December 12, 2011

K.I.S.S Part 2

More revelations from Dean.

I find this fascinating, and I hope you do too. It's one thing picking a fight with the government, but it's quite another marching into their playground armed to the teeth.

I recommend that you watch this series over and over until you truly realise just how powerful you are. Get your learning done and you will never again get stiffed by the courts.

The only proviso being, of course, that you have not caused harm, injury or loss. I have not done so, not once, since this all began. If I do ever harm someone-a man, a woman or a child-I will expect the full weight of the law to descend upon me.

Many thanks to TSL for leaving the link for us.



Anonymous said...

Yes Dean has finally IMO found the key all have been looking for.

So simple, yet so powerful.

You dont have to go through all the rigmarole of finding out which court your in.

Just write a letter, asking who the injured party is.

Followed by:-

Your mark. Then.

A man, with all inherent rights, and proof of live birth.

Then explain that the letter will be submitted into the court records.

Brilliant just brilliant.

This will automatically make it our court.

Lets just see how they try and break that one.

No more willy waving in court eh captain, this should surely strip these parasites of their robes.

Be well my friend, the shit is now going to go in the other direction.


Captain Ranty said...


I fully agree.

And I am prepared to test it. When the PF writes back to me with a court date, I will pen an affidavit based on what I learnt from the videos.

It will open with "I affirm before God...."

(Because Dean is right: it matters not whether you are religious, they are. Every oath has God in there somewhere, and they will not deny that God is the supreme witness. Who needs Notary Publics?).

And it will end "Withdraw, or else..." (And here I will lay out the "or else").

Simple, simple, simple.


Anonymous said...

laughing out loud.
Feels to me, and I'm new to all this, like one has been on a really long journey. One of those journeys where the end always seems to be further and further away. Then, at a given moment one feels different and thinks............ahh thank God! Thank God that's over and done with. The relief can't be measured. That's how I felt last week after watching all the other vids. I haven't seen this one yet so I'm looking forward to it.

Captain Ranty said...

It's good stuff, lazy.

Or, as the Libertarians would say, "Bollocks".


Anonymous said...

well that was really interesting. A lot to take in. So thats what I'm going to do. It'll be shared on a on-gong basis

Dave Basiljet said...

Dumb question time....

1) Does one have to be in lawful rebellion to challenge statuary laws by this means?

2) Are agents of the UK government 'foreigners' in the UK?

3) Could this approach be used to resist smoking bans etc? Wouldn't they have to provide proof of harm to an actual individual in order to make a case?

Captain Ranty said...


1. No.

2. Yes. The only people who need to heed statutes are agents of the government because they belong to that "society".

3. I have done so. But I always got chucked out by the sheep. (No fines though).


Dave Basiljet said...


Re Q3 (slightly OT, but very close to my heart):

Chucked out of where exactly?

If no harm to any individual can be categorically proven by the courts, wouldn't this be enough (technically) to thwart the bastards? The current legislation is based 100% on the (claimed) risk of harm to staff in enclosed public spaces. They produced the junk to that effect to persuade parliament to pass the law. It'd be even harder for them to claim harm to any non smoker if the ban was extended to cars containing only a smoker, or indeed outside public spaces. Heck, there's no evidence of the latter at all. It's all based on moral BS with regard to fecking children. They may as well try to push through legislation based on the fact that smoking now considered immoral - an offence against public decency.

Captain Ranty said...

Three bars and two nightclubs in Aberdeen.

They can't even prove harm (even death) in a court of law by primary smoking. What chance do you think SHS has?

None, is the answer.

That's been the trouble with this childish legislation from the very beginning. Paid shills for Big Pharma whining on. Endlessly.

The science is clear: SHS is as harmless as a day old chick.

You're preaching to the converted here, Dave.

I have never lost an argument/debate on the (pseudo) science surrounding this harmless smoke of ours.

Not once. They have nothing.


Anonymous said...


I've watched as many of Dean's vids as I can find, but I'm missing one point he is talking about jurisdiction and states, when finding oneslf clearly in Statutory court, he says "let's just dance over here to MY court.." I cannot see how he proposes this be done, precisely.


Anonymous said...

The oath was always an important part of their system. Trying to put it in prospective to take the effect needed was important.

Affirming before god puts it at the very front.(Discarding any need for a notary public).Your word is enough.

The rest made out in the appropriate manner will see any parasite running a mile to protect their bond.

Cannot see them even bothering with this because once a affidavit is submitted, who in their right mind would make the claim?.

Honour as you know plays a part, and once they see you know their game......


Captain Ranty said...


You are not alone.

I thought my concentration had slipped and I missed that vital part too.

Maybe we just state that we are moving from statutory to inherent rights? It can't be any more complicated than that, surely?


Captain Ranty said...


They were my thoughts too.

Apart from the bit about honour. I think they have forgotten that part. We will bring it back into fashion!


Anonymous said...

CR, I'm a very regular, silent reader of your site. This is the first post. Reference Mike’s post re moving across from statutory to inherent rights, as I understood it from watching the video...

[As I understand it] DC is talking about making them fully aware that you understand...

1) where you physically are, and
2) you are also fully aware of what your rights are (not being 'ignorant' as he termed it).

This transfer to the 'inherent rights' side is making them aware that you are FULLY aware of your rights and, as he phrased it, "...the courts will hear whatever law you bring into it, but you have to bring the law...the judge cannot see any law that you did not bring into the court...but they will hear anything you bring...that's your responsibility..." (starts at pt II, 21.30 secs).

So, at 24.35 secs,...”if you walk into Statutory Court and start using Statutory defences, you've just delegated yourself to statutory jurisdiction..."[and will lose)..."you have no defence." He mentions getting agreement before you go there... settling your differences (and stresses) "...that's your DUTY (if you want to be treated as a sovereign, act like a sovereign!) (25.40 secs)

Also, at 27.40 secs, he says, “…I tried new things…”

If you try and resolve the issue BEFORE you get to court, then you have acted in a sovereign manner by trying to resolve it – they HAVE NOT.
If it ends up in a Statutory Court, there is a good chance that they have not acted in the same manner.
As you have tried your hardest to resolve this, you are then going into a court against your will.

DC continues (at 27.50 secs) “…they claimed to be holding me for obstruction of a police officer… …1) you guys are forcing me to take part in your…blah, blah, blah…statutory jusridiction, I’m not here by choice, it’s against my will…” (Russ - and if it’s against your will then surely this is in violation of your inherent rights (?) and this is where he switches to ‘the left side’ of his board, the ‘inherent rights’ side, DC continues) ”…so, while you guys are holding your statutory court, I want to make you aware, at the same time, I’m convening my own court…cos they’re always in our court…” (Russ - this is where he is stating that they are responsible for everything they say and do), “…DO YOU AFFIRM THAT?”

That is where I see it as he’s moved across from statutory to inherent rights. Of course, physically, nothing has changed, it’s just everybody within that court is now fully aware that they are liable for what they do and fully aware of their actions.

You have tried to resolve ‘the issue’ but it has resulted in ending up here? Have they acted in a sovereign manner? Can they swear to this? Do you have proof (you should have proof). If you have done this then you're in inherent jurisdiction territory and the judge has a duty to you as your in a higher place than a Statutory court and they have no jurisdiction over you.

I’m not saying this is correct, just how I understand it and my ten-pennorth worth.


Captain Ranty said...


As first comments go, yours is a doozy.

Thanks very much.

I kind of found myself thinking that but you articulated it much better.

I will, (when/if contacted by the court) write them a Notice to lay out what I expect when I get there.

You are spot on: lay out the ground rules long before you get there, and if possible, win the case at the same time. As DC says, honourable people resolve their differences before reaching court. You can only do that (I reckon) by removing controversy.

Thanks again. This is good advice.


Anonymous said...

I knew you'd find it particularly interesting, Captain, considering your current "correspondence" with various "authorities"... :D

There is a lot in the videos about moving from the canoe to the battleship, you can pick out a fair bit as Russ has done above. It is also one of the things that leads me to believe there is a part 3 on the way because I think DC says that they will be going into more detail about it later on.

Add that to the guy who says the lunch break is due, and that it ends abruptly like part 1 did, and logic suggests a third part at the very least, at some point.

Not suggesting we just sit back and wait; as Dean says in several videos, we should always do our due diligence on these things anyway.

We can certainly speculate going on these two parts though. It may indeed be as simple as you suggest. What does the AT say? "It's about to become very simple, it just won't be very easy"?

Also I think there were other things in part 1 that were going to be covered later on but weren't yet in part 2. (E.g. usufruct is briefly mentioned and a "Deanspeak" version of that could help everyone's understanding! :D It is worth having a look at in any case.)

The "who needs a notary" stuff is also good as I believe that in the UK there are moves from the higher-ups to stop NPs notarising FMOTL-related documentation? (Can't remember where I read that however!)

Still LOL at him calling the official from jail and asking her to walk through the entire process - "I have 4000 minutes on this phone card and nothing else to do"....



Captain Ranty said...


I like his delivery style.

Many people are put off trying this stuff because it sounds complex. DC is living proof that it doesn't have to be.

I have to admit that when I heard that term, usufruct, I paused the vid and clicked my way to the word, in an effort to understand its meaning and usefulness.

NP's (in my opinion), forget their place. They do not have to understand, agree with or disagree with the content of an affidavit, they are merely witnessing a signature.

I also agree that there is more to come.

Can't wait!


Russ said...

Thanks for the kind words CR.

Further to this, and the way I see it - and this is going purely by what I’ve read from sites such as yours and videos of Dean Clifford and the like – life is/should be very simple; unfortunately, the greedy, power-hungry people at the top just want more. I’ve just been reading about Charlemagne and have this vision of a Sarkozy and Merkel merge with a horned-helmet, a shield and a broadsword: – not good, especially leading up to Christmas and fat-ar**d turkeys about!

Anyway, I digress…according to DC's videos and from what I’ve read here, if you have done no harm, no injury or loss then no person’s ‘inherent’ or civil rights have been infringed upon.

If, in the case of the recent letter to you from the Procurator Fiscal, you have responded in a manner for resolution and you say you have responded as (“[sic] …in the spirit of fair play, however, I will agree to pay £23.25 as soon as you send me a copy of the contract signed between DCA and Captain Ranty...”), then this is acting in a sovereign manner is it not? You are seeking resolution to this conflict or disagreement.

Dean Clifford mentions throughout that if both parties have entered into an agreement then this is binding; turning this around (as he does) then if there is no agreement between parties and one party does something unauthorised, then it stands to reason that the other will have suffered harm, injury or loss to some extent: if I understand it correctly, that then is an infringement of your inherent rights and becomes a civil matter against them, and not a statutory matter against you (does it not?).

In you’re particular case, you are saying you haven’t entered into any agreement with them, they are saying you have; they say you owe them money, you say you don’t: all the way down to you saying, “Show me proof and I will pay it.” You are attempting to resolve this so it does not reach the Courts: an attempt at resolution.

From where I sit, and as I see it through the bottom of my tumbler of Jameson’s, I fail to see how they can win.

You are acting in a Sovereign manner throughout and, with note to my previous post, if you are subsequently dragged against your will into a statutory court - and it is against your will because you have repeatedly sought reconciliation to avoid this, AND you have evidence to prove this - then they’ve just lost their paddle halfway up Sh*t Cr**k.

You have requested they show you proof of contract and, ultimately, I guess, it boils down to they either have it or they don’t.
Their refusal to show you proof, to me, has to mean they don’t have any otherwise they'd provide it, you’d see it, you’d pay it, and all would be rosy: endex!

If they don’t have it then what are they trying to do: bluff, fraud, deceive, waste your time, make an example of you? Whatever it is, it can’t be classed as honourable can it? When their case all falls apart, they’re opening themselves to a civil prosecution and it's time to get the big stick out!

IMO, and as you rightly mentioned in your reply, you just have to ensure you’ve dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s. As DC say’s: Proof 1, bam! Proof 2, bam! Proof 3, bam! Proof xyz, bam, bam, bam! I It should then be over long before it gets to Court.

Of course, as with all things, nothing is ever as easy as planned or goes as you expect it to. When it's late, I always 'rant' on a bit. I will now finish my Jameson’s, go to sleep (it’s a time zone thing) and will continue to watch your blog with ever-increasing interest.

Cheers again,


Captain Ranty said...


I can't argue with any of the points you made. You are spot on.

Oddly, while I was reading your comment my (work) phone rang. I didn't recognise the number so I answered it. It was the DCA!

"Hello", says I.

"Hello", says she. "This is the DCA, how are you today?"

I say, "I was fine until 10 seconds ago".

She says, "Can you confirm the first li..."

"Nope", says I.

"Well then, I cannot continue with this convesation", says she.

"Good", says I.

"What is your problem?" she asks, "why wont you give me the security details I need?"

"Because I have never heard of you. Have you got a contract with me?" I ask.

"I cannot answer any questions because you wont give me..."

"Why should I? I repeat, I have never heard of you so we cannot have a contract signed between us, can we?"

"I'll just put that down as a refusal then", she says.

"Put it down as whatever you like", I say.

"Good-bye", says she.

"Good-bye", says I.

I should have asked why she was ringing me on my work landline. I certainly never gave it to them.

I guess the next thing will be them saying that we are heading to court. I have a surprise or two up my sleeve for them.


Anonymous said...

Captain - in reply to Dave Basiljet's point 2 you said:

2. Yes. The only people who need to heed statutes are agents of the government because they belong to that "society".

Since watching the first tranche of videos where Dean points this wording out clearly in the Canadian statute, I've been wondering whether this wording re 'agents of the state' occurs in our Parliamentary statutes. Do you think we need to know so we can refer to the exact wording when challenged?

I thought a nice easy starting point would be to look at the first Vehicle Licensing Act from 1930 something. If it mentions 'agents of the state' in that then I guess we can be pretty sure that this phrase occurs in all other statutes, although it would still be good to check another few out for reassurance - or am I being too pernickety?


Captain Ranty said...


Hell, no.

Pernickety is good! We need to be able to defend ourselves if asked to.

I had a link on here but I cannot find it just now.

I'll do some digging.


Anonymous said...


I read the post...great stuff.

As you said to another commenter in another post last night, it's harassment.

You've asked for proof of a contract with them, they haven't provided it. If they continue to phone and pester you despite you saying you don't know who they are and they need to provide proof, then if it isn't harassment, it's bloody close. My first question would be, "Mr CR asked you for proof [that a contract exists], where is it?

How can they answer that and win? "Here it is Judge, we'll show it to you [but we didn't want to show it to him]." Yeah, right!

If they do say you're heading for court then I'm sure they'll enjoy reading your detailed, dated and signed diary of harassment; it'll give the judge a good read before he kicks them out!

Dave Basiljet said...

It is indeed fascinating stuff. In some ways it seems too easy a way to make a protest and hurt the bastards to boot. But as you and others reiterate, so long as one is well prepared and confident it seems it can be done. Having said that, I guess the hardest thing is to actually take the plunge (even if only disputing the occasional bill or fine).

Anyway, you may have seen this. Maybe your readers might be interested

Irish, and FOTL focussed, but I think the same principles apply to the UK. He includes very clear explanations and some test cases. Very illuminating for some of us who are trying to get our heads round all this.


Anonymous said...

I know you will read this, so...
TSL may think it is not easy, but many will.

If TSL wants to read english. PARIDISE LOST by John Milton 1608-1674, should put him in the groove.

A man I adnire..

Would not bow to no king. Even when his life was at stake. Do not underestimate people.

Is it not a combination of brothers to combine a harmony, of love and understanding, that will set us free of tyranny and suppression.(Those are my words).

Sometimes a fool can always outfox the master, by ignorance...

Stay safe CR.


Anonymous said...

Do u want 2 meat mee?

Anonymous said...

Is that a euphemism?


Anonymous said...