August 11, 2010

Freeman Relates Court Story

This clip has some interesting elements.

The most remarkable thing for me was the magistrate telling everyone that "...this is MY court!". No, it isn't. We own the building, all the furnishings, we pay all the staff, and WE PAY YOU. It is our court you arrogant mare.

Anyhoo, watch the vid and let me know what you think.



Billy Blofeld said...

I have to say I really admire these guys...........

... it is clear that Courts are so used to bewildering people with procedure, process and authority - that they have forgotten what they are there to do in the first place.

Captain Ranty said...


That's what I like about it.

They are forcing the judges/magistrates to re-evaluate. We are not all mindless idiots. We are not cows to be processed. We now want to know that the procedures and in some cases, arcane rituals, are genuine and are in fact lawfully accurate.

I have since learned that there is no need for a judge/mag/JP to physically have their oath in the court. But what we must do is ask the question: "Are you on your Oath today?".

Those on the bench have a limited liability. Freemen have unlimited liability. In the supremacy stakes, we win every time. They need to be told this.


sike said...

please could you explain the phrase
"Those on the bench have a limited liability. Freemen have unlimited liability. "

What liability are you referring to?

Captain Ranty said...


Those on the bench are supposed to carry a bond. This is what limits their liability.

I have no such bond and therefore have unlimited liability.

See if this makes it any clearer:

The magistrates oath is indeed a sticky subject. In 1796 or thereabouts, Lord Mansfield changed all the court stuff around. He allowed common law courts to try in the civil, and the civil courts to try in the common law. Now, when a magistrate is a magistrate he has magisterial power and authority in a court of common law, and when he deals with a civil case in a court of common law he can retain only the title and not the powers as well. However, when he sits in the civil court, he may retain his title of magistrate, but NOT MAGISTERIAL POWERS AND AUTHORITY.This is because in the civil no oath is required - just the agreement of the parties - and probably no bond either!. They know if they are forced to their oath then the civil court is transformed to a common law court. No crime committed, so off you go. Alas, no revenue either! The sad fact is that these magistrates have been operating in fraud for some time now, and many people have been defrauded out of their liberty. Always always ask the court for their insurance details. They MUST by law provide them. Judges too. Failure is a crime of insurance fraud.

Not one single court in this land is operating within the law. According to the minister of justice, judges in England are SELF BONDING, which, according to the Uniform Bonding Code is "fraudulent misrepresentation and limited liability insurance fraud". This condition comes about, so says the UBC, when governments are anti social and malfeasant so that insurance bonding companies will not take the risk of massive payouts, raise premiums so high they are unmeetable by GOV. and so the corporate state permits the fraud of self bonding to provide a facade of legality.Ask the ptb if you can write your insurance bond to drive a car and see how far you get! How many unbonded statutes, enforced by unbonded judges ("self bonding is no bonding") are in play out there? An unbonded statute is not POSITIVE LAW and cannot be imposed even on the willing. Are the statutes you're being prosecuted under bonded?

Bonds are held by the minister in charge of the particular statute that requires bonding cover. If you're going to distress one, that's where you find it.


sike said...

that reply was very useful-thank you