January 05, 2010

Erm, We Are All Dead



Officially, mind you.

This video explains why.

It brings a whole new meaning to "I see dead people...."

Your thoughts, via a medium, would be gratefully received.

CR.

PS-If your ghost can stand it, there are several more nuggets in the rest of the series called "Money & Justice".

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey! Where are the links you referred to in the video?

Captain Ranty said...

It isn't my video, and they aren't my links.

On the right hand side (at YouTube) you will find links to both sites mentioned in the video.

If you struggle, pop back here and let me know.

CR.

Dream said...

Dear Captain Ranty,

I appreciate your post and stance, however I came across this exact same video over the xmas period. I'm not the smartest of chaps, but do like to try and double check everything claimed in the "freeman movement" if I am able, so obviously visited opsi.gov.uk to read the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 (c. 11) for myself.

Now, I'm not saying I'm right, but I see nothing in this "act" declaring everyone "dead" and it APPEARS the INTENT of the act is obvious, if someone goes missing then after 7 years they're declared dead. Now I know "they" are crafty devils, but there is a legal maxim "It is to the intention that all law applies", so if the intent is apparent (and still used today for those who go missing), this particular piece of legislation is not the source of our "legal fictions".

If I'm missing something, PLEASE correct me, or aim me in the right direction.
Safe journeys,
Dream

Captain Ranty said...

Hi Dream,

Thank you for your comments. Your question is a good one and the fact bears checking. (As do they all).

I am not saying I am right either. I usually check (at least) two different sources and if they agree, I go with it.

Please have a look at this:

http://freetheplanet.net/articles/24/human-sovereignty

and let me know if you concur. The article says a lot more than the chap in the video and it is explained a little better.

CR.

Anonymous said...

Thank you very much.

About legal maxims: "It seems to me that legal maxims in general are little more than pert headings of chapters." - James Fitzjames Steven, one of the great 19th-century legal scholars. This was from Blacks Law Dictionary 9th edition.

So what I am saying is the Maxim will not decide the case. You need to look into the "chapters" which they refer to.

Dream said...

Hey CR,

Many thanks for the link, not a page I'd seen before and will take me a while to go through it. That said, having had a cursory read I went back to the Gov. website and re-read it. I knew it was the revised version, however hadn't noticed the first time around that it states "part of the pre-amble was omitted" in 1948, which may mean a "key" part was removed to hide the original intent.

There is absolutely NO doubt in my mind that there is MUCH "truth" to all this (legal fictions, law of contract and common law being both "anterior and superior" to statute law etc) but it's just wading through 100's of years of obfuscation to distil and clarify the essence of where the "truth" lies.

My own NOUICOR is up on my website along with my contact with TV Licensing (http://www.TheTao.co.uk) which I've uploaded to YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/user/LordOfTheDreamTime)

The response from "TV Licensing" provided me with circumstantial evidence whilst my birth certificate I believe provides "substantial" evidence (explained in the uploads).

Anywayz, keep researching amigo, good to touch base with fellow "truth-seekers".
Dream

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Anon.

From my research I know that maxims are powerful beasties. I think if you enter court with a maxim and a precedent you are 75% of the way there. They both add strength, but of course, some clever argument will be needed to ensure victory.

In a lot of Freeman cases, the judge/mag/sheriff often get stroppy and storm out. Another great maxim to use there is "He who leaves the battlefield first, has lost".

It seems to me that most, if not all maxims, originate from the bible. (King James version).

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Hi Dream,

I will spend some time over at your place and respond fully later.

The more we dig, the more we find. It's just a matter of time now before we have it all nailed down.

If I were the gubmint, (and I see several of them coming here on a regular basis), I would be afraid. The proles are learning!

CR.

Dream said...

Hi CR,

Just wanted to say I'm inclined to agree now! Why in 1666 would an Act be still titled in French when the "commoners" were being raised in an expanding English language? Shake-speare (in my humble opinion more likely Francis Bacon and his Knights of the Helmit) adding approximately a third to the language. And when I looked up Cestui Que Vie it is linked to "Trusts" which I'm now learning may be our key/remedy.

Cheers for your good work.
Safe journeys,
Dream

Captain Ranty said...

Dream,

I agree. Everything we do is based on Contracts and Trusts.

Have you listened to the podcast over at Lawful Rebellion?

http://lawfulrebellion.org/2009/12/04/do-your-homework-1-trusts-and-equity/

A chunk at a time, and take notes!

I am merely standing on the shoulders of giants...:)

Good hunting!

CR.

Dream said...

Hey CR,

Thanks for suggesting the link, but ohhhh yes I've heard it, those guy's at Lawful Rebellion are blowing my mind! Hero's amongst us! I need to make time to review all the data and craft a new notice.

It was only 12 months ago I discovered "legalese" actually existed and was another language. 6 months down the line I'd managed to figure out it was ALL down to "contract" and "legal fictions" hence the name change. Couldn't get my head around the Winston Shrout stuff, well, the basics I could i.e. public vs private, but the "remedies" were a bit "whiffy" to my as I couldn't confirm them independently and they seemed specific to America. I could find no reference at the time to Uniform Commercial Code being used in England.

I never considered myself retarded (a humble fool maybe), but the complexity behind the deceit of the "system" I find myself "navigating" is mind-spanking, it really is evil genius at work! I'm just discovering "Trusts" and sincerely hope that Guy Euden's new YouTube Brotherhood channel will shed enough illumination on the reality I find myself inhabiting to enable me to "firm-up" my stand and reinforce my "line in the sand".

Cheers for now sir,
Dream

Captain Ranty said...

If you keep a close eye on Richy, Guy and Dave I don't think you will go far wrong. Between the three of them they have around nine brains and soon, they will launch something special.

I just hope that I'm smart enough to be in on it.

I have watched a few of Winstons vids and I got the same feeling: that they are US centric. I have no doubt that the UK does something similar but "something similar" doesn't cut the mustard. We have to know exactly what we are doing or they (TPTB) will laugh like drains if we get it wrong.

FWIW, it looks to me like you are off to a flying start.

Come back here and teach me!!

CR.

Dream said...

LoL, I don't class myself as a "teacher", in fact my NOUICOR specifically stated my "role"! I was tentative in stepping into this strange land, but perceiving myself as a man of honour, and crucially "of mind" it was IMPERATIVE that I genuinely understood and believed exactly what I said.

My plan is to firstly know when someone is seeking to contract (they want the name of my person), then present a "notice of offer" which will include my fee schedule (yet to be drafted) and when demanded to "act" simply "play my defined role" which is to QUESTION. It seems to me this house of cards starts to fall down when avoiding conflict by continually questioning. I will be "lifting" or "piercing" the "corporate veil" so will not only charge the corporate fiction but the men and women acting as agents (council workers, police, magistrates etc) as I've discovered all these fictions have UC registered numbers (unincorporated companies).

I was reasoning that the best way of educating these idiots who are "just doing there jobs" to hit them in the pocket. When they fail to pay the bill, take them to civil court.

This may be over simplification, but my time is precious therefore chargeable, this seems logical and rational to me.

Can't wait for the "Brotherhood" site as the implication from Guy was it would be what he has found to actually WORK.

Will stay in touch matey, keep ranting!
Dream