July 29, 2009

Thinking Free-The Basics

I have reproduced this item in full, and unamended, from the Freeman On The Land website. I am (almost) certain Veronica: of the Chapman family won't mind. Plus, I always work on the "better to ask forgiveness than beg permission" principle.

As the title (both mine and Veronica's) would suggest, this whole concept is based on common sense.

I have noticed that this blog does not attract too many comments, but my readership climbs steadily northwards. I am not complaining, but I do wish more of you would engage. It may be that you are thinking one of two things: "Hey! This Ranty bloke is right! We've been getting shafted since God was a lad!", or, "Hey! This Ranty dude is off his fucking rocker!".

Either way, you are most welcome to let me know. I can say that I am as "normal" as the next man, whatever "normal" means. I think I am sane, but under the new terms that the Home Office espouse, I may be considered to be "fixated" and therefore a threat to the nation. I truly wish to be be a rocker of boats, but "fixated" I am not. Many things piss me off these days. And, if I'm honest, it isn't the "establishment" that upsets me. It's those fucking sheep. Almost all care more for the plot-line on Eastenders or Corrie than they do about the true state of our nation. Short of organising teams of people to visit all 29 million homes in the UK and slapping them all awake, I have no idea what else to do, other than share information I have come across with my growing number of readers.

So, thank you for coming.

Over to Veronica: Chapman.

Established, Fundamental, Axioms

(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.

(If this had been pointed out, during the de Menezes trial, INCLUDING THE OBVIOUS BREACH OF COMMON LAW, a lot of Police personnel - up to, and including the Home Secretary & Prime Minister - could easily have ended up behind bars. The so-called 'legal profession' did a thoroughly abysmal job - as normal. A golden opportunity, tossed into the bin of history, by virtue of plain, common or garden, useless waffle. The police were charged under the Health & Safety Act. What utter rubbish! They should have been charged under Common Law)

Veronica: of the Chapman family

(January, 2009)


Griblett said...

Hello Captain Ranty.

I'm one of the readers but not a commenter (until now obviously!)

I don't think you're a crazy man but there is a lot to take in regarding the Freeman status.

Since stumbling onto your blog (linked via Dick Puddlecote) I've done what you suggested and read up on it. I now suffer from information overload and being less than clever, seem unable to get my head round the intricacies pertaining to taking on a Freeman role.

I will state that I have an interest in being a Freeman due to an impending financial crisis brought on by redundancy and ill-health. I know that this is probably not the reason to go down the Freeman road but it's a desperate situation.

I've played by their rules all my life with precious little to show for it. Maybe the time has come to opt out of their illusory world.

I haven't made a decision yet. I need to consider whether becoming a Freeman will make things worse than they are for me and mine or if it can lift us out of the trap of corporate misery.

Keep on writing though as your blog is a portal to what appears to be, another world.

Pesky Anonymous said...

Hi Captain

Griblett makes a very good point, about the information overload. This stuff does take a while to digest and sink in.
I posted (anonymously) on OH's blog a few weeks back, in defence of TPUC, and likened it to learning Chinese.

Although I have been researching LR & FOTL for maybe as long as a year now (and the many and varied facets of the illusion we live in), you appear to be considerably further up the road of discovery than I am. Consequently I am left feeling that any contributions I may make would be rather like teaching granny to suck eggs.
To put it another way, you appear (to me anyway) a kind of guru character, and apart from endless questions, it seems difficult to know how to make a positive contribution.

I am off to visit my ancient mum this weekend, but next week, I will try and write something. I have a few ideas.

I could send you some links I have come across, which seem to be little known or mentioned. I like to hear the same old stuff from many different angles, as it seems to increase my understanding of it all. You want I should post them?

Another great article as usual thanks.

Griblett said...

Hello again Captain.

Amongst my meanderings on the web I came across this film: Freedom to Facism

It's about America and nothing to do with the Freeman as such but there are parallels with the UK. It's about 1hr 50mins long but well worth watching.

Apologies if you've seen it before.

Griblett said...

Ahem, that should be Fascism and not Facism! (Well it is late).

Captain Ranty said...

Thank you very much, both of you.

I have just returned from a little jaunt (about 500 miles) around the east, north and west coast of Scotland, hence the late reply.

Typical, I ask for posters, and posters post, then I am away!

Sorry about that.

It is too late to give you both substantive replies now so I will have a crack at it tomorrow when I am refreshed.

It is terrific to see you both posting, although Pesky has some "previous".

Captain Ranty said...

OK, here we go.

Mr Griblett, thank you for the link. I had seen parts of the film before and it has some stunning information. Were I an American I would never file a 1040 again. I wish the answer was so simple here. British Law is different and our scam is different. It works on the same premise: people assume they need to pay tax, but nowhere in the statutes does it say that human beings have to pay income tax. The statutes refer only to "persons" and when you have a closer look at their definition of "persons" it says "corporations and companies". We have always been led to believe that "persons" and humans are the same thing. They are not.

BTW, if you need to use the Freeman concept as a means of regaining control, why not? In a perfect world you would be driven to it by your own ideology or philosophy, but you have been scammed all along, just like everyone else. A word of warning: be sure you understand everything you are doing before you launch. If you are 100% convinced that you are doing the right thing then no-one can stop you. I would advise that you join the FMOTL forum and read up on the subject there. They have some quite brilliant members and they have enjoyed success, but only because they researched first.

Mr Pesky,

Guru? I am flattered but I am a long way off being a guru. As you both have said, the information that we need to take in and deal with is staggering. Like you I am taking baby steps and there is much more to be done. I will post my new documentation here so that you can follow my progress. If I fall foul of the powers that be (TPTB) you will at least be able to avoid the pitfalls.

Thanks again to both of you.

If you have questions, please ask them. If I dont have the answers I know several dozen people that do.

Be well,


Griblett said...

Thanks for the reply CR.

My problem is that I'm not 100% convinced that the idea is good for me. No matter how much I read (and I've read every post on the FOTL forum and TUPAC's amongst other things), I'm not at all confident that I would retain the necessary wisdom if/when questioned by TPTB, thereby tripping myself up to my own long term detriment.

Over the past few weeks I've put the case for becoming a Freeman to a few people, including my partner. I am now pretty much forbidden (by my partner) of bringing the subject up. I think some of our friends have been less than complimentary about my mental health!

I've downloaded Veronica's book to read and digest, so hopefully I'll have a better understanding of it all after I've read it a few times.

Questions: Has anyone's NOUICOR ever been challenged? Can it be challenged or dismissed? If it has what was the outcome? If it hasn't then what would I/anyone do if mine/theirs was?

More at another time.

Pesky Anonymous said...

Yes, thank you for your response Captain.

I am old enough to remember what we were told at junior school. We were English, and that meant we were free. How we had the Magna Carta. How King Alfred was not called the Great for nothing. How the law was we could do whatever we wanted so long as we didn't harm anybody else. I believed every word, cherished every word, and felt proud to be English. (No disrespect to my brothers in the other parts of the kingdom)
I guess I remember all this because I am a history freak, the social history of England being my pet subject.

I guess also that it was about thirty years ago that I began to realise that all was not as it ought to be. I felt very sad, and I also felt alone. It was not until about a year ago that I stumbled onto the TPUC site, and found that here were some people invoking the Magna Carta. Here were some people who shared my heartfelt beliefs, and were actually doing something about it. I don't feel alone anymore.

So what I am saying is that I do not find this movement strange. In fact it is almost as if it were meant for me. As I've said, the more time goes by, the stronger the feeling that I must do my duty to my ancestors becomes.

It is a curious thing is it not, that if the internet was to be closed down, their whole evil takeover would take a very serious knockback. And yet it is also because of the internet, that the awakening is happening.

So why have I not sent in my affidavits?
I feel that once the wheels begin to turn, and I start refusing to be subject to their statutes, it will inevitably lead to me being dragged to court. This would be a novel experience for me. Feeling a bit old to relish a night (or more) in the cells, I would sooner be prepared, confident and knowledgeable enough to withstand their trickery, and send them packing. So now I study the law, and learn legalese.

There are several videos on youtube about handling court appearances. But I humbly offer this link because I think not many will be aware of it.
It is a charming black american lady enlightening black american people.
It is in ten parts (just over an hour). They have messed up the numbering, a couple are duplicated, - but you'll suss it :-))
Don't be put off by the moslem angle, and her ramblings about astrology. It is very educational and she has some mighty fine advice about how to conduct yourself.

I find it is not just knowing the words, but more like developing an awareness of who you really are.

- Griblett
I knocked this comment up last night. And now I discover your last post. An interesting contrast to your story, but with similar conclusions.
You can download Black's Law dictionary Vol 1&2 also.
There is none of my immediate circle who share my views either. Mostly sheep I'm afraid. - "Keep your head down - you can't do anything about it". My response to that one was - Oh, is that what they said when Hitler was just over the channel.
Don't you just hate that word can't.
Best of luck to you my friend. As Mr Marley said: Get up, Stand up, Don't give up the fight.
Just keep studying. I am sure you will make it in the end.

More from me too sometime Captain. You did ask for comments - you may live to regret it :-))))

Captain Ranty said...


I feel your pain. I am in exactly the same position. My wife thinks I am wired to the moon.

Regarding NOUICOR's, no, not a single one has been challenged. A couple have been acknowledged but never rebutted. The short story is that they cannot rebut them. Assuming you have three witnesses signatures, or a Notary Publics signature, the words become enshrined in common law. The very worst thing TPTB can do is to ignore these NOUICOR's but there is nothing they can do apart from wait for the inevitable test case. Eventually, someone will lose patience and make a serious claim. I personally hope that it is me. I have studied and studied and now feel that I have learned their language.

In all honesty, because I am normally law-abiding, there is little chance of me coming into contact with Policy Men. Most coppers just want an easy life and are decent human beings though. The new wave of recruits are being trained using NLP hence the cases of brutality we are seeing whenever more than two people gather publicly. They hide their badge numbers and their faces under balaclavas and they are much more sinister than the beat coppers we are used to.

Watch this space. If I can find a Notary willing to act on my behalf I will fire off a Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure to the Home Office. However outlandish, my Claim of Right is lawful.


Captain Ranty said...


Thanks for a great post. I believe you have the gist of this whole thing.

Yes, I have watched the video. I found it on Google so I wouldnt have to keep stop/starting. It flows better. Very interesting stuff.

Whether we want to come right out and admit it or not, we are being ruled by tyrants. They may not be in the same league as Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, or Idi Amin but they seem to be doing all they can to catch up, don't they?

A couple of years ago I recall watching planet-saver and all-round-good-egg Bob Geldof who was doing a documentary in the (ex-Belgian) Congo. He said something that resonated with me because I am a frequent traveler to Africa. He said "As soon as 20% of a nation can speak to each other freely, be it via the internet, or via cell-phones, the tyrants can no longer retain power". Whilst I like the statement I firmly believe the figure to be much, much higher. Probably around 50-60%.

But we Brits have had good communications for a very long time now and the apathy is killing me. I have no idea what it is going to take to get people to react. Are we really so insular, so selfish, as to just stand by while a "different" section of society is abused? By "different" I mean anyone who happens to do something you personally don't give a shit about. Why cant they see that an attack on one is an attack on all? In reality, all that is happening is that they (TPTB) have not yet got around to "dealing" with your perceived vice.

Eventually they will come. They will come for us all.

I am angry enough to believe that I will go down fighting.

I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.