October 16, 2010

Unbound, Released, Free.

I ran this video a while back.

You should watch the whole thing for context but the fun starts at around 5 minutes and the jaw-dropper, the statement that finally convinced me that what I am doing is right, comes at around the 7 minute point.

Take a look. Be amazed at the pure simplicity of it all.

Those of you that don't get it didn't pay attention. Watch it until you do.

You are unbound. You are released. You are free.

In point of fact, you were never shackled in the first place.

You just assumed you were.



FireballXL5 said...

Good stuff Capt. and in line with how a few of us are now living our lives, having seen the light!

How did the court rule on this??

Captain Ranty said...

Last I heard Fireball, it was still ongoing.

I'll see what I can dig up.


Sue said...

I've had to really listen hard (I have tinnitus)... but am I correct in assuming that "we the citizens are not part of the Lisbon Treaty signing, so are not bound by it?" or any other treaty/contract signed by the UK Govt?

FireballXL5 said...

That's correct Sue, and everything else!!

Like the man said, income tax, EU, etc. etc.

I don't remember filling a form in and signing anything :-)

Good innit!

Captain Ranty said...

More than that Sue.

You are not bound by ANY agreement the government made on your "behalf".

Not a single statute they ever signed. They bound themselves, but not us.

We are free.


Sue said...

That's fine in theory but it doesn't stop them hauling you off to the police station and court house. What do we say to them "I am not bound by any agreement signed on my behalf, I did not consent to it?"... will they accept that?

I've just gone through the whole "debt collection agency" thing with my daughter. She owes £30 or so on the electric from her last house. I've told her not to deal with the agency but directly with the electric company with whom she signed the agreement.

She can't remember signing an agreement with them either, so she's asking for proof of that too..

See, we're learning!

Captain Ranty said...


Good for you and your daughter. A poster on here once said that there is such a thing as an "implied contract". I disagree. You advised her correctly. We need to learn to challenge everything.

More often than not, they will scurry away to bully people who cave in at the first letter.

IanPJ carried the story of John Hurst and his groundbreaking council tax test case. John will win because the tax is illegal.

Just moments after that we can all withhold tax. The edifice will collapse.

Then we can start again. Properly.


Captain Ranty said...


Updates on the lawsuit can be found here:



Jack Savage said...

Philosophically, it is the case.

However, when in chains, saying you are a free man does not mean that the chains disappear.

Try saying "I did not consent to drugs being made illegal" when they catch you with a holdall full of crack cocaine and see how far that gets you.
This is all very well, but not practical. John Hursts case is however fascinating.
I can only imagine that they will try and find some way to sweep it under the carpet somehow. They cannot allow it to succeed.

FireballXL5 said...

I think what Jack says hits the nail on the head: "They cannot allow it to succeed". That's how it works, only by our consent which they assume we have given because no-one ever says no. So they'll try to keep it under the carpet but sooner or later the cat will be out of the bag and things will have to change.

To think all this is done on the basis of a political parties manifesto (ha ha) whereby in every election less than 50% vote for it.

Thanks for the link Capt. I'm heading over there now.

FireballXL5 said...

Looks like the lawsuit is still ongoing, Stefans vid was from May 2009 where the plaintiffs lawyer made the famous remark "we did not agree".

Looks like Chevron are now alleging that the plaintiffs lawyers are engaging in fraud and intending to threaten the judge to come down on their side. Apparently over in those parts he who wields the biggest stick wins.

As Jack says, and Stefan tells us, there is a philosophical rightness to this but turning that in to a practical result is another thing altogether.

Captain Ranty said...

Jack, Fireball,

This is how they make sure we stay in chains. By convincing us that there is no point even saying "Hey! We're in chains!".

They want you to convince yourself that there is no point trying. You set yourself up for failure.

Agreeing with them is the first mistake. They cannot hurt you. Well, perhaps they can if you are alone. What if there were ten of you? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? A million?

Soon it will be. Soon there will be a million of us. But long before we get those kind of numbers we will have won.

In fact, the very instant that you decide the chains aren't there, is the exact moment in time that you have won.

Everything, from the moment you are born, is a contract to be negotiated. You started negotiating seconds after you were born. "I'll stop screaming just as soon as you give me some milk". Your very first bilateral contract happened right there. You got what you wanted, and your mother got what she wanted. Equal consideration.

The "invisible" contracts (the ones we never signed) with the government do not provide equal consideration. They go in one direction only. "Pay this tax and we will not punish you". You can't even say that the money they take by force is well spent. We know they are world champions at wasting our money.

I am tired of that. Now I have lawful excuse. The game is over.

Keep playing if you really must.


richard said...

The thing about Stef is that he's developing the knack of seeing things as they really are. You, Captain, and a few of the rest of us are starting to develop the same skills. It isn't easy. For instance, the Gurkhas - what is REALLY happening is that one group of hired killers is getting less of other people's money, extracted by force and under duress as tax, than the rest. The Gurkhas are great soldiers and admirable, but only from the the military perspective, and this military mindset has to be an artificial construct, otherwise we wouldn't have had to be trained and built into soldiers. If we, who are slightly more enlightened compared to the majority, can't always take a dispassionate view and acknowledge our own programming, it should be obvious that it's going to be almost impossible to get someone who's been on autopilot all their life to see any chains at all. How can it be done? By example. We must let people see that it can work.

Captain Ranty said...

Amen to that, my brother from a different mother.

We teach.

We teach until they start to hear us, and heed us.

If they don't/can't hear us, we change the message.

We'll get there. They just need an example. I don't mind being that example if it kindles the flame.


defender said...

Ranty, a few post back you were wondering about this,

A shiny new crisis

A new economic crisis is brewing in the USA. After the Subprime Mortgage Crisis of 2007 and the Financial Crisis of 2008, the US economy is faced with a looming 'Foreclosure Fraud' Crisis. A crisis that The New American calls 'an epic legal and economic meltdown that would make the crisis of 2007-2008 look like the proverbial Chinese tea party'.

The cause of the crisis can be traced back to two phenomena that have taken hold of the US real estate sector over the last two decades: 1) repackaging and reselling of mortgages and 2) forging (euphemistically called 'recreating') the so-called "chain of title". The chain of title is the proper (signed) documentation that records who is the lender of the mortgage and who is it that owes the lender.

In the nineties of last century it became fashionable to sell mortgages to other parties. Mortgages were sold, repackaged, and sold again. In the process a bewildering array of mortgage-backed securities was created to underwrite this new market. The United States mortgage business not only went national but international as investors worldwide rushed to get a piece of the lucrative American real estate sector.

To help streamline the process, a national mortgage electronic registry called MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) was created, whose purpose was to streamline the transfer of mortgages by helping to avoid the costs and inconveniences of recording mortgages at local courthouses. The biggest problem with this system is that the note, the part of a US mortgage which empowers creditors to enforce the terms of the mortgage, typically lacks the requisite signatures, breaking the chain of title. And when the chain is broken, neither lender nor home-owner can be properly identified: All of a sudden nobody owns the home for which the mortgage was written.

My Thoughts My Country said...

I hope it's ok to copy this onto my blog. I will link it to your blog.

I feel we should make sure this video is seen by as many people as possible.

defender said...

Ranty, I would like to propose a project.

I ,myself, have NO deeds, titles, registrations, licences, CCJ, convictions, bonds, shares, directorships. I do have 2 permits(drivers lic, passport only) so I have no actual contract to explore.

The project I am refering to is for those who have a mortage(?).

Do you know with certainty, who actually owns the property you are buying?
No assumptions please.

Captain Ranty said...


Help yourself.

The whole point of this blog, apart from some of the random stuff I do, is to share information with as many people as will read it.

Thanks for popping in. I'll add you to my blogroll.


Captain Ranty said...


I have no evidence that British lenders act in the same way as the Merkins. I saw one reported case where 13 separate institutions owned the same house. The judge told the guy who bought the house to stop making payments and that the house was his free and clear.

I do know for sure that our mortgage contracts are essentially fraudulent. My plan is to challenge my lender in March 2011. (I wanted to have lived here for a year before I get stuck in to them).

We've touched on mortgages in the past but I will ramp up my research after christmas and get started. As usual, I will let you all know what I am doing.


defender said...

British lenders, Merican lenders piss in the same pot.
In any case remember G Broon's catch phrase, "it started in Merica".
As a project I would have like to see readers contributions as those who have mortages must have a big insentive to find out the state of their own investments, which would be in the 10's of thousands of wonga.

I look forward to your findings non the less.

FireballXL5 said...


I am up for a challenge on the mortgage front so will be keenly following your endeavours!

I wonder if, as a gentle lead in, a previous mortgage could be tackled? I ask this as I was once approached by a claims company agent who said he could challenge pre-existing mortgages and get "compensation". If we are trying to prove that the contract was fraudulent then this would do just as well as an existing mortgage and be a lot less "risky" whilst proving the basic principle.

Just a thought.

James Higham said...

They have the vast majority of us fooled.

Captain Ranty said...


An excellent idea. I hadn't thought of that.

I'd do it myself but my new mortgage is with the same lender. If I challenged the last loan it may tip them off that I plan to have a crack at them for my new loan which is three times the amount.

The idea is sound though.

Anyone willing to try it out?


Captain Ranty said...

Very true James.

What is amazing to me is learning that most people want to stay fooled.


defender said...

Excellent suggestion Fireball.

There is a big insentive here lads, Tens of thousands of pounds.
The mortage monies only came into existance with your signiture,
You then borrowed said monies with massive charges and conditions.
Just suppose the contract you agreed to was / is now subject to fraud.
There is no loss to you, if there has been no funny business, you get peace of mind. If there is fraud then you would need to get things sorted.
Ignorance of your situation is not an option.

Jack Savage said...

If I can assist at all. I used to be a conveyancer (in GB) in my previous life and acted for the mortgage company on practically every property I conveyed. I was obliged to explain the vital contents of the mortgage deed to prospective mortgagors before they signed it and got the money.
In a well run solicitors office, this should have happened. At the very least you should have been sent an explanatory letter with your mortgage deed. You know you freemen are always saying "I did not contract to do that" I think you will find that an English and Welsh Mortgage deed is just that, a contract, and you have signed it.
The title difficulties being experienced by the Americans should not happen here. We register Land (and mortgages )in a different and more efficient way than the Yanks.
Foreclosure is a far more involved process over here, and can be challenged at all steps in the process...but by and large the system will get you if you stop paying. It can easily take six months, though, if you are prepared to string it out
Not unusually, the fundamental law underpinning land transactions is rarely touched upon in day-to-day conveyancing, so I can probably only help with any procedural questions anyone may have.
Land ownership in GB has its origin in Common Law, but now much amended by Statute Law. In the event you try to discount Statute Law, you might be doing yourself a disservice.
It is a complcated Looking-Glass world, as even this wikipedia entry will show:

FireballXL5 said...

I'm game for this.

If we can work out a process that exposes the unlawful nature of a mortgage and what we expect to gain from doing so then I would be happy to offer myself as a guinea pig.

Captain Ranty said...


Thanks for the background on the process. You are 100% correct in what you have said. What is crucial to Freemen, (and everyone else), is what you didn't say. I agree that I signed my mortgage application, which later tied me to the mortgage itself. But what is missing from that document that makes it lawful?

THEIR signature.

That is what makes the contract illegal/unlawful. They never, ever sign their own paperwork. In law, for a contract to be valid, it must contain two wet signatures, yours, and theirs. It must also display equal consideration. They have "loaned" me money to buy my house, and I have promised to pay it back, with interest. They take a risk, I take a risk. This is fair. Except that thge lender takes no risk, and even if you defaulted, it would not lose a single penny. Most people assume they have piles of cash locked up in the vaults. They do not. My signature majicked the money into existence. They are loaning me that which I created, by the power of my signature alone. They cannot validate or verify the "debt" because there isn't one. That, coupled with the fact that they do not counter-sign (or worse, see below), makes the document fraudulent in law. Most documents that we sign these days tell us, "Sign in the box and DO NOT go outside the lines". The reason? So that they can lift and place your signature in other sections of the same document. Many Freemen have spotted this when they asked for copies of their paperwork. Nowadays we are learning to draw two lines through our autographs as this will show up under a microscope. A straight-forward copy & transfer will not.

There is also the "Four corner rule" to be considered: in a legal document, the only thing that counts, the thing that gives life to any document, is whatever is contained within four corners. That would be the box that you sign your name in.

Before anyone says that we "sign" agreements online these days, (well, we tick boxes and they bind us to the agreement) I say that yes, we do. I have just done exactly that with a new credit card. A few days ago my shiny new credit card arrived, along with the agreement. Guess what? No signature from their side.

If we were taught even the rudiments of contract law while we were at school, we would know this. But we don't. And down the years countless numbers of people have ended up in the shit. They could have prevented that by asking some very simple questions.


FireballXL5 said...

Capt. on the signature point, I recall that the judge in the recent and infamous credit card case ruled that the "agreement" was still enforceable even if the CC company hadn't signed their bit. Which when you think about it is basically endorsing fraud. This case was brought on the basis of CCA though rather than any common law argument.

Captain Ranty said...


I remember the case.

And it reinforced why we must claim common law jurisdiction before we even give them our name in court.


Sackerson said...

Hi Cap'n. My first visit (via James Higham) but probably not my last.

If you're going to take what is I think essentially an existentialist position, then remember that Sartre said (in effect) not only are you free but you cannot choose otherwise than to be free. Canonising Jean Genet means that as far as the laws and taxes are concerned, you merely note the consequences of possible actions and then decide to do whatever you're going to do. Externally you are still ruled, but presumably there is an internal change in that while you accept that some have power over you, you no longer give concede them the right. There must be some sense of relief, some conservation of psychic energy in that.

But that position is not a collectivist one, for pace Sartre's aberration during the 1968 riots, otherwise he maintained there is no collective freedom.

You say "Soon it will be. Soon there will be a million of us. But long before we get those kind of numbers we will have won." We? Win what? There is no "we" and far from a future victory, freedom is an inescapable initial condition. Existence precedes essence.

I believe Sartre said that you could choose to give up your freedom, but I don't think the logic of his position dictates that we should be bound by a previous decision of a past self, any more than by the diktat of another. "I've changed my mind", you'll smile.

Tiptoeing away from this road to chaos, may I suggest that Americans (which group now includes my brother) might do well to reaffirm the Constitution in all its words and guiding spirit. What wisdom your Founding Fathers had, to set down such a massive and beautifully-carved stone as the basis for the nation; we in Britain are much more vulnerable to top-down plutocratic / neo-aristocratic / bureaucratic corruption and revolution, for here the system merely smiles and tells you it's changed its mind.

Captain Ranty said...


Thank you for coming by. With comments like yours you are welcome all day long.

I have never read Sartre so I have no notion of what I am, philosophically speaking. I just know that I am, by turns, angry and depressed at what I see happening here.

One thing I know for sure is that people all over the country, (and in most first world countries) are feeling the same way: they are sick and tired of encroaching government. They are trying to set themselves free. Many understand that the very first step in the process is to do just what Mr Sartre suggests: realise that they are free. Then, if they want, they can start to decouple from the state. This is why I say that we will win. The snowball is in motion and, I believe, unstoppable. The only thing I cannot predict with any accuracy is its speed.

It is the way of we humans to change our mind. At any time. Over anything at all. It has to be that way. But governments cannot and must not ever change their minds about our inalienable rights. They are the bedrock of the human condition. I will not permit them to change their minds. They can smile all they want.

Thanks again for your thoughts.


James Higham said...

Sackers' counter-rant:


Cheers, James

CherryPie said...

If only more people understood, what a difference that would make.

Captain Ranty said...


Thanks for leaving the link. I went over for a look-see. Sackers is quite the wordsmith.

I am not worthy.


Captain Ranty said...


I have a sneaking suspicion that they do understand, deep down.

But to soldier on, as they are, is easier than "causing a fuss".

It's mostly common sense, isn't it? How can you (we, us) grant another human being more power than we possess ourselves? It makes no sense whatsoever.

I am ashamed that I "got it" so late in life.

I could have been causing trouble, on a breathtaking scale, decades ago!