February 08, 2011

Let's Skin That Cat

My last post, concerning our "legal fiction", created a bit of a stir in the blogosphere and even caused a minor ripple in the MSM.

Opinions ranged from "WOW!" to "Bollocks!". Having thought about little else for a few days, I reckon we should think about the ways this new information could help (or hinder) us.

First, just so that you know how popular the article was, here is a snapshot taken a few minutes ago, of visitor numbers:

(Click image to embiggen).

I'd like to thank each and every one of you for taking the time to read it. I especially thank those who took the time to leave intelligent and thoughtful comments. I should also like to thank those mighty and not so mighty blogs that linked to the piece. In no particular order they were: Holby, Leggy, Dick P, GV at Calling England, Autonomous Mind, Max Farquar, The Unhived Mind, Alternativeaction Blog, Nominedeus, and half a dozen other forums that sent readers to this blog. I will long remember those twin towers up there, so thanks again to all.

Second, a quote, from Rothchild agent Colonel Edward House, which I have interfered with, slightly. I have changed "American" to "Briton", "America" to "Britain", and "President" to "Prime Minister". Believe me when I say we are treated exactly the same, both sides of the pond. A portion of their taxes go to the Crown, just like ours do. One source for that information can be found here. (Scroll about halfway down the page).

"[Very] soon, every Briton will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging.

By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every Briton will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living.

They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Britons, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges.

They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.

After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every Briton a contributor to this fraud which we will call "Social Insurance."

Without realizing it, every Briton will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every Briton will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the Prime Minister of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against Britain."

Nice, eh?

Third, let's examine what we know from Roger's article.

He went to court for non-payment of his council tax. He argued that he was not liable for the payment, but that his all-capitals legal fiction was. The judge arsed around for a bit and then agreed that Roger could act as representative for his legal fiction. This is historic because no other judge has admitted to the existence of such a thing. It stands to reason, does it not, that if Roger can represent MR ROGER HAYES, then MR ROGER HAYES exists. It cannot be otherwise. The judge then hurled this at the council lawyer and said, "You sort it out". I have stated several times, on several blogs, that if the council lawyer has two functioning brain cells, he will run away, and keep running. I genuinely expect one of two things will happen: a) Roger will receive a letter saying that he does not owe the money, or b) he will never hear another word about it. (In our experience, b is more likely).

However, the feline has left the enclosure, and now we need to think about ways in which to use this to our advantage. It isn't black and white so it deserves some decent brains to work out how, why, and when we can use our legal fiction to take bullets for us, the humans shackled (involuntarily) to this commercial device.

Should we feel guilty if ever we do use this as a defence against unfair/illegal taxes or unfair/illegal fines? Sure. But only when someone gives me credible evidence that all governments feel guilty about loading up those taxes purely because they couldn't/wouldn't stop borrowing money or that they felt bad about stealing our money (yes, you, if you were one of the 392 MPs that had your face buried in the expenses trough), or that Blair and Brown (in particular) feel guilty about condemning our grandchildren to a lifetime of paying back debt because they screwed up the finances. Or that  Blair feels guilty about taking us to war, and charging us via taxation to fund the wars in Iraq and Afganistan. Or that Brown feels guilty about first telling the world he is dumping our gold, and once the price had crashed, continued to do what he said. This one idiot cost our country billions.

Up and down the nation we are being ripped off. Chief Executives of our councils are earning double what we pay our prime minister. Now that iDave has introduced some cuts grazes to public expenditure, councils are cutting services. They still want the same six figure salaries while dumping good people on the dole. Oh, and they will still want us to cough up an average of £1500 per year in council tax for fewer services.

So no, I will not feel guilty cutting out some of my expenses. I will use this ruling (if it turns into one, or even if it doesn't) to my advantage.

Next up: the confusion such a ruling brings.

In the comments of "Cat Leaves Bag", brighter visitors asked "If your house is mortgaged in the fictions' name, whose exactly is it?". A great question and I don't know the answer. If we imagine for a minute that all home-owners charge down to their local county court and say "I am not my fiction. I am Joe: of the Bloggs family, I want to know if I own my home", then maybe the powers that seek to be will have to do something. Similarly, if a significant number of taxpayers say "Hold the bus! I am not paying tax anymore. You stitched me up and chained me to a legal fiction", what can the government say, or do about it? The only thing they can do is confess. They will be forced to tell us what we already know: that we ARE attached, forever, to a legal fiction because that is the only way we humans can act in commerce. We all HAVE to be corporations. That is how they fool us in court, and that is how they control us absolutely.

As we have learnt on this very blog, we are slaves. We are indentured to the Crown, and in turn, the Crown is owned by the Vatican, thanks to Unam Sanctum, that papal bull issued by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302. The pope said that (on behalf of God), the Roman Catholic Church owned 'every living thing' on earth. And, as we have also learnt here, the old maxim applies: "He that does not disagree, agrees". Back in 1302, no-one disagreed. (Learn more about that papal bull here)

Let me know what you think. My little brain hurts.

This is like wishing for a superpower and then waking up one morning to discover that you possess one.

What the hell to do with it? That is the question of the day.

Lastly, for newcomers to the blog, I entered Lawful Rebellion on 15th July 2009. I revoked my allegiance to HM Queen and swore allegiance instead to the Barons Committee that formed in 2001. In short, my being in  Lawful Rebellion means that I have no monarch, I have no government, I do not have to obey any statutes. Moreover, I am obliged to "distress and distrain" the monarch and her government until the wrongs are righted. (You can read my instructions up above, in the banner). I delight in doing so, but I am saddened that I have to do this duty. This new ruling is a useful weapon to add to my growing arsenal of defences should I ever end up in the kaka, but it is something very powerful for everyone to use, should they so choose.

Over to you.



Dioclese said...

I will be watching developments with great interest.

Smoking Hot said...

As Wrinkled Weasel used to say on his blog:-

"lt's like being an atheist and waking up to find God sat at the end of your bed"

Just Woke Up said...

I am also involved actively in the Lawful Rebellion movement. My own humble view is that we have sufficient information and enough test cases now to move on to the next phase. My opinion is that we need to start getting more organised as a force for change. Only by becoming more organised regionally can we start to win the victories and get the publicity that the movement so badly needs.

I'm glad to see that some groups are doing this. For most people its a daunting intellectual and physical challenge taking on a judge or court on your own.

Worth mentioning that people don't need to declare themselves Freemen of the Land to become involved. I am Scots and this causes me issues as Magna Carta is English. People can also declare themselves to be Sovereign and still be part of the movement.

Something I heard recently. "We may disagree about what we are FOR but we are agreed what we are AGAINST". I personally want a justice system that acts for the people and doesn't collude with political forces and lobbyists to conspire against the people. Only then can we start correcting the status quo. Also get us the hell out of the EUSSR and let us be master of our own destiny. United Nations and EUSSR only have the intention of wrecking this beautiful country.

Just had a few sherbets so apologies if this is a bit disjointed. :)

MU said...

Just Woke Up, mass organisation is something I've working out slowly and steadily.

What the Captain's and Roger's (admirably courageous) herculean efforts have shown is that the escape hatch is there. It means we can leave the state en mass (secede) without individual police showdowns, as their hands are tied by their own rope trap. I for one am bloody excited about the prospect of a mass land grab by freemen and the starting of a new community based on common law principles, which is the next stride in for the colossus of English Liberty.

subrosa said...

Damn. I'm not getting you on my reader the past few days. Must get some housekeeping done. Sorry Ranty.

thefrollickingmole said...

Your judges must still be a little more restrained than our Aussie ones.
The few times ive heard of this approach being used in Oz courts its ended with a contempt charge.

Mate of mines a copper, hes quite interested in the whole concept now hes seen a few examples of it though. So those poor sods whove tried it so far have spread the seed a little.

Old Holborn said...

Ranty, please drop me an Email, I haz news


Caedmon's Cat said...

As a cat, I have a profound interest in this issue, as I have a skin to preserve..

Apart from dermal considerations, this is an important and significant development; I will be watching.

Must dash - mice to bash.

Mongo said...

They don`t like it up em Captain!

Captain Ranty said...


I haz writtened to you.

Check yer inbox.


Captain Ranty said...


I too have had the added difficulty coming to terms with Scots v English law.

I decided in the end the monarch rules Scotland as much as she does England (and the rest of the UK) so I am at liberty to revoke my allegiance to her. I lose no sleep over this decision.

Over the years I have seen many Freemen (or aspiring Freemen) join the various forums, learn what they need to learn, and off they go. They just get on with it.

Some join in only to find out how they can deal with debt, and some are tokers looking for lawful excuse to fire up a doobie. It's a mixed bag. Rarer still are those who genuinely want to live off-grid and be the master of their own universe. There is nothing wrong with any of these examples. It is hard to define the "perfect" Freeman. He/she (usually) just want to be left alone. You don't need a label for that. The govt has a black belt in interfering and those who have woken up, just a little, have decided that they want no more of it.

I just came across a great quote:

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." — Nietzsche

I think that I want to "own myself" for my last years on the planet.


Captain Ranty said...


My apologies for abusing your species.

My title for the original piece was unfortunate, and the follow up is even worse.

No felines were harmed in the production of either piece.


EG said...

Hi CR.

Another excellent post, i am following this with high anticipation.

Vive le revolution

Anonymous said...

Freedom has to be fought for.

Not with violence, but with argument.

The state is used to people that are easily intimidated, and will not fight back.

Don't get mad, get even.

Always take their full names. Pull out a tape recorder if they start talking bollocks. Enjoy going to court. Sun Tzu wrote the book on dealing with your enemies. Read it!

I pity the fool that messes with my liberty!

MU said...

Ah, Sun Tzu has been mentioned..

In his words, To fight and conquer is not supreme excellence. Supreme excellence is breaking your enemies resistance without fighting. I believe if freemanry can be shown to be watertight in court, CR and folk will have managed to do exactly that.

nominedeus said...

Youre definitely on a roll now captain, and it is excellent to see...I for one am sooo glad you did not give up a few weeks back remember m8 it is always darkest just before the dawn and I do believe that I can hear the early bird singing its little heart out!
Lets just make sure that the cat thats escaped the bag doesnt get it eh!

wv= e can last , brilliantly apt!

English Viking said...

You'll have to forgive my scepticism, but you seem to thing that the Gov is bound by the law.

They have proved, ad infinitum, that the are not.

Even if they were, they would simply change it.

English Viking said...

'K', not 'G' in 'think'.

English Viking said...

There's a 'Y' in 'they', as well.

Sorry, it's late and the medication is taking its toll.

Winston Smith said...

If you have a mortgage the bank owns the house. If you don't have a mortgage then the state (through the occupation of this country) owns the house. Untill you regain your cntrol of your strawman via bonding your BC, UCC1 and your strawman lien......... you don't own anything because YOU ARE A SLAVE

Captain Ranty said...


I'm with you up to the point concerning UCC-1. I have always had trouble getting my head around it.

I love your writing (having read you elsewhere) so if you are willing, I'd be happy to publish a guest article on this subject from you.

If you fancy it, I can be reached at

captainranty at btinternet dot com