January 05, 2012

K.I.S.S Part 3

For those of you following this excellent series, here is the final instalment.

I haven't seen it all yet. At first blush it looks set to match the others: clear, simple, and vitally important to us all.

Many thanks to our good friend TSL for the link.

Forgive my silence over the last few days. I had to go to big fancy London and I will tell you all about that when the time is right.

Lot's going on in the political arena, particularly in the EU. Greece is now openly saying that she may leave the euro (big surprise there, then) and there is to be another emergency summit. How many is that now? 30? 40? They just keep having these expensive get-togethers and they all end the same way: inconclusively.

Which is totally in keeping with the doomed organisation. Chaos, confusion, expense and waste.

Pull the plug, FFS. If it was an animal it would have been put down some time ago. Allowing it to continue is now pointless to all but the seriously deranged.

Or is it just me?



Jacobite said...

I believe we have a silent majority out there who cant wait to be rid of the EU, hence the reason they deny us the vote.

Captain Ranty said...


Fully agree.

It may get nasty when people realise how far we have travelled down Shitty Road.


Jason said...

March 12th is when it will begin to unravel when Greece has no choice but to ditch the eurpoo, we will of course not feel things here as bad until after the 5 ring sting...
Then watch the shit hit the fan lol.
At least the ones who know what is coming will be the ones who will know what to do.

Captain Ranty said...


Thanks for the date. I knew it was in March, I just wasn't sure of the exact date of the next Emergency Summit For Unelected Mongs.

Like all the other summits, nothing will be decided. This time though, Greece will escape their economic prison, Italy will follow, and then hopefully the Irish will yearn once more for full independence.

Then the wheels come all the way off.

Can't wait!


Dave_G said...

Greece has bigger problems on their horizon in that the EU are going to vote to sanction oil exports from Iran (due to meet on 30th Jan) and Greece currently import around 45% of their oil from Iran! Not only that, Iran are the only country to support Greece financially (loans)... Oh what a tangled web...

Captain Ranty said...


Didn't know that!

What a mess. I feel sorry for the Greek people who had nothing to do with this. They will suffer badly.

But at least the band-aid will be ripped off in one go. The EU would have them suffer for decades.


Jason said...

Band aid for greece... hmmm that would keep geldolf, sting and who's that other fake wanker? Oh yeah Bonio... That would keep them busy for a bit.
Of course we shall have no civil unrest here until after the 5 ring sting closing ceremony so shit shouldn't get much worse and we have time to wake people up.

Captain... I would like to know your views on the Dianne Abott twitter incident? I myself think if the tables were turned and it was a white shadow cabinet minister making similar remarks then there would be uproar until the MP resigned..... However we have similar incidents in football where there isn't a suggestion that the "offenders" should be unemployed by next week.... Just goes to show how little respect we have for our politictions compared to people who make a living entertaining us.
Just shows that in our mind they are not worth a wank, we just need to realise it and deal with them accordingly..

nisakiman said...

"“Carts with mules will replace cars, should Greece exit the Eurozone and return to drachma.” In this colourful way Claus Kaldemorgen described the impact of drachma to the Greek society. Speaking to German Deutsche Welle radio, the head of DWS funds management warned about the consequences of an euro exit and stressedthat Greece will become poorer than Albania."


They really don't want to let anyone escape from the Eurozone, do they. It's all down to 'face' now. They invested their reputations in this madcap single currency, and now it's unravelling they are in denial. Anyone who exits will be committing economic suicide, according to the party line.

Captain Ranty said...


Miss Dianne is a moron. On those rare days when her visage pops up it forces me to wonder, again, why this woman is an MP. I have never heard her say even one clever thing.

Of course the tweet was "out of context". Her entire brain is out of context. Should she be sacked? Absolutely. She has a history of this and when asked, she runs away more often than not.

But she is a lefty and lefties never ever take responsibility for their own actions. Blaming someone else is in their DNA.


Captain Ranty said...


You nailed their MO right there.

They use fear as a tool. Mostly, it is the only tool they have in the box. Merkel did the same thing: she said there would be war if the EU broke up.

Terrify, threaten & bully. The three watchwords of the EU manifesto.

It's a disgusting, devious, deceptive organisation. If you created a company and mirrored their shenanigans, you would be out of business and in gaol within months.


Russ said...

I like that CR, "... Merkel did the same thing: she said there would be war if the EU broke up."

Unlike the Germans don't you think? Bismarck must be rolling 360's at all this '[European] peace'.

Now watching the DC vid, good stuff. I like the first part and referring back to my [first] post and behaving in a sovereign manner, can't see you having any worries in that regards..

Happy New Year!


Anonymous said...

"Carts with mules will replace cars"

Great. You don't pay road tax on a mule, nor do mules rev their engines at five am behind your bedroom window like the local chav cars do.

bollixed said...

I have loads of time for DC and what he tells us. I always listen to people who have been there and done it. Trying out plays on the private Common Law trust at the moment and getting most excellent results myself. Creating a series of legal personae as an alternative to the Living Trust. Mainly for protection of my assets and property but also to tell the PTB to go ***k themselves, the private trust has no contract with you! I would add that folks need to cease and desist from all presumption and to risk manage their liability.

As for the EU I don't think anyone here is in the least surprised that the € is suffering a fatal gunshot to the head and lying bleeding on the floor. External powers (sovereign wealth funds aka the shadow market) won't want to let the EU go easily so that decline will more protracted and painful. Stock up on the popcorn.....its going to be a show to remember.

Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Russ.

Best wishes to you and yours as well.

Yes, we have forgotten how to be sovereign. Once mastered, there is no finer way to act in life.

I have said in the past that we are minor gods. And we are.

Time to act like one!


Captain Ranty said...

Anon 13:22,

Quite true, but if you watched the videos you would know that taxing us for driving our cars is also unlawful.

What we need is a test case.....


Captain Ranty said...


I am still lost on the whole Trust thing. Haven't yet studied it in depth. If you have an Idiots Guide I would be pleased to see it.

I agree on the EU comment: they will not let go easily. Its death is all but assured and they will keep using the defibrillator long after it is dead.


Pete said...

This is certainly another very interesting clip by Dean but I have a couple of issues that I have found, things do not seem to add up.

Inherent Jurisdiction is one of them. Whilst I comprehend that Dean is talking about his own inherent jurisdiction the courts in canada see it differently, see below:

According to the case law in Canada, the key restriction on the application of inherent jurisdiction is that the doctrine cannot be used to override an existing statute or rule. The clearest articulation of such restriction is set out in the Supreme Court of Canada decision in College Housing Co-operative Ltd. v Baxter Student Housing Ltd. (1976) which was a case dealing with whether a judge had exceeded jurisdiction in determining the mortgagee should have priority over other charges and encumbrances. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a court cannot negate the unambiguous expression of legislative will and further held that:

Inherent jurisdiction cannot, of course, be exercised so as to conflict with statute or rule. Moreover, because it is a special and extraordinary power, it should be exercised only sparingly and in a clear case.

Another restriction on the application of the doctrine of inherent jurisdiction appears to be that inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to create new rules of substantive law.

The Rules of Civil Procedure in various provinces in Canada have varying relationships with the inherent jurisdiction of their courts. In Ontario the Rules of Civil Procedure are considered to be regulations of the Courts of Justice Act, and thus an expression of legislative will. They are created and amended by a "Civil Rules Committee" which consists of fourteen judges and thirteen other persons involved in the legal community including the Attorney General or his representative. The rules are subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The judges of the Court obviously have a part in the making of the rules, but the rules are regulations under the Act. Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to conflict with the unambiguous expression of the Rules.

Pete said...

In Nova Scotia, on the other hand, the Rules of Civil Procedure are made by the judges of the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal pursuant to s.46 of the Judicature Act. The Attorney General does not have a hand in their creation, and they are not subject to approval by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The Court of Appeal for Nova Scotia has taken the position that a single judge of the court may use the inherent jurisdiction of the court to manage its own procedures.

The other issue that I have is that of in propria persona. I have found some definitions that do not match what Dean is saying, don't get me wrong, I love Dean's work and experience but I check everything. Here are the definitions that I have found:

IN PROPRIA PERSONA. In his own person; himself; as the defendant appeared in propria persona; the plaintiff argued the cause in propria persona.

in propria persona adj. acting on one's own behalf, generally used to identify a person who is acting as his/her own attorney in a lawsuit. The popular abbreviation is "in pro per." In the filed legal documents (pleadings), the party's name, address and telephone number are written where the name, address and telephone number of the attorney would normally be stated. The words "in propria persona" or "in pro per" are typed where normally it would say "attorney for plaintiff." Judges sometimes warn a party "in propria persona" of the old adage that "anyone who represents himself in court has a fool for a client and an ass for an attorney."

Now in the UK this term would be known as litigant in person in civil cases. Representing yourself if you like, but if you notice the actual legal definitions it comes back to that word "person"! This bothers me.

I do not doubt what Dean says as he has tried and tested many of his methods but I feel that we should always be careful of accepting something as fact. I do know, for definite, that a lot of the techniques that he uses would not work in the UK.

Anonymous said...

I don't know whether this helps or hinders but according to this, the superior courts have inherent jurisdiction, not the ones DC is talking about.

In respect of in propria persona, the definition Dean quotes in the video (at ~57m55s) is from Black's 3rd and 4th editions:

"It is a rule in pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be plead in propria persona, because if pleaded by attorney they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction."

In the 5th this was changed to "It was formerly a rule..." and then it was excised altogether; by the 7th you get redirected to "pro se" which says "For oneself, For oneself; on one's own behalf; without a lawyer".

Black's 3rd & 4th took the extra bit from "An Elementary Treatise in Pleading in Civil Actions" by Edward Lawes, however it is originally from "The History and Practice of Civil Actions, particularly in the Court of Common Pleas" by Sir Geoffrey Gilbert:

"Jurisdictions of Courts.

"First, of pleas to the jurisdiction of the court, and here three things are to be observed.

"First, they must be pleaded before any imparlance; for by craving leave to imparl, the defendant submits to the jurisdiction. Except where antient demesne is pleaded; for this may be done after imparlance, because the lord might reverse the judgment by writ of disceit, and it goes in bar of the action itself, (viz.) in that court, because it is coram non judice.

"Secondly, the defendant must plead it in propria persona, for he cannot plead by attorney without leave of the court first had, which leave acknowledges their jurisdiction; for the attorney is an officer of the court; and if they put in a plea by an officer of the court, that plea must be supposed to be put in by leave of the court.

"Thirdly, the defendant must make but half defence; for, if he makes the full defence, quando, &c. he submits to the jurisdiction, &c. being quando & ubi cur' consideraverit."

It is also quoted in Bacon's "Abridgement of the Law", which then says "Every plea to the jurisdiction must state another jurisdiction" which seems to be exactly what DC is doing. (It also appears in early versions of Archbold's, but I don't have the present one to compare.).

The lawyers have long hidden their art from the common man and love ridiculing any attempt on his part to learn it, hence the regular use of "every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client". However there may be another reason behind the “need” for engagement, in the oft-quoted excerpt from Corpus Juris Secundum on Attorneys & Clients:

"ATTORNEY & CLIENT. . . . attorney . . with an obligation to the courts and to the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties of his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter. Corpus Juris Secundum, 1980, Section 4. See Note.

"Note: By definition, the obligations and duties of attorneys extend to the court and the 'public' (government) before any mere 'client.' Clients are 'wards of the court' and therefore 'persons of unsound mind.' See client, wards of court."

I don't have CJS lying about so cannot claim to have seen this with my own eyes, but I have seen it quoted before. I do have Black's 4th in which "wards of court" are defined as "infants and persons of unsound mind". That was removed sharpish...

CR, there's a very quick Trusts 101 in Standing Under Freedom, p90-94.



Captain Ranty said...

Thanks Pete, good points raised.

I see that TSL has stepped in with some explanations.

Thanks TSL!

I'll dig out my SUF book and look at the pages you refer to.


Pete said...


I have a copy of Blacks 8th edition and it has a different meaning attached to in propria persona, it states in oneself and says see pro se. This definition goes like this:

Latin, for oneself, on ones own behalf, without a lawyer, the defendandt proceeded pro se, a pro se defendant. Also termed pro persona, in propria persona, propria persona, pro per. Cases Attorney and client 62; criminal law 641.4(1), CJS attorney and client 167-168; criminal law 290.

Now I don't know about you TSL but this is not the same as is stated in Blacks 3rd and 4th. I guess what I am getting at is that I would be extremely wary of using outdated definitions, as Dean has. I know that even quoting Blacks 8th could also be wrong as there is now a 9th Edition (I don't have a copy)as the definition could have again changed. I love his stuff but as with everything I prefer to do my own research and form my own opinion. We all know that there is no silver bullet. Many thanks for your input TSL.

Anonymous said...

Hello Pete,

I agree that "which edition" is a possible issue with Black's. I have all 9 and the definitions change as with all dictionaries (pro se is the same in the 9th as the 8th), yet with Black's there is a theory that the modern editions are bunkum because a lot has been stripped out/altered, more than can be explained by just reflecting changes in legalese. It could be wishful thinking or it could be truth.

For example, in an article I linked to in one of CR's older posts, it is said the 5th is the one that is currently being used in US courtrooms, not the current 9th. The original link for that is dead but it is on Scribd. It is the work of one, with no proof of veracity beyond what is contained within it, but it is interesting nonetheless.

Then there is this article on 1215.org saying anything after the 4th edition is no good "because references to common law are progressively removed, and Roman Civil Law concepts are augmented in order to conform to the law enforcement needs of political power centers such as the Federal Government and the United Nations.”

It goes on to say “The rule of thumb is that older dictionaries are useful for understanding natural rights, common law, personal sovereignty, and the people's point of view. Newer dictionaries are useful for understanding civil rights, Roman civil law, centralized authority, and the government's point of view. All attorneys are trained in the latter. Judges may go to special seminars to learn the former."

Again, one must make one's own mind up on the source, but changes of that sort have taken place, and it may be a reason why DC uses the 4th Edition.

Additionally, if you look at the wording there is a difference between "in propria persona" and "pro se". By conflating the first into the second, and then erasing it altogether, the modern editions of Black's have engaged in the sort of thing that 1215.org talks about; see here. Choice quote:

"Many litigants have been appearing Pro Se rather than in Propria Persona. Both Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed., and Cyclopedia of Law, 2nd Ed. define Pro Se as:

"'For Himself; in his own behalf; in person.'

"It should be noted that the definition does not read 'in his own proper person' but 'for himself', giving the connotation that while we act for ourselves, we are a separate person defending ourselves as a defendant. This would require the same leave of the court that the use of an attorney does, admitting jurisdiction of the court.

"The courts, as well as the state, continually refer to us as Pro Se litigants, even when we make it clear that we appear specially and 'in propria persona.' If we do not object, by our own omission we admit the jurisdiction.

"By being a Pro Se litigant we may also subject ourselves to the same rules lawyers are required to follow, since the court considers us as a lawyer acting for, or in behalf of, our own proper persons."

Again, all caveats apply.

In one of DC's other videos he talks about us giving the definition that we're using, and letting them acquiesce or rebut. If they don't rebut, then there is agreement of the parties, and if they do, then at least you know which one they are using, or where their understanding is coming from. IIRC he referred to it as being part of a corpus of law that you build up during the process, and bring into the court if you end up going. The worst they can say is "no, you're wrong, this is what we mean", which is a victory of sorts in and of itself as you have got them on record stating something!

In full agreement in checking everything out too! :-)



Pete said...

TSL, I must thank you for giving me more to research, but hey this is what I do and cheers for pointing me in the direction of what I would class as "interesting articles.

I feel that the Canadian movement is way ahead of us though as they can tie matters down to their own statutes, whilst we cannot.

I know that we can tie things down to magna carta, bill of rights and common law for England. However there is debate as to whether they apply in Scotland. I think that they do as Scotland inherited these rights via the act of union 1706. I have argued this time and time again with Scottish freemen, who believe that English law has no jurisdicyion north of the border. I have pointed out that Roman Law was the superior law in Scotland, wheras common law and Saxonite law was supreme in England.

What this means is that when England conquered Scotland then the laws of England were had surpremacy.

Pete said...

What I am getting at is the fact that common law does exist in Scotland and we must adhere to it and demand it no matter what a Sheiff says. The last recourse for a complaint is no longer the court of session, it is the new supreme court in London town, let us not forget Brussels, but let us not speak their name!

Anonymous said...

Hello Pete

You make a valid point in respect of England and Scotland (topical considering the Captain's latest post). I get the "everything we got, they got" aspect but there is also an argument that the common law was present, at least in some way, quite some time before the Treaty of Union.

Writing before the Treaty, but after the Union of the Crowns (and during the time when discussions for the full Union were being undertaken), one notable writer had this to say about the laws of Scotland (I included an excerpt of this in the comments of an earlier post of the Captain's but this is a fuller version):


"Concerning this kingdome there are many things worthy of observation.

"1. That these two mighty, famous, and ancient kingdoms, viz. England and Scotland (I use the words of the act of parliament) were anciently but one.

"2. That one religion and service of God is holden and celebrated by both.

"3. That as there is one language in both, so there was one kind of government and one law in ancient time that ruled both with many unanimous agreements between them, which evidently appeareth by many proofs. First, that the laws of Scotland are divided as the laws of England be into the common laws, acts of parliament, and customes. Their common laws are principally contained in two books. The first called Regiam majestatem, because it beginneth (as Justinians Institutes do) with these words [regiam majestatem]. The second book is called Quoniam attachiamenta, because it beginneth with those two words.

"The first book doth in substance agree with our Glanvil, and most commonly de verbo in verbum, and many times our Glanvil is cited therein by speciall name."

and the differences as then exist are caused...:

"By reason of their acts of parliament, which in many points have altered, diminished, and abrogated many of the old, and made laws and other proceedings, and made new laws and other proceedings, the distinct kingdoms and they now stand have many different lawes."

Sir Edward Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England Part IV, 344, 346. (Emphasis mine.)

Those perfidious parliaments, as ever...

"Glanvil" is Ranulph de Glanville, the chief justiciar during the reign of Henry II in the 12th century, to whom is attributed the earliest treatise concerning the common law, the Tractatus de legibus, which predated Magna Carta by around 25 years and Bracton's "Laws and Customs of England" by 50-odd. It is this work that the Regiam Majestatem, even today, is said to be based on. Modern commentary says that around two-thirds of it is based on Glanville whilst Coke, writing much earlier with, I imagine, better access to materials (some of which may be no longer extant or accessible), says it wasn't merely based on it but was largely de verbo in verbum - "word for word".

Certainly something to be thrown in to that particular argument, imo. :-D



coz said...

ok, I've sat thru parts 1 and 2 of Dean's stuff (part 3 is a 2 hour long Q & A, I believe), but he's really just recounting his experiences in maritime lawland, I don't know that I learnt a lot, except that it's frustrating and humiliating to be dragged into the courts by their policy men. I already knew that, having been arrested and thrown into a cell at age 22 (I'm now in my 50's). Fortunately God assisted me in my 'trial' as to what to say and their cash registers didn't ring.

There's a guy at our tiny Australian freeman site who thinks that Dean is simply being set up for a fall (when he attracts enuf followers) and he has some reservations. This guy recommends reading jurisprudence via this link...