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)

July 27, 2009

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

On my recent journey down Freedom Road I discovered that we are living in a deception equal to or greater than that which we saw in the fictional film The Matrix. I was horrified to find I had been lied to since birth and I have been wondering lately, "Just how deep is this rabbit hole?".

Today I found out.

If this document, (click on the title to go straight to it), is even 10% correct, then we are so mired in deception as to be hopelessly lost. "They" have been manipulating us for decades.

This is the stuff of nightmares.

We are controlled utterly. It begins in school where we are indoctrinated, not educated. We leave school thinking we are equipped to face the world, take it on, and win. But, we only learn what they feel we need to know. Nothing more.

Here is a taster:

“The quality of education given to the lower class must be of the poorest sort, so that the meat of ignorance isolating the the inferior class from the superior class is and remains incomprehensible to the inferior class. With such an initial handicap, even bright lower class individuals have little if any hope of extricating themselves from their assigned lot in life. This form of slavery is essential to maintaining some measure of social order, peace, and tranquility for the ruling upper class.”

Some of us sweep floors, some of us tighten screws on some assembly line, some of us pack fish, still others learn a trade, and those lucky few become the controllers. The doctors, the lawyers, the police, and the politicians.

Ever wondered how a relatively few people control the entire population of a planet?

Wonder no more.

The attached document has been verified by experts in the know and their advice was simple: share this with everyone.

Without wanting to be overly melodramatic I would advise that you only read this when the sun is shining.

I know for damn sure that having just read it all there will be no sleep for me this night, as I ponder the ramifications.

And no, I did not understand the algebra and the equations in the document.

The text was terrifying enough.

July 23, 2009


"If I have seen far, it's because I stood on the shoulders of giants".

Using the quote above is my way of saying the rest of this blog entry was not penned by me. All of the following was written by a man called Arthur Cristian, and if you click the title you will be transported (no pun intended) to Australia, for 'tis an Aussie site from whence this piece came. While you're there, (you may want to put a pot of coffee on), you will find mountains of information. This essay touches on some of my earlier scribbling but Arthur tells it so much better than me.

Oh, and some of you will think that because it relates to the antipodes, it has no bearing here in the Dis-United Kingdom. Sadly, we operate in exactly the same criminal way.

Enjoy. Or not.


What the Banks do not want you to know.

The truth about money is so simple a child can understand it, yet those who understand and control it have woven so complex a web of lies and deceit around money that make us believe it to be totally different to its true nature. This is to their huge advantage and our financial slavery.

It is the accepted wisdom that “Banks make their profit from lending their depositors funds to borrowers at a higher rate of interest than they pay those depositors”. It is the hardest thing to get people to challenge accepted wisdom. The above statement demonstrable untrue, although we ( nearly) all believe it.

Proof.. If I loaned you $ 1000, you would have $ 1000 more and I would have $ 1000 less. But the total money in circulation would not be changed. The Banks claim to do the same. Now, Banks make loans every business day, so borrowers accounts would be going up, hence depositors accounts should be going down – but they are not.

Have you ever looked at your Bank Statement and noticed, say $ 1000 missing, rang the Bank Manager only to be told “ I have loaned it to some one else” ? No, and neither have I or anybody that I have ever talked to. This is all the proof needed to disprove the accepted wisdom of how banks operate.

1. Banks do not loan out depositors funds.

2. Banks do not loan money, they advance credit.

3. Banks do not have to borrow in order to lend.

4. Every Bank Loan occurs without anybody else having less money.

5. Note that we only borrow principle when we take out a loan, we don`t borrow interest.

6. Note also that we repay principal but we only pay interest.

The truth is, unlike the loan between You and I, when banks make a loan, nobodies account goes down, but the account of the borrower goes up, so there is an increase in the money in circulation.

Where did this money come from ?

Overseas, as John Howard told me years ago ?

Well, a little investigation showed me that the “ money supply” at that time increased in all countries, so that cannot be right. The simple but startling truth ( when first heard ) is that the banks create the money they lend. ( Create means bring into existence that which did not exist before).

Page 2.

How do they do this ?

Well, what do you get when you get a bank loan ?

Numbers added to your account. Banks literally create money at the stroke of a pen ( punch of a computer key ) when numbers are added to the borrowers account. This money costs literally nothing to create, and the banks do not have and responsibility to any depositor because they do not lend their depositors funds as we have seen.

Where did banks get this power to create money ?

In a nutshell, from their knowledge and our ignorance of the nature of money. They work overtime to keep up the deception. For example :- Why, if banks create the money they lend, do they have term deposits bearing interest ? To keep up the belief ( deception ) that banks lend depositors funds. Money on term deposit is a tiny fraction of bank loans.

Do Banks have any moral right to create money ?

A resounding NO.

Do Banks have a legal right to create money ?

NO – but most politicians do not believe ( or so they say ) that banks actually create money, so they “ believe” bank operations are above board. Abraham Lincoln , John Kennedy and Harold Holt all paid the price for trying to take away the power to create money from the people behind the banking system. We have a ruthless enemy.

Banks not only create the money they put into circulation, they also extinguish money out of circulation. Money in circulation enhances and simplifies the exchange of goods and services.

Money is the common medium of exchange that simplifies bartering and allows commerce to flow. However, when a repayment of a loan is paid to a bank of principle and interest, the numbers go out of the borrowers account but do not come back into anybody else`s account. That money has gone out of circulation or has been extinguished. Banks create the principle of a loan, but extinguish the principle and interest of repayments, and here lies the basis for Australia and every other countries economic problems – namely criminal entrapment.

What we have discussed so far is money having a beginning and an end : A creation and extinction. We are not encouraged to think this way, but where does money go to in a depression, and come from in a boom if there is not an extinction and a creation process ?

Note : Money is only a representation ( shadow ) of wealth – goods, services ( labour ) and assets.

It is not wealth, which is the “ real stuff”.

Knowing how money comes into circulation and goes out , is vital to understanding the problem and to see the solution – and indeed there is a solution. You can be a small but important part of that solution. Money can be lent, spent or given into circulation.

Page 3

Consider the current international bank controlled money system as applied to Australia :

1. 95 % of money is created by banks and lent into circulation as described above. Loans are debts to be repaid with interest ;

2. 4 % of money is created by banks and spent into circulation , mainly on paying wages, building and maintaining property. It costs the bank nothing to employ staff and build buildings etc. – wages and payments end up as money in the form of numbers added to the workers account ( the costs ) , and this costs the bank nothing ( they are created out of thin air ) amazing – no wonder this is forbidden knowledge. From the workers point of view, money created and spent into circulation by banks is earned into circulation by banks is earned into circulation by the workers – it belongs to him – it is debt – free money.

3. 1% of money is created by government , and that is spent into circulation. This happens at the mint. A $2 coin costs about 10 cents – it is only a token – a law makes it valuable. This token will be used to pay public and private debts and taxes to the value of $ 2., hence the term legal tender.

Note : Government cannot say that it only gets money by taxing and charging. Bank notes are not created by Government, but by the Reserve Bank which is under Private control , in spite of the deception of a Reserve Bank Act of federal Parliament. Try getting a Federal Politician to attack or question The Reserve Bank – it is the way to a very short political career.

Bank notes can be exchanged for numbers in accounts and vice versa .

Putting things together :

Spent in or earned money (2) and (3) above 4 % +1 % = 5 % helps to provide a source of money to pay interest on (1), the loan or debt of money – 95 % . What if interest demanded on the debt money 95 % Is greater than the debt – free money 5 % .

Putting it simply, the banks would be asking more out of circulation than there is in circulation, and they invariably do. Consequently there is not sufficient money in circulation for everybody to repay their loan with interest.

If you are successful in the system and repay your loans and make a profit, then much of your interest and all of your profit has come out of the principle of other peoples loans. To be successful, others must fail in this evil banking system – but such a shocking situation need not be , fortunately.

Page 4

Summary :

Banking is a system in which money is created at no cost and ( mainly ) lent into circulation after mortgages over real property have been taken. Interest charged exceeds the small amount of debt – free money, so banks have set a trap in which those who cannot repay get foreclosed on and lose the real wealth they have mortgaged.



Comment :

You cannot keep taking , say, $ 105 out of circulation for every $100 that comes in . Why does not the system collapse and there be no money in circulation ? This bank debt system is deliberately unstable. It is kept :

1. making loans bigger and bigger and

2. 2 writing off debt on people on whom they foreclose…

… debt “written off “ remains in circulation as numbers. Is it really debt ? Remember the bank created the “ money ” as numbers at no cost . Debt by deception , and fictitious at that. All economic problems which lead to many social problems can be explained by the above method of bank operation..

1. Liquidity problems: shortage of money in the system means some must not have enough to repay loan, hence liquidity problems;

2. Inflation: liquidity problem forces some to borrow more to keep going. New loan to be repaid with interest forces up cost of production, hence prices for products / services must go up, hence money buys less – which is the meaning of inflation;

3. Boom : banks lower interest rates, make loans easy to get and the money supply increases, whilst unemployment decreases and productivity increases, but prices rise – loans raise cost of production hence inflation;

4. Recession / depression: banks slow or stop lending and raise interest rates. Money supply decreases, unemployment increases, economic activity decreases, prices may fall so money is deflated – it buys more but it is all “ owed “ to the bank anyway – “ owed “ only in the sense that you accept the creation of money by banks as legal, which it is not:

5. Unemployment : is not caused by a lack of jobs, it is caused by a lack of money in circulation – this shortage is deliberately caused by banks :

6. Bankruptcy : business failure – the cause has been explained above. Truly the blood of thousands who have suicided over debt / bankruptcy and marital and family breakdown through debt is those who run and control banking:

Page 5

We allow the Banks to create money at no cost to them, give them the privilege to charge us for principle and interest and bank charges etc. ( on a loan ), how more generous can we be ? ( or dumb )

You have just had the best economics lesson you will ever have – it fits the facts and is free. Isn`t it so true that when you see the problem clearly, the solution is at hand.

The Constitutional Money System :

Believe it or not, all the power needed to sort out the money system is in the Australian Constitution Section 51, 12 : The power to make the laws regarding money and 51,13:
The power to make the laws regarding banking.

51,12 : Gave the Federal Parliament the power to set up the mint and create money – coins.
Nothing in the Constitution stops government from creating treasury notes ( instead of bank notes and treasury credit- number money instead of bank credit ).

1. The Federal Government must be forced to use the power we gave them to become sole creator of Australia’s money ( 51,12: ) ( Not the privately owned banks ) further ;

2. The Federal Government must be forced to use 51,13: to stop banks creating money , Simple – banks to have accounts with treasury – loans made by cheque to be cleared through treasury, then they cannot lend what they do not have , just like you and me – cheques will bounce.

3. Treasury created money at the direction of the parliament is to be ( mainly ) spent into circulation which is the same as being earned into circulation by those who work for it.

4. All constitutionally empowered purposes of Government are to be financed by government created credit and never by taxing to gain money or borrowed at home or abroad. ( IMF or World Bank Loans – debt to them is now over

5. $ 450 billion dollars and climbing )

6. Recommended to the Australian people to amend the Constitution to stop government taxing to gain money or borrowing . This will force the government to use the power the people gave them to create money.

7. Government created money will be backed by the assets produced by those who work for it. Those assets will be produced cost – free to government , so no debt , hence no interest / principle repayments need to be made, hence no need to tax. Bank credit is not backed by anything other than fraud and deceit.

… however this is not something for nothing . Those who work for the money Government created have benefited society . Their pay is a power of command over other peoples goods, services and assets. The real reward of those who benefited society is the real wealth others will give them in exchange for the money they earned. Instead of paying tax so the government can achieve, we
provide goods and services in exchange for money as the reward for those who did the work for government for the national benefit.

Government will be required to spend sufficient money into circulation to provide for full employment making sure that money is backed by real wealth.

8. User pays will apply to Government services, but with no government debt, these will be much cheaper, and with all income tax and all hidden taxes removed which the government now uses to gain money, people will have six times as much expendable income to decide what services they require

9. Social Security will be solved in the best possible way – jobs for all, except the aged, disabled and mentally ill. Savings for old age will be easy for those who work ten years in the new system.

10. Zero inflation – constant buying power of money is the only fair basis of a money system – impossible in the bank system, but totally possible in the Constitutional system. To achieve this, as an asset of government is worn out - for example, a road – treasury will gather up money from those who use it ( tax on fuel ) and tax it out of circulation. For example, a stretch of road costs $ 20 million and is expected to last 10 years. Then each year $ 2 million is taken out of circulation – so all the $ 20 million is taken out in 10 years . Then with zero inflation, $ 20 million created by treasury will see it rebuilt.

11. Bank assets and wealth gained by fraud will be restored to the people as equitably as possible. Australia will be owned totally by Australians.

12. Top bankers in Australia who have worked this fraud will be jailed for life , and any overseas top bankers who dare show their faces likewise .

I told you that government would have to be forced to use 51, 12 : and 51, 13 : of the Constitution.

Why ? They have the power, why won`t they use it ? They are too frightened to use it – and don`t call them cowards until you consider yourself in their position. Those behind the banking system ( it is only a tool ) have a record of assassination against those who try to take away their assumed power to create money – Lincoln, Kennedy , Holt.

They will even induce war if they cannot – Saddam Hussein and Desert Storm. Sounds a bit risky to do anything , true , but the result of doing nothing will be a New World Order
Where mind control, slavery or death will be your lot.

What can we do – with little risk – to force government to obey we the people instead of the evil hidden government ?

1. Educate yourself – learn what other strategies are available to you.

2. Talk – explain and teach others – give them copies of this letter- spread the knowledge fast .

Let the politicians know that you now know the truth and what are they going to do about it.
Why will this work ?

Well, the bankers have said that if the people in large numbers wake up to how we operate , we've had it . However, they boast that most people are to dumb to do this .


July 19, 2009

The Filthy Lucre

I picked this title deliberately. I did not want to confuse the subject with honestly earned money.

(Click on the title to go to a website called The Secret People. There you will find a potted history of the Bank of England).

The word lucre comes from Latin originally (lucrum) and at some point around the 14th century it evolved into Middle English and became lucre. Since 1546, however, William Tindale preceded the word lucre with "filthy" and we rarely see it on its own anymore.

Filthy lucre means shameful gain. Bear that in mind as you read on.

Money has changed a great deal, but the biggest change came about in 1931 when sterling was no longer tied to gold. The government had used all the gold to support wars, (notably against France), and something had to be done. So, a quiet, innocuous little statute was rammed through, with indecent haste, and money lost its "value" overnight. No longer could we bang on the door of our bank and ask to trade our paper money for real gold. Instead, it became a promissory note.

Today, 78 years later, sterling is known (by them that knows these things) as fiat money. It has no intrinsic value and we use it largely based on trust. If you hold up a £50 note alongside a blank piece of A4 paper and ask your friend "Which one of these bits of paper is worth more?", your pal will plumb for the £50 note every time. In reality, the A4 sheet is worth more, simply because it is bigger. If you write the words "I owe you £1,000,000" on the A4 sheet and sign it, you'd better have funds in the bank to cover your debt. Believe it or not, an IOU is a most powerful piece of paper. To write one is to enter into a contract and you are obliged to make good on your debt. In California today, the state is bankrupt. The Governator has instructed his state tax offices to write IOU's to those citizens that have overpaid their taxes, or are due a refund. Companies supplying the various state offices with goods and services are also receiving IOU's instead of payments in cash or cheques. Interestingly, California has lost over $100,000,000 in revenues in the ten years since they enacted a smoking ban. I wonder if, without this insane ordinance, they would be skint today? Just saying.

Bank notes aren't entirely worthless, it has to be said. They cost around 3p to make. Whatever the note denomination. You may well disbelieve that and I would ask you simply to visit whatdotheyknow and search for FOI's concerning the value of money. Although he had to be badgered into it, the HM Treasury bloke eventually admitted that our currency is worthless.

Here's a definition of fiat money: Fiat Money-Money that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Most of the world's paper money is fiat money.

When asked "How is money created?", 99.99% of people say "Well, they print it down at the Royal Mint". And yes, that is true, but only partially. When you realise that less than 5% of our currency is in circulation, you know, the stuff that goes in and out of your wallet or purse, you really, really, have to ask "Where is the other 95%?". It doesn't exist. At least, not physically. The remaining wealth takes the form of noughts & ones. It is digital. Years ago, as a young apprentice, I had to pop down to Accounts every Friday afternoon. At a little serving hatch I was handed a small brown envelope. It contained the cash for my 40 hours of labour for that week. By the time I was 18 I had joined the British Army and I don't think I have been paid cash wages ever since. It just magics its way into my bank account and I spend it using a piece of plastic, and it magics itself to whomever it is that I have just bought goods and services from.

While we are on about magic, we should explore where money comes from. We have established that the Royal Mint do not produce enough of the stuff, and besides, if you want to know what happens when you simply leave the printing presses rolling, have a quick peek at Zimbabwe. Within days, (hours, sometimes) hyperinflation kicks in. Unkie Bob ordered his mint to produce bigger and bigger notes and they ended up with a Z$1 Trillion note. It paid for two loaves of bread. A friend of mine, a Zimbabwean, told me that it was cheaper to use bank notes in the toilet. They cost less than Andrex 4-ply. They also have a "use by" date on them.

So, it doesn't come from HM Treasury. And it has been illegal for many, many years for banks to lend out depositors money. If the banks cannot lend you money from a big pile of notes in their vaults, where the hell does it come from?


That's right. Every time you go to a bank, building society, or even your credit card company, you create money simply by asking for it. They will ask you to "please fill this in sir, sign here, here and here", and voila!, your money is available. What you have just done is utterly magic. 10 seconds after signing the form, (in reality, it has now become a promissory note) you created money!

Actually, you didn't. You created debt. You created debt out of thin air. Not that you care, right? You needed that car, or that mortgage, or that holiday, and hell, you're going to pay it back. With interest.

My question is this: does that seem fair to you? You made all the effort, you went to the bank, you filled out the form, you signed it, you magicked the money into being, and now they want you to pay it back! With interest! The guy at the bank did fuck all. The bank itself did fuck all. The Bank of England, well, they had a little bit of work to do after seeing your promissory note. They had to type a few keys and send those noughts & ones from Threadneedle Street all the way to your bank. And they do that thousands and thousands of times each and every day. Without you, me, and the neighbours, their reason to be would be null and void.

Now, I don't know about you, but I would call that shameful gain.

Anyone else see this for the scam it is?

Anyone else feel like they have been robbed, time and time and time again?

If you are having trouble assimilating all this, and you have doubts, that's okay. I urge you to investigate yourselves.

And while you are doing that, ask yourselves this: if it doesn't happen the way Captain Ranty says, how does it happen?

There. Is. No. Other. Way.

You think that debt is bad. You couldn't be more wrong. Debt is good. Not for you, but for the economy. More loans = more debt. More debt = more "money" in circulation.

I have tons more information on money for you, but I will save it for another day.

IOU data. And that is one promissory note I intend to honour.

July 16, 2009

What's The Difference....

...between Lawful Rebellion and the Freeman Concept?

Thank you Anon, for asking the question in my earlier post.

Some people assume they are one and the same, but my research indicates that whilst they may be related, they are quite different. You can, for instance, serve notice on the government that you are now a Freeman On The Land, as I have done, or, you can serve notice on HM Queen Elizabeth II that you have entered into Lawful Rebellion. Or, you can do both. For the time being I am happy to be a Freeman, and I am considering Lawful Rebellion (LR). Incidentally, you can get more details on LR by clicking on my title, above.

Lawful Rebellion

You will have learnt, if you went to the linked site first, this:

"The United Kingdom Government has, over the last one hundred years, conspired to become a treasonous assembly and Parliamentary dictatorship. Parliament has acted with malice towards the English people. It makes unlawful Statute for the purpose of giving life to its treason – and to suppress dissent. The members of this wretched assembly are oath breakers. Parliament has betrayed those English people who have given their lives to defend this sovereign Community of England. This is The Great Treason".

LR distances you from the state and from the Queen. For people to consider this as a means of drawing attention to the treason that abounds in the UK at present, speaks volumes. This is not a small step to take. It requires one to search his or her conscience and make a tough decision, swiftly followed by decisive action.

If you want to look at LR more closely, simply type "Lawful Rebellion" into your searchbar and see what comes up. I got just over half a million hits so there is plenty of material to beef up on.

I noticed this quote on the website:

"The English law existed not to control the individual but to free him. It was on the side of the subject against those – whether usurping politicians or common criminals – who wished to bend him unconsenting to their will".
Roger Scruton in ‘England – an Elegy’

And it ties in nicely with the Freeman Movement.

Freeman On The Land

It sounds a little arcane, and ones mind is immediately drawn to medieval times. (Well, mine was when I first discovered the movement). Squires, knights, barons and lords, jugs of ale and maids-a-milking, summer sunshine and much happiness. (The reality was much more miserable, I am sure). This is far, far more than a romantic notion. Becoming a Freeman involves actively removing yourself from those statute laws that either make no sense at all, or are superfluous, (superfluous covers most of them), and taking an oath to abide by common law, or Natural Law. As I have said in the past, (and will repeat often), Statutes are Laws of The Water. Think Admiralty Law, think Fleet Law, think Commerce Law. All were written for the high seas, in those dim and distant days when trading between nations was paramount to an island-bound peoples survival. The statutes were written to ensure fair contracts between all parties, and provided a remedy if those contracts were reneged upon. These statutes, millions of them, apply to the sea. I do not live in or on the sea. I live on terra firma. Common Law offers me a remedy. It offers me a lawful way out. Having given the Home Office time to rebut my claims, I am now in possession of an extremely powerful document. It is not anarchy, it is not my "ticket to the sweet life", and it most certainly does not mean I can shirk my responsibilities as a husband, father, citizen or employee. Having sworn an oath not to hurt or cheat any other human beings, I find that I am more aware of those around me than I ever was before. I have rediscovered a long forgotten word: honour. In law, the words honour and dishonour are powerful juju. To be in dishonour is to be all the way wrong. To be honourable in one's dealings with fellow humans is regarded as the very apex of good behaviour. As long as you are honourable, you cannot go wrong.

We have a dishonourable government. We have a dishonourable monarch. Both care only for themselves. This is not their raison detre.

Politicians are there to protect us and serve us. They do not. They strip us of our freedoms daily. They are craven and weak. They are greedy and immoral. Declaring myself to be a Freeman divorces me from them. How many of you people reading this can disagree with my actions? How many of you hanker to do the same? I hope it is all of you. Do this thing, and the anger, the rage, the impotency, and the feeling of helplessness simply fades away. It is a fantastic way to feel.

And Queeny? She appears to be a caring lady and I cannot honestly say what goes through her mind day to day. We have never met and I feel ill-equipped to judge her. What I do know, however, is that she has done fuck all while those gibbons in Westminster gave our country over to Europe, slice by painful slice. That makes her negligent in my book. That ticks all the "treason" boxes, and it cannot, it must not continue.

We are deceived daily, even hourly, by those we trust to rule or govern us.

If, by declaring myself divorced from them, and by creating a little chaos to disrupt this Grand Deception, I can effect even a tiny difference to my life, and to the lives of others, it will be well worth the effort.

The alternative is terrifying.

It's like knowing there is a land-mine in your path and continuing to walk towards it. More, it's like ensuring that you are going to plant your right foot down on the trip-switch.

I realise this means nothing to you, dear reader, but now that I know where the mines are, I am going to side-step them all. The beauty of it is this: I have done this lawfully, and we both know that. So there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.

I'm in this now. Balls deep. It may end badly for me, but at least I am in charge.

I am living like a lion, not a sheep.

At last.

July 13, 2009

Cranks R Us?

As you can see from my list of favourite blogs, I quite like Old Holborns place. He, and his guest bloggers write more sense than all of the mainstream media combined.

His blog, jammed to the gunwale's with truthiness, naturally attracts many comments. The vast majority are from sensible people, and the vast majority support him and his guest bloggers. Like attracts like, they say.

Occasionally, he attracts oddballs. The oddballs always blog anonymously. Fair dinkum. So do I, for now. I have a couple of things in the pipeline that may just strip my anonymity away from me whether I like it or not. For now, I need to retain the cloaking device.

Anyhoo, one oddball wrote this:

"These freemen are cranks of the highest order, they want to opt out of anything detrimental, like paying taxes, obeying laws, etc. but you can bet your last penny that if any of them was injured and the paramedics asked them their name they wouldn't say "I'm a freeman and do not recognise your private company or illegal statutory duty of care to me so please leave me alone, I have opted out of your society and am a freeman".

Now, I would be the first man to defend his right to say what he said, but I am willing to bet everything I own that this oddball has no idea what the Freeman Movement is about at all.

Let's fisk his paragraph and see if we can add a bit of sunlight to his version of the "truth".

1. Not paying taxes. I have three reasons for not wanting to pay tax. All three have solid grounding in law.

a) Since invading Iraq in March 2003 several hundred thousand people have been killed. Not all of them were combatants. According to the law, anyone who supports an illegal war, (and by paying taxes we are paying for soldiers, bombs and bullets), is jointly and severally liable. This was one of the many rulings from the Nuremberg Trials. In short, if you help pay for bombs and bullets, you are equally liable for each and every death or injury.

b) Nowhere, and I repeat this, nowhere in the statutes demanding money in the form of taxes does it say any human beings have to pay. You read that right. Within that particular statute we are referred to as "persons". On reading Blacks Law Dictionary, you will note that "persons" defines corporations, not human beings.

c) Income Tax was rammed through as a temporary measure to pay for WWII. We finished repaying that debt a few years ago. Income Tax should have been abolished as we are no longer in debt (to the Americans) nor are we at war with any other sovereign nation.

Any issues with those reasons, Oddball?

2. Not obeying "laws".

It depends on what you think are "laws". No doubt every time parliament shits out another statute you think that is a new "law"? Wrong. A statute is given the force of law by the consent of the governed. A "Statute" is a rule for a society with a common aim. I decided quite some time ago that we do not share the same fucking aims. We are not even on the same planet, let alone the same page. Tell me Oddy, just how many of the 4000 statutes the Labour party shat out over the last 11 years did YOU consent to? Over 88% of them came from Brussels. Do you think we need them all? Some of them? I believe we have no need of anything Brussels spews out. If you were to do any research at all you would learn that statutes are "laws of the water". The last time I looked, I was on dry land. We are bogged down with millions of statutes, or, more accurately, Statutory Instruments. I can be jailed or fined for not understanding and complying with every single one of those statutes, remember; ignorance is no defence. I prefer to live simply. I prefer to write my own laws. I obey only common sense, or common law, (some prefer to call it Natural Law), which means that I voluntarily took an Oath not to kill, not to harm or injure, not to cause loss (steal) or make mischief with my contracts (defraud) in my dealings with my fellow human beings. Can you say the same? For a crime to have been committed, another human has to suffer harm, loss or injury. Perhaps you can tell me how a human has suffered loss if I drive at 35mph in a 30mph zone? Or who has suffered if I park on a double-yellow line?

3. Emergency care.

What you don't know is that everything you needed for your entire lifetime was provided for you before you reached the age of five. When you were born your parents registered your birth. Within a matter of weeks several trust funds were created. The government, relying (gambling) on your future labour, traded you on stock markets around the globe. You are no more than a commodity to them. Tonight your Birth Bond may be traded in Tokyo, Sidney, Paris or New York. In the morning it may spend some time on the LSE and then be whisked off to Frankfurt. Like me, you will no doubt be Common Stock. Not all Birth Bonds are worth the same. The Landed Gentry, Premium Stock, will be worth more because they started out with more, and are more likely to run corporations and generate more for the economy. So, not only have we already paid for our needs, and by that I mean not only healthcare, but housing, training, benefits from the social fund, unemployment benefits and the like, by the time we are five years old, we also continue to pay into the coffers. This scam goes back several hundred years. It just got more sophisticated with better technology. You enter the market as a tradeable commodity via your birth certificate and you exit the market when your death certificate is created. It was ever thus. And it has always been hidden right before your very eyes.

I have awoken from a deep slumber. That slumber was actively encouraged by successive governments throughout my life. And now, because I have woken up and started to question everything, you call me a crank?

Fuck you.

Try spending six months researching this charade. Try cross-referencing, double-checking, over and over again. Then you can call me a crank, but I seriously doubt that you would want to.

Alternatively, wrap that quilt around yourself and go back to sleep, you gormless cunt.

July 11, 2009

One Step Ahead

I have just been reading a fascinating description of Libertarianism over at Leg-Irons blog. (Click on my title to go there).

From his understanding of Libertarianism there is almost no difference between it and the Freeman Movement. We both want the same thing. Fewer rules, (needless, in almost all cases), and more freedom. As he says, it is not a cop-out, it is not anarchy. Indeed, I say as often as I can that becoming a Freeman brings with it a huge responsibility.

The only instant difference is that Libertarians want to go via the political process, and have formed a party that will actively engage the general population in an effort to educate and garner votes. I merely leap-frogged that process and served my Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right (NOUICOR) on the Home Office.

Not content with waiting for the establishment of a bona fide party to erase the nonsensical statutes from the books in Westminster, I informed them (HMG) that I now live according to my own laws. As you can see from my earlier blog posts, I claimed the right to ignore all statutes. (Along with a couple of controversial claims. But hey, if you don't ask, you don't get, right?)

Ask anyone in the country for their understanding of law and they will immediately tell you that speeding is a crime, or that parking on a double-yellow line is a crime. No, they are not "crimes". They are both statutes. Statutes are given the force of law by the governed. Consent to these statutes, some 3,600 of them have been vomited out of parliament in the last ten years alone, is assumed.

I removed my consent, lawfully.

I also swore an Oath not to harm, injure or cause loss to another human being.

As long as I adhere to my new laws I should never see the inside of a court-room.

During my long and thorough research of this exciting and liberating new concept I read that "...statutes are mere commentary. Busywork for parliamentarians". I find it impossible to disagree with that. The ridiculous truth is that we have millions upon millions of these worthless statutes on the books. Why are they there? We need four basic laws that cover us for everything.

Here they are in one sentence: do not harm, injure, cause loss, or make mischief with contracts. Job done.

Mr Leg-Iron says that he cares not a jot for immigration, only the intent of the immigrants. Me too.

He says that driving at 90mph down an empty motorway at 3am is acceptable. I agree.

He says (I am paraphrasing here) that driving at 90mph through a village, town or city at 3pm is unacceptable. I agree.

But hurt people, or steal from them, or defraud them, and it's prison for you. I also agree with that.

Libertarianism is growing rapidly in popularity. More so now that we have learnt that politicians are, in the main, in it only for themselves. I happen to know this is true as I have striven for four years to see my local MP. He does not think my complaint (about a particular statute) is worthy of a 15 minute chat during one of his surgeries. So he continues to ignore me. Why am I paying this cretin? Why will he not sit down and discuss my objections like an adult? Because it is far, far easier to simply ignore me. It makes no difference to him.

The revelation that they no longer served me, no longer cared enough about me to address my concerns was the trigger for me to issue my NOUICOR.

Reading that last bit back to myself I can see that it looks like a clear case of "sour grapes", and yes, it may have started out that way. But now? Revenge is the last thing on my mind. Having served my Notice on them that Captain Ranty now has his own, very personalised set of laws, I am untouchable. They (naturally) ignored my Notice, but I don't mind. There was nothing in my Notice that they could rebut even though I gave them the opportunity to do so.

I have no words to describe just how free I feel today. Rejecting "their way" for my way was quite incredible. Everything takes on a whole new aspect. Yes, learning the new language to use with the police, the courts, and those that would take my money for no good reason was and is an evolutionary process, but I am almost there.

I am delighted to report that Libertarianism = Freeman Movement. I would not have evolved into the sentient being that I am today without the enforcement of one monumentally stupid act of parliament; the smoking ban.

So they only have themselves to blame for any of my activities since.

"Unintended consequences"? Hell, yes.

I see a huge amount of evidence to suggest that people are changing. The ineptitude of this particular Labour government has altered more minds than they can ever conceive. I believe that they have changed our perception of politics, and more importantly, the way we are governed, forever.

And every day I pray that that spreads faster than their manufactured Swine Flu.

I hope we all catch this virus.

The freedom virus.