in the performance of a
function under or
by virtue of the regulations;
(j) disapply or modify an enactment or a provision made
under or by
virtue of an enactment;
(k) require a person or body to act in performance of a
function (whether
the function is conferred by the regulations or
otherwise and whether
or not the regulations also make provision for
remuneration or
compensation);
(l) enable the Defence Council to authorise the
deployment of Her
Majesty’s armed forces;
(m) make provision (which may include conferring powers
in relation to
property) for facilitating any deployment of Her
Majesty’s armed
forces;
(n) confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal (which
may include a tribunal
established by the regulations);
(o) make provision which has effect in relation to, or
to anything done in—
(i) an area of the territorial sea,
(ii) an area within British fishery limits, or
(iii) an area of the continental shelf;
(p) make provision which applies generally or only in
specified
circumstances or for a specified purpose;
(q) make different provision for different circumstances
or purposes.
Person :
A person is a legal concept both permitting rights to and
imposing duties on one by law. In the fields of law, philosophy, medicine, and
others, the term has specialised context-specific meanings.
In many jurisdictions, for example, a corporation is considered a legal person
with standing to sue or be sued in court. In philosophy and medicine, person may
mean only humans who are capable of certain kinds of thought. This could also
extend to late fetuses and neonates, dependent on what level of thought is
required.
A Human Being and Person
are not the same thing. A Human Being is the living soul embodied in the
body of a man(woman) whereas Person is a legal concept meaning where
rights are attached to a persona or mask.
: the quality or state of
being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another :
independence c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from
something onerous <freedom from care>
d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken
f : improper familiarity g : boldness of conception or execution h :
unrestricted use
You are an animal, a living soul,
a carbon based life form.
All men are equal
and none can have power over you - unless you submit to their unlawful
authority.
Statute Law has been created by men to gain control of other men.
YOU.
Some men demand money from You.
They are called gangsters or politicians.
Every sovereign man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by
nature and physics. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellow-men
without his consent.
Natural or God's Law is: Do no harm.
Do not steal.
Do not make false contracts.
Freemen pay no taxes, income or
council tax.
TAX is a fiction.
Freemen do not register anything.
Freemen do not vote.
Freemen do not fill in Voter Registration Forms.
Freemen are not members of
'Collectives'
Freemen are not members of political parties
Freemen are not members of
religions
Many
Freemen believe in 'Spirituality'.
Freemen are sovereign individualists.
Freemen do not have "Licences".
No man can demand payment from Freemen for
doing something which does no harm to others.
• The only form of government
recognised as lawful is a representative one.
• Representation requires mutual consent.
• Consent must be freely given and not a result of coercion or duress.
• A statute is defined as a legislative rule of society given the force of law.
• A society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to
deliberate, determine and act for a common goal
They
declare for themselves the right to do anything they please, simply by writing
it down on a piece of paper and agreeing amongst themselves that they have the
right. The right to destroy your property, the right to abduct you for speaking
out, the right to assault you for defending yourself. They neverr talk about
these rights, instead they talk about their authority. They never talk about
their assault, they talk about reasonable force to restrain, though if they have
no right to abduct, clearly there is no force that is reasonable. They declare
that they do have the right to abduct people, though since even the foolish know
that this is a crime, they say that when they do it, it is not abduction but
arrest, and that they have the right to do it: the right to abduct you for
speaking out against them destroying your property.
They declare for themselves the right to destroy your property, like they
declare for themselves so many rights they could never have been granted by
anyone having the power to grant such rights. It is the sheer volume of their
audacity that counfounds the foolish into accepting that these theives and
brigands have any of these rights that they have for themselves declared.
When they come round to destroy your property, they do not have the right, you
never gave them authority. When they go to your employer to collect their
protection money they call taxation they have no authority, they have no right.
Thats why their corrupt courts will only deal with these matters without juries,
because most of these would themselves be unwilling victims of these criminals
who call themselves authorities. They have no authorty, they have no right,
because it is only you who can grant them it, and if they declare it for
themselves and demand you grant them it at the threat of any repercussion, it is
fraudulent and it is extortive.
When they come to steal your property, do not be confused because they call it
confiscation, they intend to deprive you of your property, they can have no
right because it is only you who has any lawful authority over these matters.
When they come to kidnap your children, dont be dismayed at the way they heap
their lies upon lies against you as they move to commit their atrocious deed.
Dont be alarmed by your neighbours misled by the volume of lies and audacious
demands because you yourself were once like them, ignorantly unaware that these
criminals proclaiming themselves to be heroes were nothing but sad idiots that
were trained like monkeys to commit any crime they were ordered to commit.
When they declare for themselves the right to force people to take their drugs,
the right to eavesdrop on your correspondence, the right to abduct and torture
and shoot to kill. These are nothing but invalid declarations, because it is
only you who can grant these rights, and I promise you, you can not grant these
rights unless you were fully aware that you were granting them, and that you
were granting them of your own free will without solicitation.
Their talk of law mocks every concept of justice they could ever aspire to
knowing of. Only jungle law allows the indulgences they afford themselves in
their legislative rules. Beleive nothing that comes from them, believe nothing
that is filtered by them. We are to suppose that for us to kill to protect our
children from them is a crime, but at the same time for them to kill en masse to
protect their self-declared authority is lawful. These people are liars, but
liars of a such a degree that they will heap one lie on top of another and
another and another, while holding a gun at the face of the very people they
have self-declared themselves to be protecting the laws of. Their crimes and
lies and tyranny of such volume and of such height that you will never see the
top of it by climbing up the greasy pole, better to turn your face away and look
to those, who may well be meeker than the tyrants, but without doubt are closer
to bringing about an age of justice than any tyrant.
Shall we declare for ourselves the authority to shoot the tyrant on sight? Shall
we declare for ourselves the authority to steal the tyrants property? Shall we
abduct the tyrants children and declare for ourselves the right to impose
whatever slavery we deem fit upon their spouses? You know as well as I do that
it is on these kind of things that the tyrant feeds. We must act with a sense of
justice against the tyrant, ensuring that at no stage can the tyrants members be
under any impression that they have any rights beyond those that we all have.
They will get mad and they will get angry, because it is this egotistical
controllability that makes them perfect candidates to wear the tyrants hats and
sit at the tyrants many desks. Do your best to channel this anger away from you
unless it brings you danger, but at no stage give them any impression that you
are freely co-operating with them. Co-operate if needs be, you do not wish to
bring against you the wrath of a man with a gun. But be sure to remind them that
it is because they threaten you that they have achieved any co-operation, and
not because you have granted them any lawful rights or that you have allowed
them to have any LAWFUL authority.
They must then accept that their concept of law is based upon the whims of their
superior, and that unless they can be sure that there has been authority granted
to any of their chain of command, far from lawful, their actions are the
commands of their gangleader. A powerful gangleader perhaps, but one with no
lawful authority none-the-less.
The Right to Ignore the State Herbert Spencer
argues that: "If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he
infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop
connection with the state - to relinquish its protection and to refuse paying
toward its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches
upon the liberty of others, for his position is a passive one, and while passive
he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be
compelled to continue one of a political corporation without a breach of the
moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking
away of a man's property against his will is an infringement of his rights"
Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition
sovereign n. is defined as
"A person, body, or state vested with independent and supreme authority"
~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
Lawful Rebellion
Lawful rebellion allows quite simply for the following recourse:
Full refusal to pay any forms of Tax, Fines and any other forms
of monies to support and/or benefit said unlawful governance of this
country.
Full refusal to abide by any Law, Legislation or Statutory
Instrument invalidly put in place by said unlawful governance that
is in breach of the Constitutional safeguard.
To hinder in any way possible all actions of the treasonous
government of this land, who have breached the Constitutional
safeguard; defined with no form of violence in anyway, just lawful
hindrance under freedom asserted by Constitutional Law and Article
61.
An excerpt from a lecture by
Dr. Onkar Ghate, Senior Fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual
Rights (a part of the
Ayn Rand Institute), and Dean at the
Objectivist Academic Center, introducing Ayn Rand's revolutionary ideas.
Hi everybody, my name
is sue and after several years of not understanding what has been going
wrong with the world, I've finally woken up.
I Can't thank John Harris
www.tupc.org David Icke
Freeman-on-the-Land Forum Brian Gerrish
www.UKColumn.org
and other like minded human beings enough;
they have transported me into a world of sanity. I now see things more
clearly and understand why our communities are breaking down.
There are times however, when I think that this new information can't be
right - I mean, how could our so called parliamentary representatives be
so manipulative and evil to beguile and betray us like that? It takes a
special kind of person/monster to be so cold and calculating. These
thoughts of doubt only last for a moment though because the truth speaks
for itself! - let's hope that more and more people wake up soon, and by
way of lawful rebellion, put these deceivers where they belong.
Sue
You may have heard of :
Commercial Redemption ~ Birth Certificate Bond
UCC ~ Reclaim the STRAWMAN ......................
QUOTE: "A new "law process" is making the
rounds. It is known as Commercial Redemption, hereinafter
referred to as "CR." If you read "patriot" literature, surf the
Internet, or belong to a militia or jural society, then you very likely
have heard about it. I have read its praises, read the manuals, and sat
through at least fifteen hours of seminars. Just as the Holy Scriptures
admonish us to post warnings near an open-pit, I have written this
report to explain why I believe that CR is a fraud and a trap.
Anyone who does not agree with my conclusions is welcome to please offer
constructive criticism, provided he has the courtesy to first read this
report carefully, all the way through."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
A meme (pronounced /miːm/ - like theme) is a theorietical unit or
element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices; such units or elements
transmit from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or
other imitable phenomena. The etymology of the term relates to the Greek
word mimema for mimic. Memes act as cultural analogues to genes in that
they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures.
