Jump to content
The Corroboree
rogdog

Freeman-on-the-Land

Recommended Posts

Something I would like to make crystal clear, is that I was prepared to go to jail for my case. I think I know my rights, and I was prepared to sue for damages for my time being held against my will, if I was arrested.

Just asking questions about where somebodies authority comes from is harmless, but I can not give advice about what to do at a traffic stop, other than to give your name, address, and date of birth, and say nothing else..the same advice a cop will tell you.

But I have a friend, who loves to watch that RBT show on telly, and the cops keep saying 'You do not have to do or say anything', and to my mind, if I don't have to do anything, I should just get back in my car and go were I was going. cue handcuffs, but maybe not....

Edited by rogdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I would like to make crystal clear, is that I was prepared to go to jail for my case. I think I know my rights, and I was prepared to sue for damages for my time being held against my will, if I was arrested.

Just asking questions about where somebodies authority comes from is harmless, but I can not give advice about what to do at a traffic stop, other than to give your name, address, and date of birth, and say nothing else..the same advice a cop will tell you.

But I have a friend, who loves to watch that RBT show on telly, and the cops keep saying 'You do not have to do or say anything', and to my mind, if I don't have to do anything, I should just get back in my car and go were I was going. cue handcuffs, but maybe not....

 

Yeh cool. Thanks heaps for posting man. So they dropped your case yeh? Your letters seemed just a little informal but a good job no less and effective so that's the main thing.

I dislike those reality cop shows. The US - 'Cops' can be funny sometimes, but they are mostly just sad and disgusting to watch the way police treat people.

As for your thought above, they first tell you that you're under arrest which briefly means -

To stop; to seize; to deprive one of his liberty by virtue of legal authority.

and so that kind of automatically implies that you are in custody and not free to go.

The rest is the Miranda warning - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning

which is informing you of your right to silence, and that anything you say may and/or will be used against you in court, and your right to a legal representative, which if you cannot afford - one will be provided to you.

Not sure if the 'doing' part is even meant to be in there at all. EDIT- checked and according to WIKI it's current standard in NSW at least.

Even so, in the context it would only mean that; while you are "under arrest" and in their custody, you don't have to do anything but if you do they will use it against you in court. Any attempt to leave and so not be in custody any more would just mean that you were "resisting arrest" and not only can they bring that up against you in court and charge you for it, but that also apparently allows them to use "reasonable" force to apprehend you again.

Our right to silence in Aus is apparently derived from common law.

Of more interest to me is the question that they always have to ask - "Do you understand?"

I guess that it wouldn't really change a thing if you said that you did not understand, except that if you truly did not and then waived your rights to silence and admitted information that they used against you, that information would perhaps not be valid evidence in a court of law.

Years ago i was in a bad way and had 2 cops hassling me to move my car from a carpark. I was flat broke, the car had broken down and i was on the streets and living in my car.

They gave me shit for a while and we argued about this and that, and eventually one of the cops said to me:

"Mate, this is public property and you have to move off it and make it available to the public." or something along those lines.

I said - "OK then. If this is public property, and i am a member of the public, then why don't you leave me the fuck alone and get off of my property?"

They hassled more but eventually went away and left me alone, i guess because i had not broken any laws and couldn't be arrested or charged with anything. Cops hassled me a lot around that time, and i was quite angry at the world and looking back am in a way surprised by the amount of things i said to them that probably only served to piss them off, but in another way; because of my situation (homeless, jobless, no income etc.) i didn't really have much more left to lose and could not give a fuck anymore.

Those days are long past now though, and thankfully it's extremely rare that i ever get hassled or stopped by police now days. I have also spent years working on fixing my negative views of police officers (and myself of course) and now just see them as ordinary people that are just doing a job and believe that what they are doing is right, either for others or for themselves. I still find them to be mostly useless still though, apart from being exceptional at raising revenue from others and invoking fear in those others.

One thing i noticed was that it seemed to bug them when they saw that i did not fear them or have any respect for their assumed authority.

Anyways, getting on a rant again, woops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refused for Cause - No Contract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting take on contempt of court, it appears that it only applies to court staff ie. magistrates, clerk of the court and judges. The case was in the UK, so we can not claim precedent in Aus, but it applies to our judicial system equally

http://contempt.fmotl.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

001forweb.jpg

Found this on my car today. ^

Quite tempted to send some letters.

 

Point 1... I remember an excellent fallafel shop in Balaclava, where you could make your own fallafel, including stuffing those babies down the side of the bag to fill it out.

2) I have no interest in sorting out other peoples problems, these are things you need to know and understand for you own freedom.

3) The way to keep these things like parking tickets and police fines out of court, is to remove the controversy. Heres how you do it. Conditional acceptance, write to your accuser, saying that you 'conditionally' accept their offer to contract, and agree to pay, upon condition that they prove their claim by showing you their lawfully binding contract. Of course, none of us ever signed a contract with the government, police, council, or parking lot contracters.

This would be my response to the above ticket.

Notice of conditional acceptance

Attn: City of Port Phillip

Thankyou for your Infringement Notice. I find your prices fair and reasonable, so much so, that I will recommend you to my friends and relatives. I am happy to pay for my infringement of your terms, upon condition that you show me the lawfully binding contract where I agreed to your terms and conditions.

I shall give you ten(10) days from today (date of letter) to provide evidence of such contract, by registered post, or I will presume you no longer wish to persue this matter.

All correspondence which is not as demanded above will be ignored without dishonour.

Regards, [your name]

Simple really, I add my taunts about friends and family as a personal touch, but obviously you can leave those out..

The registered post is important, because if you do not recieve reg post in your time frame, that is proof that your accuser is in default

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the letter in the post above does, and all letters of conditional acceptance, is you go the freeman path, and not give jurisdiction to the magistrates court, but at higher courts, district and supreme, you have covered your bases, if you need to appeal a magistrates courts decision.

A well worded letter such as above, removes any controversy, and you can argue in a higher court that ;

1) that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to make any ruling

2) there was no controversy to make a ruling about

3) there was no lawfully binding contract for you to follow.

unilateral contracts are not binding in the higher courts. sign nothing, and know your law.

[edit] what I am saying is, if you go the freemean path, you send appropriate letters to respond to a magistrates court summons, and then do not show up for your court date, If the magistrate makes a ruling, and it will be without jurisdiction, then you have soild grounds to appeal that descision

Edited by rogdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have been looking to all this for many years.

you wont understand and learn it all in a week , let alone in a entire year.

its a very complex and complicated system that dwells into us who we are.

in my opinion , your first step to become detached to society as a freeman , you want to learn alot about horticulture.

you are going to want your own food , plus it gives you a trade.

also here is something i believe everyone should be made aware of...

WHY HAVE JULIA GILLARD AND OTHERS BEEN CHARGED WITH COMMITTING TREASON?

http://www.larryhannigan.com/treason.htm

http://www.cleanairandwater.net

In knowing that acts of treason have occurred, yet concealing that knowledge:

1. They breached their oath of allegiance concerning the people of Australia

2. They broke existing law in order to enable substitution of another law, when...

3. No permission or referendum was sought to alter or substitute another law.

Three examples of these actions:

* The Australia Act 1986 (No referendum held)

* In Western Australia in 2004 the Crown and Oath of Allegiance was removed , but no referendum was held.

* In Victoria the Oath of Allegiance was removed from the Legal Practice Act in 2000 without referendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings all, I would like to offer my apologies now if any of my future post offends anyone as it is not my intention.

The problem with all this is is simply put that there is no opt out avenue, the establishments don't want us to be free as they cannot afford it, if you look closely at the whole system, in every department, we have been slowly steered away from a conscious right to say no or to decline any offer, ( auto contract ) or its subsitute no acceptance no rewards, for instance, if welfare is suppose to be an aid in times of hardship, how far does one get if they don't agree to all terms & conditions?

I have read nearly all the posts in this particular forum relating to the freeman & whilst I see some valid points, I also see some points not mentioned, I have noticed a lot of the freeman info has come from over-seas, which whilst it is appealing it wont work here for different reasons.

Forget everything you have been educated in because it simply is some one elses truth, for instance, religion, there is absolutely no proof or callaboration between the enity known as god & the bible in short, nobody is around today who was around back then to confirm this, that & something else happened,

The freeman theory comes from passages from the bible, which sadly the heavenly father, god, creator, call it what you will & religion has been fused together, & no I'm not a religious nut, passages within the bible depict that all god's children you, me, them have the god given right to traverse his lands unharassed & unhindered as he intended.... clearly that is not what we currently have.

Any form of I.d documentation has been issued from an establishment, the famed birth cert is the creation of the strawman the government securitised corporated entity. its not a transcript of a live birth, but a transcript of another creation.

Not being a native of Oz my BC states at the bottom of it....... warning: A certificate is not evidence of identity ( caution there are offences relating to falsifying or altering a certificate and using or possessing a false certificate... followed by, crown copyright ), so I ask you, if my alleged BC does not pertain to me, then why do I have it & what is its purpose, clearly being that it is issued from a government department: births, deaths registration act 1953, clearly I would be in possession of a fraudulent document........ its my corporation, made on my behalf by the establishment at the time my parents registered my live birth ( blacks law dictionary edition 1 states: REGISTRATION: to relinquish title ownership of ), & hence the strawman/freeman scam, the problem with this is our parents didn't know what they were doing, there was no full disclosure of the alleged contract, afterall if our parents knew that by registrating a birth & inturn abandoning their children, would they have registered the birth??? not likely. The whole process is fraudulent

The only way I can see a way around the whole scam & be truely free would be to take the Ghandi approach which would be civil disobedience, but in todays society that carries repocussions.... because they simply don't want us to be free, they need us to pay off their debt, loans taken out against our live births, the sole reason for income tax is to simply pay off their incurred debt, to which the tax paid only ever pays the interest & will never ever pay off the capital......... the threat is authority at the point of a gun, they use the fear of it to make us compliant.

Its why alleged cults are always dealt with, because the biggest army there can ever be is a civil army, there is not enough police or military might to stop the force of 23 million ppl in Oz, joining arms for the common good of humanity ( giving the possibility of 2 million in Oz for police & military alike ). Waco Texas was a classic example of that, the FBI went in claiming it was a cult, claiming that children were being messed with & so on, the reality was as a small community of ppl wanting to "opt out" of the systemic scam & that above all else is dangerious for government, because ppl tend to be more acceptable to following than leading & there you have a small civil army starting to build, so the FBI makes absurd comments, gets the nod to go in & in short the Waco freeman community was wiped out, all because they defended their beliefs to be free, to their advantage the Waco freeman community had the constitution to bare arm against all attacks foreign & domestic, hence the shootout & the enforcement of authority at the point of a gun, FBI bared arm & so did the freeman community & the FBI brought in more arms, now you start to see how the Port Arthur event happened, the establishments work in the realm of cause & effect, create the cause to obtain the effect, most don't know this, but after speaking to a few Ex V-V's, one in particular comes to mind who stated from other military comrades or contacts, that Port Arthur was a black ops event, at the time there was only 7 ppl in the world with the shooting ability to disable a vehicle with a gun, it was one of the things that happened in the PA event that was never mentioned to the public, think about it rationally Martin Bryant was not a shooter by any means, never fired a gun apparently, which rings the point of some discharges & not hit a thing, but then somehow executes 12 perfect 1 shot kills, also what was not mentioned was how two police officers who were at the premises looking to purchase lunch, called in what they had seen & was told to stand down. Now ask yourself if the police moto is to serve & protect, why were the 2 officers told to stand down? End result, create a scenario to instigate public outcry that then legislates what is now known as gun control & the civilian army now cannot defend its right to be free or resist enforcement, it is a trueism that only criminals have guns & that rings true for legit crims & the police & military.

if you want to be able to deal with courts, you first have to comprehend that police have no authority over you, authority only relates to the corporation this includes courts & any form of presumed authority, another passage from the bible states all men are created equal as god had intended, so uness you bestowed power of authority to someone else over you which would be unlikely, then everyone is an equal to you, cops can't fathom that thought process so there is really no point in arguing that point with them, you have to remember cops have been lied to as well in order for them to do their job, but the easiest way to beat a court issue is to simply attend & when your name is called, you stand up & demand the magistrate shows you & the alleged name( your strawman ) is 1 in the same & he can't without exposing the scam, he could however continue to demand a name.

Being that all our identity is issued by the establishments, I can see no legal reason why we wouldn't just creat our own identity documentation, however I can see that the establishment will simply make a corporation out of that name as well, for instance:

John of the family Doe "living breathing sentient man"

Born: 1970

Address: irrelivant

Keep in mind, the BC is a fraudlent doc as would be any ID one could be compelled to make as the establishments would not view it as legal as they didn't create it, but there's nothing saying you can't do it & it just proposes a different arguement.

My 2 cents worth & apologies for its length

Take care CF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rog

I'm courious, did your letter work?

There is another side to this that maybe you have not yet looked into, If we are to "understand" ( I hate using the word understand, because if you switch the word around it has a different meaning I.E. understand... to stand under ) law in which to conduct ourselves accordingly, it makes sence to use "their" law against them, Black's law dictionary edition 1 states, REGISTRATION: to relinquish title ownership of, & the courts can't ignore it as it is the foundation for their rulings, it is also why they have omitted some other words in later editions so that they can't be caught by their own rulings or wording deffinitions. So your means of tranport is a car to which by legislative law must be registered in order to use on the roads. If you have relinquished title ownership of the car then the car is not legally your property, but you do however hold a right to use licence, the comment possession is 9/10th's of the law is not uncommon, but most don't comprehend its reality, one never hears the term possession is 10/10th's of the law & the reason is, the 9/10th's possession belongs to the establishments we the ppl have the 1/10th & that is simply put, a right to use licence. So if you incurred an infringment you could simply send it back with an attached doc stating thank you for bringing this to my attention, please forward it on to the rightful owner.

It may sound like hogwash, but I can say from first hand personal knowlege we do not own our vehicles, I had a car unreg for 2 yrs, to test a theory I had, I made some ph calls, first to the local police station where I live in QLD & asked them who was the rightful owner of said car, I was informed that they didn't know & "they" teh police only know of who the registered owner is & that I would have to ring the RTA, so I did & asked the same question, I wasn't suprised I was informed that the RTA didn't know who the rightful owner is, only to whom it was registered to & that i would have to ring the police, to which I explained to them that I had already done so & was told by the police to ring the RTA, so here we have 2 government agencies who deal with motor vehicle registrations, 1 to register the other to track the user & neither of them can inform as to who is teh rightful owner is.

So the reality is we don't own what we think are our cars we only have the right to use them the establishment owns the cars by the way of registration ( black's law ) & therefor in theory you could send the infringement back & demand it be forwarded to the rightful owner of the car for their ability to deal with the matter, the key here is that you are the end user not the owner you are not required by any law to pay someone elses bill, it doesn't mean you can rack up huge infringements & expect the establishments to pay as they will just cancel their issued licence, which isn't yours either, thats the right to use licence, the right to drive & the right to dive a motor vehicle on the roads.

have fun

CF

Point 1... I remember an excellent fallafel shop in Balaclava, where you could make your own fallafel, including stuffing those babies down the side of the bag to fill it out.

2) I have no interest in sorting out other peoples problems, these are things you need to know and understand for you own freedom.

3) The way to keep these things like parking tickets and police fines out of court, is to remove the controversy. Heres how you do it. Conditional acceptance, write to your accuser, saying that you 'conditionally' accept their offer to contract, and agree to pay, upon condition that they prove their claim by showing you their lawfully binding contract. Of course, none of us ever signed a contract with the government, police, council, or parking lot contracters.

This would be my response to the above ticket.

Notice of conditional acceptance

Attn: City of Port Phillip

Thankyou for your Infringement Notice. I find your prices fair and reasonable, so much so, that I will recommend you to my friends and relatives. I am happy to pay for my infringement of your terms, upon condition that you show me the lawfully binding contract where I agreed to your terms and conditions.

I shall give you ten(10) days from today (date of letter) to provide evidence of such contract, by registered post, or I will presume you no longer wish to persue this matter.

All correspondence which is not as demanded above will be ignored without dishonour.

Regards, [your name]

Simple really, I add my taunts about friends and family as a personal touch, but obviously you can leave those out..

The registered post is important, because if you do not recieve reg post in your time frame, that is proof that your accuser is in default

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I just gave an example of how I would respond to the parking ticket, it was another members ticket, not mine. Regis in latin means of the King, so when you register something, it becomes property of the crown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get that simply from the word register?

Don't you think it more logical that it would mean recognised by the crown instead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<br />You get that simply from the word register?<br />Don't you think it more logical that it would mean recognised by the crown instead?<br />
<br /><br /><br />

Good point, could just be recognised or recorded by the crown.

The crown assumes some sort of claim to registered items though, whether it be cars seized under hoon legislation, or dogs wandering at large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<br /><br /><br />

Good point, could just be recognised or recorded by the crown.

The crown assumes some sort of claim to registered items though, whether it be cars seized under hoon legislation, or dogs wandering at large.

 

That would depend on what your interpretation of who the crown is.

The "crown" is not as most would commonly think, most interpret that the crown is the monarch, the crown is actually the "IMF" or to be more precise "Rothschild". The insight to this is a movie called "the money masters".

In short it depicts how rothschild gained his wealth, by todays standard... insider trading, Rothschild had a messenger (for lack of better words) at the fringes of the battle ground of the war between the british & Napoleon at the battle of waterloo, it was this messenger who reported back to rothschild a full 24 hours before the end of the war & informed rothschild that Napoleon was going to be defeated, being that rothschild was wheeling & dealing in the british stock exchange, & most looked to rothschild for hints of what to buy & what not, rothschild deliberately had a look of dismay on his face & all around him presumed that Napoleon had won the war & the stock exhcnage plumetted, rothschild was then able to buy up England for pennies on the pound. By the time the truth of Napoleon's defeat became news, rothschild had already purchased a large quanity of England.

being that rothschild had 5 sons all of which were taught the art of banking, rothschild senior sent his sons to different parts of europe & abroad to broaden his financial power & so we have the IMF, the IMF is the establishment that hold our true B/C's, & thus is the true crown.

It happened like this:

we we born, once that happened our parents were sent ..." pls register the birth of your child doc", so our parent unknowingly to the truth behind the doc filled them out as per requested.

That doc was then sent to the IMF along by the government along with a request for a loan of a large sum of money, the IMF said ok, what do you offer as collateral, the government offered our entire working life, being that our parents filled out the register birth doc, what our parents weren't told was by doing so they are abandoning their children, under admiralty law , we as children were then claimed by salvage rights, so we are actually chattle of the government, being that the government can't enslave a "freeman" they had to make a corporation out of the live birth & hence the birth extract which pertains to the corporated entity not freeman entity, so our income tax pays nothing more than the interest of the governments loan & all government issued licences letters & so on are capitalised in the name.

Roman law which stood for 1000 years decrees, a name with all capitals is a slave with no rights, a name with first initials in capitals is a slave with rights & we as freemen were never issued with any form of identity except from an establishment, it stands to reason why you never see documents with all lower case letters in a name, because a name with all lower case is truely a freeman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have a shred of evidence to support this claim? Something that isn't just as much hearsay and anecdotal nonsense?

Roman law which stood for 1000 years decrees, a name with all capitals is a slave with no rights, a name with first initials in capitals is a slave with rights & we as freemen were never issued with any form of identity except from an establishment, it stands to reason why you never see documents with all lower case letters in a name, because a name with all lower case is truely a freeman.

That it stood for 1000 years doesn't suggest it still stands today, and a name with all letters lower case indicates you aren't speaking of a proper noun, which is to say a specific person or place.

Your comment sound plausible but the reality is most of this information is worse than useless to the vast majority of people. Without a great deal of knowledge on the matter, "freeman" techniques will get you thrown in jail rather easily. There are few who I think will pursue the information to any serious degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<br /><br /><br />

Good point, could just be recognised or recorded by the crown.

The crown assumes some sort of claim to registered items though, whether it be cars seized under hoon legislation, or dogs wandering at large.

 

I came across some files on the net that came about from a court case I was not involved with, but had the luck to be in the audience of, the case in question is irrelivant, but a comment the magistrate made, gave me the curiosity to search, this matter before the courts was held in Queensland.

The magistrate said: I can assure you we are not operating under either of those two laws.

The files are an insight to what state government is doing in Queensland & the same in other states as well.

post-9820-0-94222700-1318595748_thumb.jp

post-9820-0-69781700-1318596269_thumb.jp

post-9820-0-83671500-1318596911_thumb.jp

post-9820-0-53438200-1318597674_thumb.jp

post-9820-0-97801400-1318598189_thumb.jp

post-9820-0-07982200-1318598896_thumb.jp

post-9820-0-24485900-1318599453_thumb.jp

post-9820-0-84758700-1318600079_thumb.jp

post-9820-0-91541100-1318600969_thumb.jp

post-9820-0-20367000-1318601521_thumb.jp

post-9820-0-62259600-1318601996_thumb.jp

post-9820-0-94222700-1318595748_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-69781700-1318596269_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-83671500-1318596911_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-53438200-1318597674_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-97801400-1318598189_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-07982200-1318598896_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-24485900-1318599453_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-84758700-1318600079_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-91541100-1318600969_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-20367000-1318601521_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-62259600-1318601996_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-94222700-1318595748_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-69781700-1318596269_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-83671500-1318596911_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-53438200-1318597674_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-97801400-1318598189_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-07982200-1318598896_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-24485900-1318599453_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-84758700-1318600079_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-91541100-1318600969_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-20367000-1318601521_thumb.jpg

post-9820-0-62259600-1318601996_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Do you have a shred of evidence to support this claim? Something that isn't just as much hearsay and anecdotal nonsense? That it stood for 1000 years doesn't suggest it still stands today, and a name with all letters lower case indicates you aren't speaking of a proper noun, which is to say a specific person or place. Your comment sound plausible but the reality is most of this information is worse than useless to the vast majority of people. Without a great deal of knowledge on the matter, "freeman" techniques will get you thrown in jail rather easily. There are few who I think will pursue the information to any serious degree.
I'm sorry sheather, I wasn't aware that my opinion or theory would be interpretted as a claim by the likes of you or anyone else for that matter, you have the obligation of choice to research for yourself, you are under no obligation to believe mine or anyone elses "hearsay" I think we would all realise that there would be no way that I would have 1000 year old doctrine proof of my opinion as would anyone else of freeman theory. As for nonsence which is your opinion & you are welcome to it, can you proove or disproove that any other law that has stood longer that is used as a foundation of law today? can you proove that australian law has not continued with modification to a foundation of law from other countries? If you don't believe that then you would be in denial as the foundation of australian law derives from westminster law, which is the only law that Captin Cook had at his disposal at the time of discovering australia. I never "claimed" that Roman law still stands today, but merely opinionated that it is a foundation of law, as back then Roman law was most likely to be the only law. As for the information to the vast majority is worse than useless, clearly you have yet to defend yourself in a court using the freeman techniques because if you had, then you would know that it is an extremely hard battle to attempt to convince the magistrate that you are nothing more than a freeman, because they wont acknowlege the freeman, as it is there job to do nothing more than fleece corporated strawman of money. I never asked you or any other sentient man/woman to persue anything I have opinionated to a serious degree, its not my obligation nor desire to enforce my research or theory upon anyone else, any of my comments NOT CLAIMS have only ever been from the point to consider other possibilities of other avenues & how foolish of you or anyone else who would use any information in the freeman posts as a point for legal counsel. instead of feeding off of everyone elses research or theory to rely on to bail your ass out of a problem, why not research yourself, because anyone elses research would never have been a guarantee to get you out of a fix & equally get you thrown in GAOL & you would be a fool to go into a court using someone elses research or theory to get you out of a problem. It is why the freeman forum clearly states "NOT TO BE RELIED UPON FOR LEGAL COUNSEL" I think that this pretty much concludes both our viewpoints & opinions. Edited by Conspiracy-Factualist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
clearly you have yet to defend yourself in a court using the freeman techniques because if you had, then you would know that it is an extremely hard battle to attempt to convince the magistrate

Hence it being useless to the common man. I have done quite a lot of research into the freeman techniques, and if there's one thing it showed me, it's that if your knowledge isn't almost encyclopaedic then you will get your arse handed to you, and to that end, I think it would be better to advise people to do a great deal of research rather than hand them a snippet of information and say "this is what happened and how and you can use it to get out of a jam."

As for nonsense which is your opinion & you are welcome to it, can you prove or disprove that any other law that has stood longer that is used as a foundation of law today? Can you prove that Australian law has not continued with modification to a foundation of law from other countries?

I would think that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, rather than the skeptic. You're asking me to disprove your comments, relying on the fact that you've said them as evidence enough of proof? That logic is bordering on religious pseudo-logic, thankfully not quite that bad.

I think that this pretty much closes both our viewpoints & opinions.

How remarkably arrogant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence it being useless to the common man. I have done quite a lot of research into the freeman techniques, and if there's one thing it showed me, it's that if your knowledge isn't almost encyclopaedic then you will get your arse handed to you, and to that end, I think it would be better to advise people to do a great deal of research rather than hand them a snippet of information and say "this is what happened and how and you can use it to get out of a jam."

I would think that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, rather than the skeptic. You're asking me to disprove your comments, relying on the fact that you've said them as evidence enough of proof? That logic is bordering on religious pseudo-logic, thankfully not quite that bad.

How remarkably arrogant.

 

LOL a lot of research huh, I percieve you would attend a court, speak all of your "knowlege" & theory & research in a debate that your a freeman and to be as arrogant as a court magistrate, " proove it", And all your hours of research would be meaningless as the magistrate is not interested in your research or your logic or theories, as to quote your comment, onus of proof is upon the claimant.

For saying that you have researched freeman techniques you seem quite adept in using copyright corporated government used words to express your opinions. For instance your choice of word... " advise" to mean... ad-vice. Why would you want to ad-vice to your fellow brother or sister?

Show me where I said them as evidence? & where I have said. this is what happened & you can use it to get out of jam. Is that not you now twisting what I had actually said with a view to discredit my opinion?

If there is a statement/claim that I potentially made without realising it, it would have been by the very few words :" Roman law decrees" & if nothing more so than the word I choose to use " decree" & whilst I now see that you have choosen to be an opportunist & bager me for it, anyone with half a clue would realise that I am not 1000 years old & therefore it is equally obvious that I cannot proove that it was or was not inforce, & neither can you. it was a theory, but alas my theories are irrelevant if they do not coincide with yours.

You are entitled to your views/opinions & theories as am I, but you don't see me running around posting active criticisim about other peoples posts now ....... do you. It is up to the end user to either believe/percieve or not of the information that is posted in this forum & yet again I quote the freeman forum statement " NOT TO BE RELIED UPON FOR LEGAL COUNSEL" neither yours or mine.

How remarkably arrogant !!.......... YES YOU ARE!

In ending say what you will of me & my posts, as I will simply ingore your comments & opinions of me & I don't think this helps anyone watching two people lock horns over a matter of differences of opinion

I will simply let it go with the view that we agree to disagree that we cannot work together for a greater cause as clearly you percieve that everything you say is right & any other comment that does not coincide with your views is either irrelevant or incorrect.

An honorable man would of said... whilst I comprehend your attempt of information I percieve it to be wrong for these reasons. Not ignite a text war.. congratulations I hope you feel proud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with the funny word plays with the freeman stuff? That's not the etymology of advise.

http://www.etymonlin...p?search=advise

 

Certain words hold specific meanings to establishments, for instance as per rogdog's most recent post, the information gave description to the word "understand", the word understand in a court or comming from a magistrate is to stand under, I.E. " do you understand the charge/s against you", if you say yes then you are acknowleging the jurisdiction of the court & magistrate by agreeing to stand under the charge/s, in short jurisdiction by deceit .

It is for that reason that I attempt to not use such words because of the different meaning implied, in most instances the certain words are copyrighted by the establishments for their power or pleasure, also it is only by the changing of one letter or changing the way the word is presented.

understand/under + stand = stand under

advise/ad + vise = ad vice

As the page you referred the link to :

advise dictionary.giflate 13c., avisen "to view, consider," from O.Fr. aviser "deliberate, reflect, consider" (13c.), from avis "opinion" (see advice). Meaning "to give counsel to" is late 14c. Related: Advised; advising

vice (1) dictionary.gif"moral fault, wickedness," c.1300, from O.Fr. vice, from L. vitium "defect, offense, blemish, imperfection," in both physical and moral senses (cf. It. vezzo "usage, entertainment").

 

Horace and Aristotle have already spoken to us about the virtues of their forefathers and the vices of their own times, and through the centuries, authors have talked the same way. If all this were true, we would be bears today. [Montesquieu]

Vice squad is attested from 1905. Vice anglais "corporal punishment," lit. "the English vice," is attested from 1942, from French.vice (2) dictionary.gif"tool for holding," see vise.

vise dictionary.gifc.1300, "device like a screw or winch for bending a crossbow or catapult," from O.Fr. vis, viz "screw," from L. vitis "vine, tendril of a vine," lit. "that which winds," from base of viere "to bind, twist" (see withy). The meaning "clamping tool with two jaws closed by a screw" is first recorded c.1500.

So when you join the dots advise is to ad-vice

Edited by Conspiracy-Factualist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can understand the understand thing, I'll need more advice regarding advice :wink:

I don't find it convincing. If the authorities have particular non-English definitions for words, they would need to publish those definitions somewhere.

In most legislation the definitions for words which have unusual meanings in the context of the legislation are published at the start of the Act, usually in extreme detail.

Where are the definitions for the unusual meanings of words like understand and advise published?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My car is now out of registration. I would like to seek another organisation sepperate from the Roads and Traffic Authority to register my vehicle and recieve plates to corrospond. Does anyone know of such an organisation or should I create my own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can understand the understand thing, I'll need more advice regarding advice :wink:

I don't find it convincing. If the authorities have particular non-English definitions for words, they would need to publish those definitions somewhere.

In most legislation the definitions for words which have unusual meanings in the context of the legislation are published at the start of the Act, usually in extreme detail.

Where are the definitions for the unusual meanings of words like understand and advise published?

 

It's legalese a separete language. Blacks Law Dictionary several editions of which are available online.

Edited by Mycot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×