January 08, 2010

Just The Facts, Ma'am

Today's offering concerns some basic stuff that all Freemen use to cut through the chaff we are all immersed in.

I liberated this from another Freeman forum. Have a read and tell me if they resonate with you. Or, indeed, if you feel able to refute anything here.

I have come across them all in various places, but never together in a nice list like this. It is not exhaustive but should get you to examine what you thought you knew. Sometimes, folks, we are told lies.

Established, Fundamental, Axioms

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)

10 comments:

Beezley said...

This is helpful, but what is really needed is a step-by-step, plainly written guide to the fundamental principles, and then a plainly written guide to the various ways those principles can be applied by each human being.

We need a Teach Yourself to be a Freeman, or The Freeman Movement for Dummies.

Does anyone know of such a repository of facts? At the moment, AFAICS, the situation is confused and depends on a random trawling of t'net.

Captain Ranty said...

Mr Beezley,

I shall attempt a step-by-step guide.

This really is brand new to all of us and I would never dare to call myself a leading light, but I can try to lay out the first steps.

You are correct: it takes a while to understand the concept and then months of eye-watering research. Hundreds of judgement calls have to be made along the way as you accept (or reject) various pieces of the story.

CR.

I am Stan said...

Yo Capitan..very interesting,the use of language is very complex,and I agree with Beezly..how can an individual translate Freemanism into their everyday experience.

Step by step guides to deal with different situations would be very helpful but probably very difficult to create I can imagine being a Freeman would eventually bring on the full anger of the establishment,with all kinds of guvmint bogeymen knocking on your door and you would get to the point of dreading the postman...this is what I think most people fear..losing the battle thus losing what little they have (compared with state resources)and of course the effects this would have on family and living standards etc.

Its very interesting,I would love to live without having to kiss piss taking guvmint arse all the time but so ingrained in our everyday living and conciouseness they now are it seems almost impossible..

I think buying your own Island and declaring it an independant state is the only answer..I hope I`m wrong..

Good luck!

watching said...

OK Captain
you are further down the road than I but does this mean that as far as the EU is concerned there really are flesh and blood persons and legal fiction persons?

As for a Member
State’s withdrawal from the EU, the complexities surrounding it are legion, affecting the rights
and obligations of every natural or legal person inside or outside the territory of the withdrawing
Member State who is or who may be affected by it

Taken from here on page 11
http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scplps/ecblwp10.pdf

Watching said...

Page 33 in the same document has this;

While, by
and large, these complexities would not differ qualitatively from those relating to a Member
State’s voluntary withdrawal, their resolution would be even more complicated in the case of a
Member State’s expulsion, because of the risk of legal challenges by disgruntled natural persons,
legal entities or even countries, objecting to the loss of the rights that they or their nationals may
have acquired from membership of the EU and invoking their legitimate expectation of
maintaining these in perpetuity as an obstacle to expulsion.

To me this is the EU admitting in print that flesh and blood persons are NOT the same as legal fiction persons.

If I am right we are indeed living in revolutionary times.

Goodnight Vienna said...

Hi Cap'n, the EU does make a distinction between 'natural' and 'legal persons so it's worth investigating further.

Withdrawal from the EU

I trawled through the legal working paper for a blog post I did earlier.

Captain Ranty said...

Well, TFFT!

I'm still dead though. I have not yet informed the gubmint that my legal person is alive and well.

I'll be straightening that out toot sweet.

CR.

rogerBorg said...

Where is rogerborg?
Gone back to school presumably!

Fausty said...

Another superb posting, Captain.

As always, when one has more information, more questions arise.

Many of these questions are asked and answered in the Strawman Debate, chaired by Gary Franchi, and the Continental Congress 2009.

You might want to watch the debate. I'd certainly be interested in your comments.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Fausty. I have you open in another tab. I was about to watch it when my significant other phoned for a lift home from work. Roads like pure glass and -14c!

I am really pleased I am not a brass monkey.....

I will be at your place in two clicks of a mouse.

CR.