It seems to me that if I ever end up in a court room, it will take some time to make them understand why and how I am in Lawful Rebellion, so I may use Dean's approach.
There is only one rule to remember: establish jurisdiction.
If you watched any of the videos you will have seen the two columns on the whiteboard. They looked like this:
MAN
Me Govt
-Live Birth Record -Birth Certificate
-Created by God/Creator -Created by govt
-Beneficiary -Trustee is govt
-Birth Right -Benefits & privileges
-Inherent Rights -Statutory rights
-Business & Commerce -Business & Commerce
-Non-taxable -TaxableNow, the only immediate difference between UK and Canada is the 'live birth record'. If we have an equivalent, it is the original entry which is kept at the Registrars office. I know that I only have a copy of my birth certificate and that the original has never been in my possession.
Real world example, and in my case, we can use the UKBA thing, the speeding thing, or the HMRC thing.
On entering the court we demand common law jurisdiction. From an earlier post we know that all courts in the UK are illegal so we can use this to our advantage. As Dean says, there is no harm in admitting that you are the name on their docket. The clever bit is moving yourself from their side to your side. Once you are using the left hand column, you are untouchable. One proviso: if you have killed, hurt, robbed or raped someone, you are on your own. I would only use this to protect myself against what I see as victimless crimes. Speeding fines, parking fines, council tax, income tax or corporation tax. In short, when you have bent a statute.
Once the formalities are over, say to the judge/JP/magistrate/sheriff "I accept that you are on your oath today". What is he or she going to say to that? "Actually, no. I am not"? Won't happen. It tells them that you understand the importance of the oath, and that you understand how the game is played. Another vital phrase Dean mentions is "I am appearing in propria persona as the authorised representative of the name with all of my inherent rights intact". Bang! You are in the left hand column and they cannot use statutes against you.
Very, very simple.
Even if you do not want to enter Lawful Rebellion or follow Freeman principles, there is a Declaration that will help out. It is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In our case we would use paragraph three:
"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"
In conjunction with Article 4 and Article 20. See them here.
Article 20 is particularly useful as a method of withdrawing your consent to be governed:
"(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association."
It seems to me to be logical that if consent can be given, it can also be taken away. Besides which, the government we have today is one that no-one voted for. So how can anyone compel you to follow their demands?
I firmly believe this method can be used to rid yourself of many forms of taxation. Remember this: they can tax the name but not the man. They can fine the name, but not the man. They can control the name, but not the man.
Dean is very clever. He has shown us how to win at a stroke. He has shown us how to be people again. Dean removes the need to use words carefully, as he says, use the words as you mean them, and don't worry about the definitions they attach to them. Keep It Simple Stupid.
The floor is yours.
CR.
22 comments:
Live birth? I don't want to see no live birth.
James,
We lost three babies and I can confirm that you really don't want to see the alternative.
CR.
Tnis is far and away the best series on Freeman because Dean blows away all of the mythology that has built up around what I consider to be an otherwise valid concept. Well worth a gander.
A mild nit-pick if I may. Dean references, (although I admit he doesn't rely on) the Declaration of Human Rights which are given rights and, apart from being far more transient and superficial than they at first appear, can be taken away at any moment. An underpinning theme of Freeman is inalienable rights. IMHO it is not necessary to reference the Declaration of Human Rights, it undermines the idea of inalienable rights.
TR,
I agree. It removes a lot of the complexity. It should be simple to do and DC proves that it is.
Naturally, it will vex those with a vested interest.
I did used to think (like you) that the UDHR is useless, but it is NOT a statute and it cannot be removed. That gives it added strength.
I prefer to think that it works well alongside all of our inalienable rights. If used correctly, it can be a powerful ally.
CR.
Would the average magistrate know they weren't acting under oath (I guess the clerk of the court would though)? It's just that I get the impression that many involved in the legal process (including the police) don't know how far their powers extend. By design perhaps...
I watched the first one you put up, and , after 45 minutes, he hadn't actually said anything, but hadn't said it in a desperately tedious and humourless way: he's a piss-poor presenter. I'm not a Canadian OAP in the early stages of Alzheimers.
Although I would really love you lot to be right, if he's the best you can come up with it just confirms my suspicions that you have no idea what you are talking about.
If he's so convincing, set out a summary of what he is saying in the following format (a decent presenter would have done this at the outset):
A) This is what nearly all of us believe;
B) This is the truth;
C) This is why.
If that is remotely plausible, it might then make sense to look at the detail he offers, if he does.
Martin
@ Martin
A)I don't believe I know, the Govt. takes more of my earnings than I get to keep.
B) This is the truth.
C)The Govt. spends my earnings on the EU, Foreign aid,Foreign wars, NGOs and propping up banks without my permission.
This has got to stop.NOW.
If I do not question everything the the PTB throw at me then I may as well surrender as you have.
Stick with the video's of Deans' you may learn something about how the 'system' works to their benefit and why it costs you so much, and not just monetarily.
I’m pretty new and inexperienced in all this Freeman stuff and not very conversant with it, so forgive my ignorance, but a thought occurred to me that if one is “enrolled” (as it were) as a "member of society" at birth by one’s unsuspecting parents – with all that that entails - which presumably (under the Statutes) they are permitted to do on your behalf whilst you are under 18, then surely, even under Statute Law itself, as soon as you reach the age of 18 – the age which the Statutes themselves deem to be the “age of majority” – you are automatically no longer bound by such membership. In the same way as parents can make certain decisions on behalf of their offspring whilst they are still a minor which the legal/Statute Law system recognises as valid, but which are no longer binding the moment the child reaches 18.
If I’m correct in this (and I appreciate that I may well not be), then surely even under Statute Law itself we should all have to "re-enrol" ourselves into “society” again at age 18, and if we don’t, then …
Excuse my inevitable mis-use of the correct terminology, too. I find it easier with all this to put it into words which make sense to me, which aren't always the correct ones. Hope that doesn't confuse my question so much that it makes it unanswerable ...
Hi Anonymous.
You aren't enrolled in something when you are born. Your parents don't make the sort of decision you suggest on your behalf. There's no decision that is unmade by you reaching 18. There is nothing in law - statute or otherwise - that resembles the situation you imagine. You're subject to the law of the land just by being here. It's pretty much as simple as that.
Thanks for the swift answer, Yeah. Yes, I kind of get that we are all born as natural subjects of Common Law. I think the bit I was curious about was the birth registration process (which is part of the Statute Law set-up) which, as I understand it, is the first step which most parents take (thinking, wrongly, that they have to) and which renders the individual (i.e. the child in question) "subject" to all the Statutory rules and regulations, in the same way as they might enrol a child in a sports club, to which that child - all the time it remained a member of the club - would be subject to the club's rules. If the child’s membership of the club wasn’t renewed (one of the rules of belonging to it), it would be the parents that the club would write to, but after the age of 18 they'd write directly to the (now legally adult) member directly – and similarly the (now adult) member could tell them to stick their membership where the sun doesn’t shine if they no longer wanted to be a member for whatever reason. So, although this is a simplistic example, surely the same principle must apply to birth registration?
Do you see what I'm getting at here? Sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well ...!
I wonder if this is where the National Insurance number comes in - I recall being sent a card in the post at 16? - perhaps acceptance of this means you accept the rules of their 'club'.
ellie - I think you are right and I sent an e-mail to HMRC asking them this. No reply - funny that!
The thing is, under the law of contract a contract has to be made explicit and both parties have to be fully aware that they are entering into a contract, otherwise it is void. The fact that we are involved in so many contracts of which we are unaware - the NI card and all it means being one of them - must mean, in LAW, that they can be voided once we become aware of them and don't wish to engage in them.
David
David,
From the numerous court appearances made by Freemen, I do know that magistrates will never say that they are on their oath. Why is that, I wonder? Surely they are on their oath all the time they are sat in the big chair?
And if that is the truth, why can they not just say "Yes, of course I am acting under oath"?
I have not yet heard any of the defenders of the current system give a sensible answer to this question.
CR.
Martin,
DC is not a professional presenter. I think he does very well for someone not trained in the art.
I also think that watching just 40 minutes out of a four hour session is not really fair. How can you know the full story?
The main thrust of the series is to let people know that there is no mystery, no magic involved, just some common sense.
It sounds like you want me to do the summary. Beyond highlighting a few things that struck me, I don't think it is fair of you to ask that. It is lazy, IMO. Watch it all and then make your own mind up.
I showed you where the trough was, now either drink or don't.
CR.
Anon, Ellie, David,
From the moment our births are registered we are presumed to be a member of (British) society. This presumption continues until our deaths are registered.
Our consent is automatic.
Search as I may, I don't think I ever saw it written down quite so specifically. I also could not find a process of removing that consent.
But as I keep saying, consent given can also be taken away.
In the same way that Lord Pearson has tabled a bill to have a cost/benefit exercise carried out regarding our EU membership, I have done the same with my UK membership. The deal is unfair to me and my family so I have removed that consent which was not freely given.
I have also heard it said that NI numbers are allocated at birth. The rumours (never proven) were that the NI number was our stock market identifier. This makes sense to me if such a scheme exists.
CR.
Hi Ranty, and thanks for the reply. So, in a sense (to use my rather simplistic sports club analogy again), because we “go on paying our subs automatically” in terms of our tax and NI being taken away from us without our being asked, we are unknowingly maintaining our “membership” of the Statute system, yes? The powers-that-be, I guess, aren’t going to publicise the fact that we are allowed to stop “subscribing” at any time because it suits them very well for us to assume that it isn’t possible – just like the aforementioned sports club aren’t going to remind a member paying on direct debit each year that they might want to cancel it. Well, sort of, if you get my drift.
Also re the NI number – I had read somewhere that it’s the number on your birth certificate which is your stock market identifier. Is there any way of finding out which one is? Would someone in the financial world, like a stockbroker, dealing with stocks and shares regularly, be able to shed some light on this?
Anon,
That is it in a nutshell. If you do not disagree, then you agree to be part of that society.
I have disagreed.
The problem, and it is a real problem, is that we reinforce that agreement in all sorts of ways: we accept benefits (JSA, DLA, child benefits, working tax credits, and so on) and we license ourselves, to own guns, to drive cars, to run pubs, to be doctors and dentists, to beg permission to add extensions to our homes, and so the list goes on.
We do this because we either convince ourselves that there is no other way, or we have been badly educated, or brainwashed, or a combination of all three.
I hear so much confusion over the near-mythical birth bond that I have given up looking, for now. Some people work really hard on commercial redemption but there are too few "success stories" to encourage me to investigate further.
The law is a different kettle of fish. There are so many holes in the "established truth" that I am very enthusiastic about trying it out for myself.
And, I find it hard to believe that some stockbroker (perhaps having been screwed over) would not have come forward by now and told us all we need to know about these birth bonds.
CR.
The NINO is an interesting thing when you dig around a bit. For example, HMRC doesn't want to tell you what the prefix letters mean. See here, where they claim FOIA exemption.
However there is this interesting bit from Hansard which states that the prefixes do refer to when the NINO was created. In fact it is an interesting answer: "Only the first two prefixes, provide an indication of when the number was created. The number itself bears no relation to the individual it is allocated to and contains no geographical or personal significance."
From the mouth of government, we learn that the number has: "no relation to the individual it is allocated to" and "no geographical or personal significance"!!!!
In addition to the wonders that NI supposedly provides, Halsbury's has this little gem on what it is also used for:
"Any money in the National Insurance Fund may from time to time be paid over to the National Debt Commissioners and be invested by them, in accordance with such directions as may be given by the Treasury, in any such permitted manner as the Treasury may specify by an order of which a draft has been laid before Parliament."
And this:
"Every person who is over the age of 16 and satisfies conditions as to presence or residence in Great Britain must, unless he has already been allocated a national insurance number, apply to the Secretary of State for the allocation of such a number, in such manner and at such time as he may direct", with a connecting footnote saying: "This does not apply to a person who is neither an employed earner nor a self-employed earner, unless and until that person wishes to pay a Class 3 contribution."
I'm trying to find the time this weekend to do the 4 1/2 hour omnibus myself, CR :D. I actually think that part of the reason the vids work so well - and this is true for his other ones which are also worth watching - is his style of presenting. There is so much bullshit around all this sort of stuff and he cuts straight through a lot of it or at the very least makes one look at things in a different light and think about new ways of proceeding. His radio interviews are well worth the time too, there are a couple of lengthy ones on YT dating from last autumn (so probably before he had the two columns thing worked out).
Regards
TSL
TSL,
Thanks again. I read the link you provided.
I agree with you about DCs delivery. I like it. Recently I have been listening to his podcasts and a talkshoe. Very, very interesting stuff.
Like all of us, Dean is evolving and the information evolves too. It is almost impossible to say "Here it is folks! Here is the definitive method!". But we can see that some methods are more likely to work than others.
All we can do is put ourselves out there and give it a go. We will learn what works and what doesn't, and adapt accordingly.
This stuff cannot be spoonfed. It must be intuitive, and it must be ingrained. With the best will in the world I cannot teach that here. All I can do, (with a little help from my friends!), is point the way.
CR.
Just a quick point about what Martin mentioned earlier in the first of his posts about opting-in/opting-out.
Remember,it's not up to 'them' to tell you about anything unless they are acting on your behalf. If they are not acting on your behalf then [your] "Ignorance is bliss."
I also refer back to part 1 (or was it 2) of this set of video's when Dean Clifford mentions that should you find yourself in court then the magistrate will only hear WHAT LAW YOU BRING INTO COURT (apologies for the shouting).
If you don't know what's happening, or what you are doing, and find yourself hauled up in front of the court, then the chances are you're going to lose.
If you do know [what's happening], then you will be prepared and, as he points out many times, wouldn't even go into the arena until the battle is won.
Thanks.
Russ
Excellent post CR.
Something that has been generally missed in all the excitement is the issue of liability. Everything we do as the man/woman or the corporate Person/Living Trust carries a risk and a liability. The Executor of a Trust has a legal Duty of Care to the Trust. Simply, this means that to ignore this duty of care and ignorantly sign any old tat that is pushed in front of us leaves us, or the Trust, open to legal and lawful action. Think negligence and breach of trust?
Anyhoo....my own experience is that the 'authorities' brick it when you start talking about assessing liability on behalf of yourself and the Trust. They want you to accept unlimited liability without question. And to properly assess risk and accept liability you need a little thing called 'Full Disclosure'. Without disclosure and without knowing the risk attached to any offer then sign sweet eff all. Tell them that if there is no adverse risk or liability attached to signing the document then you will be happy to IF they accept all and any liability on behalf of all parties concerned. They won't. No chance. If they won't accept the risk/liability then why the F should you unless there is no risk (hahaha) or where you know the exact liability and are prepared to accept that?
And who is going to criticise someone who is fulfilling the role of Executor competently and correctly? Who is going to be stupid enough to instruct you otherwise?
"Until you give me all the facts and I am satisfied I have full and honest disclosure to allow me to competently assess the risk to my charge, I, as Executor, am signing nowt, guv. What you are asking me to do would result in my failing in my very important duty to the Trust and possibly committing a criminal or actionable act. I am a man of honour and take my responsibilities seriously so I will not comply until I am happy. Byee"
Worth bearing in mind and using alongside other stuff you're doing.
Tied to this is the concept of 'presumption'. If you don't know the answer to something then you either ask or presume the answer. Difficult to assess liability risk based upon presumption. I presume nothing any more. This again is a powerful test of your competency to be running a Trust.
If you're not displaying that you are competent in all that you do and say then, by definition, you are either incompetent or non-competent. Not a good basis to be starting from.
I don't know how much of these vids people want to sit thru, Dean is good (haven't watched the full 4 hours), but I started watching this Texan guy and he's pretty good too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmT9ImEjYsI&feature=related
There's lots of christian/matrix content but I think it's been mentioned earlier that it doesn't matter what you believe, or don't believe, the judiciary and the whole system revolves around a belief in the might of God, of God as 'Law'.
Post a Comment