August 07, 2010

Freeman Document-Explained



Several people have asked for a Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right (NOUICOR) to be further explained.

I cannot do much better than the chap in the video above. It's a three-parter so be sure to watch them all. He explains the document clearly so you shouldn't have any problems drafting your own.

If you have questions I am at your disposal.

CR.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Captain please research the problems of Champix (also Chanpix)

Anti-smoking drug is linked to 37 suicides

(I almost added to the stats)


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-513371/Anti-smoking-drug-linked-37-suicides.html

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/medicines/100005109.html

They want to stop you smoking but they want to kill ex smokers.......

richard said...

Captain, it would seem that this Notice gives you the option to disregard statutes, provided you haven't breached the peace.
First qusetion - I would presume, however, that if you are arrested for Breach of the Peace (which seems to be becoming a catch-all) then the court appearance is no longer an invitation (as it would be if a private company such as the Council wants to fine you for breach of a bye-law) and therefore you can't decline to attend. In which case, I presume that you would make sure that you are entering the court under common law, refuse to stand for the magistrate, put him on his oath and ask to see the victim in order to make recompense.
Second question - Under Common Law, no victim = no crime, BUT if a corporation is legally a person, what then? The specific example I'm thinking about would be a credit card company which hasn't received payment because you have requested a contract etc. and they decide to issue a summons; do you write to the court and say that you don't require arbitration, and that's it?

Captain Ranty said...

Anon,

Thanks for the links. I am well aware of the Champix scam. I had to educate my own GP on the dangers of this drug. She was totally unaware.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

Richard,

You answered both questions yourself!

Correctly as well.

You should always claim common law jurisdiction in any court. This limits the harm they can (and will) do to you. The key is to assert your rights as you enter the court. Wiser people inform the court long before they get there. (Send them a Notice outlining the conditions under which you will attend).

A Corporation is also known as an artificial person. How can you harm that which does not feel pain? Credit card companies (and banks) are in dishonour straight away. For any contract to be valid there has to be full disclosure and equal consideration. Because they never disclose the fact that you yourself created the money the contract itself is fraudulent.

A "summons" is ALWAYS an invititation to attend. Refuse (nicely) if you don't wish to attend.

CR.

richard said...

I thought so. The reason I mentioned it is because one of the companies from whom I've requested a signed contract etc is becoming very strident. They sent me an impressive three-page letter, quoting articles from the Consumer credit act and also a court case when a credit agreement was deemed sufficient to validate a claim. I thanked them, and let them know that I didn't understand any Act. I respectfully suggested that if they ever decided to increase this Judge's overall debt when he hasn't used his card or missed a minimum payment by direct debit (which is what they did to me), then they could write to let me know if he still felt the same way.

Captain Ranty said...

Richard,

They will play games and quote the CCA as if it were the word of God.

You might want to ask them for a True Accounting.

Ask them to

1. Validate the debt

2. Verify the debt

3. Prove that they have suffered loss as a result of your non-payment

4. Prove full disclosure

5. Prove equal consideration

6. Provide you with a bill as described in the Bills of Exchange Act.

Of course, without two wet signatures, the contract is invalid. Although this changes when you enter into a contract via the interwebs.

When you write, demand that they provide the information you need point by point.

They cannot, and they have lost.

They won't admit this of course, so you may just find that they decided to forget to chase you all the way to court.

CR.

richard said...

One company was charging me 30% APR and I now repay the capital at zero interest. An immense saving from just writing three letters. Another hasn't responded within the time plus an extension which I allowed, so I have advised them that we have no further business and haven't heard anything since. The third has until the end of this month, then the same thing applies.
I have other loans with fixed interest and won't contest those because the terms haven't been callously varied to my detriment. The others, though, increased the APR until I felt totally shafted so now - aha - it's their turn.
It's been your work that made me realise it was time I grew a pair. Whatever these greedy bastards do next, I'm giving them a run for my money. This is a good feeling, and thank you for that.

richard said...

Cheers for that, I've been asking for a signed copy of the contract, a copy of the actual accounting, and a signed invoice. However you're right, an internet application can't practically HAVE two signatures. I'll request disclosure of the consideration in lieu of a signed copy. I'm about to fire off my final offer of conditional payment to Stridentcard so it works out quite nicely.

Captain Ranty said...

Isn't it good when you realise that a few letters can save you hundreds, thousands?

If a couple of letters can reduce your outgoings, and they can, as you and I have both proved, why the hell isn't everyone else doing it?

It amazes me.

I see the point some made in my "farewell" post that they are waiting to see if anyone succeeds, but there is absolutely no harm in asking a few questions, is there?

It doesn't involve any bravery at all. What's the worst that can happen? Their replies are convincing, so you give up and you still owe the same amount.

Or, you make them squirm. And, more often than not, they will reduce your "liability".

It's gotta be worth the effort just for that.

I am very pleased it is working for you. Keep at it!!

CR.

Anonymous said...

Where does one stand with regard to passports and income tax as a Freeman on the land?

What would my tax liabilities be?

I am getting closer to returning to being an ex-pat. Does my bank in the offshore centre still have to make returns to the UK in this situation?

What about getting a passport in the first place? My current one will expire in less than two years; how would I get it replaced as a freeman?

Captain Ranty said...

Anon,

Your tax liabilities, whether you are a Freeman or not, are nil.

Tax laws were not written for human beings. I intend to prove that we are not required to pay them very soon now.

I know nothing about offshore banking, so I can't help there.

I need a passport to enter foreign countries. I do not need one to leave or enter the United Kingdom. I only need a passport for that when we are at war.

I just replaced one of my passports, and will be renewing my second one soon. It is a necessary evil.

The good thing about this is that you can either leave the system entirely via the Freeman route, or enter Lawful Rebellion instead. It sounds like LR is more suited to you. (You can always step out of the system when you have made all the plans).

Does this help?

CR.

Anonymous said...

My mind is still trying of figure out the difference between the two.

Working on ideas combining Cyberbusiness+Five Flags + Freeman/LR.

Captain Ranty said...

I understand!

I need to interact with the state but I want to be left alone. I don't want to pay them 53% of my salary every month but I know we need some services.

It is a dilemma.

We will solve it together.

CR.

richard said...

Stef's video in which he compares the hideously complicated State to the geocentric model is very telling. How's this for an amateurish - and it has to be said, drunken - stab at a heliocentric version? A society based on Ebay, which is of course somewhat similar to Stef's DRO system. Ebay works without any threats to enforce a contract. So - you buy what you need as you need it, including police investigations, medical treatment, vehicular access to roads, shares in transport systems, access to the planetarium etc etc, whatever it is. The beauty is that you decide what you spend, and choose the best service based on customer feedback. So for instance if you are wronged you hire a court, on the understanding that the relevant insurance policies (which you have previously bought if you wanted to) will recompense the accused if he's acquitted, and he pays you and the police/court if you are judged to be the victim. If you think your house might burn down, you buy a future call-out for a fire brigade, and so on. There are no politicians, no State. How do we pay? No banks, but trade - we sell something on Ebay, material goods or our time in labour. The only real wealth being food, alcohol, fuel, tobacco, clean water, medicine and labour (in my order of preference) these commodities would be traded for goods and services. Abuse of the system could be curtailed by everyone having their own feedback and anyone wishing to trade with you as an individual or company would see whether you are trustworthy. For instance if you insist on bringing trivial lawsuits your insurance company would mention this in feedback, resulting in no-one covering you against crime so you would have to pay for litigation yourself. If you insist on being worthless to others then you starve, unless your family keeps you as a cuckoo in the nest, which is unlikely.
Imagine going to the airport and bringing five gallons of petrol, or a side of beef, or a voucher for servicing a car, or a promise to provide a band for a wedding reception - or whatever a ticket costs on Ebay. An airport worker would be given tickets to trade as his salary, the airline owners would receive material tribute from the workers in the form of food, goods and services, the ratio achievable by negotiation. (Waiters used to pay to work in an hotel and then made their money by tips, so it isn't without precedent.) Would equilibrium be achieved? Maybe it would, human beings are good at making things work.
No doubt I've made a fool of myself and there must be drawbacks to this idea, but I wonder - what are they?

Fat Councillor said...

Thanks for the video, Captain Ranty. I am going to blog about NOUICOR shortly.

Interesting subject.

Captain Ranty said...

Richard,

I think your summary is sound. You have not embarrassed yourself. This is the ideal time to come up with new ideas. I know what the problem is but I don't know (exactly) what the solution is, so your thoughts are very welcome.

Thanks!

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

FC,

Good to see you here! I tried commenting at your place yesterday but failed miserably.

It is a fascinating subject. It hasn't really been tested yet, but the theory is rock solid.

I look forward to reading your piece.

CR.

D-Rex said...

Ahoy Cap'n. Thanks for posting the vid, very useful. In a response to a commenter anon above you mentioned LR being different from the Freeman movement.

What are the differences? and are they important?

Cheers

Captain Ranty said...

D-Rex,

There are similarities. Both allow you to stand back and ignore statutes.

Being a Freeman proper would see you divorcing yourself totally from the state/government. You don't pay anything in so you don't get anything out.

LR is different because, in theory, it could end if Her Maj rights all of her oath violations.

The biggest difference is that LR is an obligation but becoming a Freeman is a choice.

CR.

D-Rex said...

Thanks Cap'n

There is so much to find out and learn about this. I'm on holiday at the moment and have been in front of my computer all day reading and watching Freeman stuff. I am really interested in this but want to make sure I know the full implications of proceeding.

Keep posting the good stuff.

Cheers