December 05, 2009

Land Ahoy!

First, a little bragging, then a recap, a disclaimer, a cut & paste from Lawful Rebellion, and finally, a conclusion.

My blog entry entitled Theft Report was read by many, many thousands of people. This came as a huge surprise to me as my little blog has been bimbling along with a small, but growing band of regular readers. It showed me that we have an awesome weapon in the internet, and if you are lucky enough to be linked to by some of our countries finest bloggers, as I was, then the story spreads fast. I want to thank each and every blogger that pointed people my way. Things have settled down again now but I appear to have picked up around 100 additional regulars. The spike was incredible and you can see it for yourself if you scroll all the way down and click on Sitemeter on the bottom left of this page.

Since we have a sizeable number of newbies, I thought a recap was in order. This will save you reading all my posts since April. Essentially, the story is this: all statutes, Bills, Acts, and statutory instruments are Laws Of The Water. These statutes are not laws, they are given force only if the governed consent to them. ("Consent" is the key word, and you will read it here often). Common Law is the Law Of The Land. Nobody, no government, no administration, not even God himself, can revoke, change, amend, or remove those laws. They are natural laws, they are inherent, and we all know them. Just so that we are all dancing around the same handbag, they are as follows: do not cause, harm, injury or loss to a fellow human, and do not make mischief with your contracts (fraud). Since around 1100 AD many millions of statutes have appeared on the rolls. In just the last 12 years alone we have seen a staggering 3923 new statutes and statutory instruments imposed on Britons.  Thanks to providence, fate, luck or destiny, (call it what you will), I found several sites encouraging people to think hard about who and what they were, and to investigate becoming a Freeman On The Land. I studied the subject for many months, and dived deeper in the law (both statutory and common) than any man ought to. I discovered that almost everything I had been taught was a lie. Not your basic three R's, but just about everything else. More importantly, I discovered that there was a plethora of things that I was NOT taught. The difference between legal and lawful was a revelation in itself. How wealth (more accurately, debt) was created, caused me many sleepless nights. Other websites and fora call it the Grand Deception, and I was shocked and stunned once I dug deeper. Similarities with the movie "The Matrix" were not as exaggerated as I first thought. We really have no clue. We are utterly ignorant, and I was ashamed at how much I didn't know. Having spent time in over 70 countries on our planet, I had considered myself to be well travelled, and as an avid reader of newspapers and magazines, and my ability to do well when answering questions (in my living room) while watching "Millionaire", University Challenge", and "Mastermind" (when it was aired), I thought myself to be reasonably well informed, and, if I'm honest, a bit of a smart-arse. So, with a lot more thinking, and soul searching, I decided to uncouple myself from the matrix and declare myself to be a Freeman. In the 12th century, a Freeman was important. He wasn't beholden to anyone for anything, he had risen above serfdom, and could roam the land free and clear. He could, in short, come and go as he pleased. I wanted some of that. So, using what some would describe as arcane and ancient law, I stepped back onto the land on 15th June 2009. Apart from the sense of freedom I felt, and it was tremendous, it didn't mean much to the machine of government. In point of fact, it means worlds to them. It frightens them, and rightfully so. Everything Freemen do is honourable, and, just as importantly, it is lawful. Which means that there is nothing they can do to stop me. Nothing whatsoever. In reality, what they do is ignore me. To ignore sworn affidavits is dishonourable. These words may not mean much to the readers of this blog, but in the world of law, like so many other words, they take on a whole new meaning. Remaining honourable is paramount. I am now a Freeman, and I am determined to remain on the land as much as I possibly can until I take my last breath. Because I am a Freeman, and I have a choice, I will step into Commerce when it suits me to do so. This is not hypocrisy, this is free will. I am merely exercising my freedom to choose. I am routinely accused, falsely, of being a freeloader, or worse, an anarchist. Neither are true, and if you take a close look at libertarianism, you will find that if I deserve a label, it is that I am a libertarian.

Belated edit: I should have explained that we live in two different worlds. In one world, we are known as the people we are. We are human beings, and we think, we feel, we see, we hear, we eat, we sleep and we dream. In the other world we are a fiction. We are Strawmen and legally, we are fictional. Strawmen do not see because they have no eyes. Strawmen do not hear because they have no ears. Strawmen cannot sign papers because they have no arms, hands, or a brain to direct them. We assume that we are one and the same, but we are not. Freemen make the distinction by divorcing themselves from their Strawmen or their legal fictions. The Controllers do not like this. They cannot deal with sentient beings, only faceless companies and/or soulless corporations, which is exactly what our Strawman represents.

The disclaimer. I do not profess to be an expert, I am not a lawyer, and I am not giving advice. I am merely pointing you towards one version of the truth that exists in my new world. This route is not for everyone, and it certainly should not be followed without some serious thought and complete understanding. If you are in any doubt at all, the thing to do is to stop, learn a little more, and at all times proceed with extreme caution. If you make a mistake, or do not fully comprehend what you are doing, chaos awaits. Tread carefully, and all will be well.

This is a new path. It was always there but it was cleverly hidden in plain sight. Recently I have been discussing the "movement" with the people over at Lawful Rebellion and they offer, freely, some fantastic explanations, and, if you want them, some guidelines to follow. What follows is a new form of affidavit, and it contains a power the like of which you will rarely come across. In effect, you enter into a lawfully binding agreement with Gordon Brown, and when he is ousted, as he surely must be, with his successors. I urge you to visit the site, and read it in toto, but before you head over there, read this:

"Folks, Affidavits work because in law, they override everything else that comes before them. Affidavits offer the Facts, Harmony and maybe more importantly when it comes to law, the Agreement of the parties. Whilst of course the legal world offers only lies and falsehoods".

Your completed affidavit will contain information like this:

  1. The Affiant is a private, living and sentient man.
  2. The Affiant is not a UNITED KINGDOM “citizen,” “subject,” “vessel” or “person” or any ens legis artificial entity, procedural phantom, legal fiction or juristic personality within the UNITED KINGDOM.
  3. Affiant is foreign to and without the UNITED KINGDOM.
  4. Any party that would order, represent or persuade the Affiant to falsely present the Affiant as a UNITED KINGDOM citizen, vessel or person directly or by deception, device, misnomer, mistaken identity, warrant or indictment, real or imagined, would be engaging in Enticement to Slavery.
  5. Any party that alleges a liability against the Affiant is obligated to produce an Affidavit of Liability to demonstrate such liability.
  6. The Affiant is not liable to or for any Government statutes, rules and/or codes, including, without limitation, UNITED KINGDOM Codes and statutes and/or codes of any of Respondents’ political subdivisions.
  7. A legal fiction corporation cannot secure in personam jurisdiction over or against Affiant, a living man, without Affiant’s voluntary election to submit.
  8. The Affiant’s use of a notary public, Bank of England Promissory Notes, and/or any other public facilities, when alternatives are generally unavailable, does not comprise Affiant’s submission to any political jurisdiction, the creation of an adhesion contract expressly or tacitly with the UNITED KINGDOM and/or any other party real or imagined, or an appearance before any body or tribunal, administrative or judicial, real or imagined.
  9. It would be both a violation of law and a violation of the Affiant’s God given unalienable rights if any government/corporative agent, officer or employee attempts to, or does in-fact, force, coerce, manipulate and/or deceive the Affiant into receiving any form of medical treatment at anytime whatsoever, including but not limited to vaccinations.
  10. All words herein are as Affiant defines them.
Your completed affidavit will look different as you will have added your autograph and had it attested to by a Notary Public.

In conclusion, for now, I would ask that you ponder these things:

If you are happy to continue forking over between 50-80% of your hard earned money to the government, lawful rebellion is not for you.

If you are satisfied that the courts offer justice, lawful rebellion is not for you.

If you have no desire to learn the difference between lawful and legal, lawful rebellion is not for you.

If you are convinced that banks and bankers merely lubricate, but do not lie, plot and scheme, lawful rebellion is not for you.

If you think that your government sees you as anything other than a cash cow, lawful rebellion is not for you.

If you are happy to be spied upon, tagged, vaccinated, milked, and controlled to the Nth degree, lawful rebellion is not for you.

If you are absolutely sure that your government or the judiciary tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then lawful rebellion is definitely not for you.

For the others amongst us that feel that lawful rebellion is a viable, if not the only option, then hie yourselves over to the site embedded in the title.

It may be the smartest thing you ever did.



richard said...

Captain, please could you answer a quick question. with the imposition of the Lisbon treaty, are we still in a Common Law jurisdiction? apologies if you have covered this subject elsewhere.

Captain Ranty said...


I sort of mentioned it obliquely in this very post:

"These statutes are not laws, they are given force only if the governed consent to them. ("Consent" is the key word, and you will read it here often). Common Law is the Law Of The Land. Nobody, no government, no administration, not even God himself, can revoke, change, amend, or remove those laws".

The Lisbon Treaty, or as it shall be now known, The Treaty on European Union, is just a statute. It is just as meaningless as all the others to a Freeman.

If you did not consent to its introduction, then it does not have the force of law.

In short, no. No-one can revoke common law. They can, and probably will, rely on ignorance to enforce their statutes on Joe Public, as they have done for hundreds of years.


richard said...

thanks for the reply, Captain.
this is remarkable stuff indeed.
so - if i get a notarised affidavit which says i'm a human being and not subject to statutes, anyone who wishes to pursue an action against me based upon statute law (rather than Common Law) has to go to court and disprove the affidavit before proceeding?
in a previous conversation i described how i have offered to pay a debt only on production of a signed contract and invoice, which hasn't been forthcoming. i didn't sign a contract, but ticked a box online, and there is no signature from me or a bank representative on the agreement copy they sent. therefore the contract is unenforceable, as i understand it, because of the lack of signatures.
nevertheless, the company has added fines and interest to my alleged debt. have they (the loan company) any recourse against a human being who is not in possession of a notarised affidavit?
so far all i've received are millions of calls from an indian call-centre, and letters marked "arrears" - i have informed them that i will pay any money i lawfully owe upon production of the signed contract and invoice. my credit rating is taking a bashing too, but they put the APR up from 5% to 22% (even though i never missed any payments) that it seems to me like loan-sharking.
anyway, i'll keep researching the affidavit thing, cheers!

Captain Ranty said...


The affidavit you construct and serve will be unique to you, and it removes all liabilities attached to your strawman. No taxes, no statutes, no parking fines are just a few of the "benefits" you walk away from. The money you now no longer send to the government is used more wisely, as now you can (and should) provide insurance for your own healthcare, etc. You can save more for those rainy days, and you even have enough to pay for the Fire & Rescue service to come and put a fire out, should that happen. In effect, you hand back all the "priveleges and benefits" and take care of yourself, like all grown-ups should do.

Regarding your "tick in the box", this can be counted as a signature in this electronic age but where is their corresponding tick? It cuts no ice in a court: a contract is one in which there is consideration and compensation. You take goods or services and you promise to pay, but there has to be equal consideration. Both parties take a risk, and to signify the solemnity of such an undertaking, both parties MUST sign the paper. This is why you will win if you perservere. Stop asking for invoices and start asking for bills. The two are not the same. But do keep asking for them to supply a contract with two wet signatures. They do not have one and in a court of law they have lost. Tell them that the ONLY way you will pay is when you see the original contract (not a copy) and I say without fear of contradiction, that they will walk away. You have them. They already know this but they are assuming that you are ignorant. Prove them wrong.


richard said...

my last letter gave them 28 days to send a signed invoice and a signed copy of the credit agreement, otherwise i would understand that they had no further claim of right, on the grounds that they could not produce a legally-enforceable contract. i also advised them that i would hold them liable for any loss or inconvenience arising from a ruined credit rating.
i don't understand the difference between bills and an invoice; i have received notices of "arrears" and penalties which have been applied to my account, which i have ignored. i believe that i am entitled to do so, as they are not supposed to apply fees etc to an account which is in dispute.
i will research the other paths you have signposted - what have i got to lose? although i can't see a way around PAYE and NI for people like me who aren't self-employed, the steps to avoid illegal debt are certainly going to receive some thorough research. cheers!

Captain Ranty said...


From what you tell me you are doing the right things.

I would urge you to research the Bill of Exchange Act.

They send you invoices for a reason. You assume they are proper bills and pay them. If they sent you a proper bill you could treat it very differently.

Regarding Income Tax and NICs, watch this space. I will have a remedy in place in the next 6-8 weeks and I will share the details here.


richard said...

hello again Captain.
please could you help to clarify two questions, the first of which has arisen from watching freeman on the land HONOUR/DISHONOUR on youtube.
the question is, if our Strawman acts as a de facto license to operate on the sea of commerce, wouldn't becoming a freeman mean that you are not licensed to make commercial interactions ie engage in lawful contract?
the second question relates to AFV with regard to my previous request for a signed agreement etc. AFV as i understand it wouldn't be applicable for me to use, as i have made a conditional offer (to keep me in honour). is this correct?

Captain Ranty said...

Hi Richard,

On the second question I agree. I would use A4V for any demands for payment from government, police or local councils etc, but on the private side (mortgages, loans, credit cards etc) I would stick to the contract element, as you have.

Now that this new method has arisen I will not use A4V again. The affidavit covers everything.

As to your first question, I see it like this: some Freemen want to walk away entirely, and for them, a full divorce from their strawmen is a must. I need to travel to do my job so I am being more selective. I recognise that the strawman exists and I want to take control. This gives me the option of using the strawman to my advantage whenever necessary. In short, I want to maintain a choice.


richard said...

much obliged for the excellent advice, sir!

Captain Ranty said...

Hey! It's not advice, remember? It's for entertainment purposes only....