Video: Judge Admits That The Court Is A Common Law Court - Are Freemen Correct?

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by finemanm

 

Sorry to hear of the profession you chose. I have met only one good lawyer, they attempted to disbar him and he helped out thousands of people with traffic court, he was brilliant and now dead for over a year or so. They did him in because he told the truth and actually helped people instead of selling them out.

A "statute" is NOT a law but a mere regulation. A law is something that is based on the Constitution and on its delegated "powers", which are derived from the CONSENT of the public/private sector, in a need for restraint of an action to protect the general public. It starts out as a "bill" presented TO the people for approval. In being a regulatory functioning "law", then the "State" does not need the consent of the governed or Constitution, they do it by "claimed neccessity", which is a bunch of BS. Statutes regulate and you are fined or jailed for breaking them, therefore they are regulatory in nature and do nothing to protect the general public because there is no victim. The "State" collects fees, more like camoflaged "taxes" or surcharges for usury.

Why more lawyers don't tell the truth, even at the risk of being disbarred, who needs the BAR, I have my own "power of attorney in fact" and can practice law for myself, without the need for being licensed and it is legal. You do not need a licesne to practice law, I have never seen a "law" that forbade it.

ATTORNEYS - LAWYERS - COUNSELORS - ESQUIRES
___________________________________________________________
Ye Wretched Hordes
Though Ye may have begun with high ideals and lofty
intentions, it is for naught.
Ye have traded your American souls for the title for English
Noblemen.
Ye have forsaken the country that gave you birth for doing the
bidding for a power-foreign against your neighbors and kin.
Honor, Virtue, and Purpose were left behind when Ye enjoined
the conspiratorial monopoly, the BAR Association, wherein,
Ye daily reap the benefits by criminal syndicalism.
Though Ye may have once been as a fresh fruit upon the tree, the
system for which Ye adhere is putrid vat for villainy.
The venal slime and treachery for the BAR Association courses
through your veins, Ye Wretched Hordes for the
LAWYERING CRAFT!

A statute IS a law. I don't understand why you insist that you have to consent to every single act of congress creating a law. The 'consent' which you speak about is a conceptual consent which does not apply to you personally. The people of the United States consent to be governed by the federal government in order to make their lives easier (could you all do all of that regulation and governance alone? doubtfully). In that sense you 'consent' to the laws passed by congress. You do not get a choice in consenting to any single statute. You cannot simply say 'Well, I'm sorry your honor, but I don't actually consent to the law that states that x is illegal, so you've got nothing on me'... at which point you will be looked at like an idiot and then promptly given a custodial sentence.

Where you get the idea that lawyers owe some duty to the court beyond professional practice, I do not know. If this is so true, and all defense lawyers are actually trying to convict their clients, why was Johnny Cochrane so well known for getting people out of sticky situations, if he was (as you assert) just another 'pawn' of the court.

Get real. *snip*


Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by nh_ee

As we know all "Lawyers" must become members of the BAR in order to practice Law.

What DOES BAR stand for ?
BAR - British Accreditation Registry/Regency

Just where do you get the rubbish that you post here from?

en.wikipedia.org...

The use of the term bar to mean "the whole body of lawyers, the legal profession" comes ultimately from English custom. In the early 16th century, a railing divided the hall in the Inns of Court, with students occupying the body of the hall and readers or benchers on the other side. Students who officially became lawyers crossed the symbolic physical barrier and were "admitted to the bar".[5] Later, this was popularly assumed to mean the wooden railing marking off the area around the judge's seat in a courtroom, where prisoners stood for arraignment and where a barrister stood to plead. In modern courtrooms, a railing may still be in place to enclose the space which is occupied by legal counsel as well as the criminal defendants and civil litigants who have business pending before the court.

reply to post by duality90


I read this crap and laugh. The legislature can legislate FOR the people but NEVER "TO" the people. They can not pass ANY "statute that would restrict or hinder or violate the life, liberty or property of the private sector. And this is why ANY law must be introduced as a bill and presented TO the people for approval BEFORE it is voted on by the legislature.

Minnesaota State Constitution
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1. OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT. Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.

Sec. 2. RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. No member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the state otherwise than as punishment for a crime of which the party has been convicted.

If this legal route were taken by the legislature, then there would not be so many "laws" on the books, justice would be done and we the people would actually be free. If no one is injured and no property damaged and no ones rights violated, then there IS no crime. Personal repsonsibility IS MINE, I do not NEED the "state" to take care of me. I am NOT a "person" nor a subject to the state in any way. I live in the "private sector" not in the public sector. I do NO business in the "public sector".

I am not sure what YOU do not understand about the above. I am NOT a "person" but a flesh and blood living soul. EVERY statute refers to "any person", "a person" and "no person", I am NOT a "person", therefore these statutes do not apply to me but to corporate fictions. These statutes regulate commerce. I am not commerce. This is why you file the UCC-1 and take "control" of the strawman name or "corporate fiction" as it were.

Sorry but you will never convince someone who has studied this all their lives. We do know the truth and you are wasting our time and yours. The usurpation and subversion of the rights of man is obvious and "lawyers" are the biggest problem and should be the first gotten rid of.

The original 13th Amendment does that. But it was changed by Dishonest Abe.

I am sorry you chose the profession you did, and I feel sorry for any clients you may have, your bleeding them and that stinks. No offense.

reply to post by dereks


Here is a better definition for you, and not from the idiotic site Wikipedia:

www.angelfire.com...

"Why Attorneys are not lawyers"

Originally posted by ripcontrol
reply to post by greenovni

 

You deserve more then a star and flag...

You see I completely forgot, about admiralty... Which covers damage to Sailors...

Which no matter what a marine tells you they are still legally department of the navy... which means all damage to sailors and the marines... are covered by a different set of laws....

The rapes of several marines and sailors is not cover exclusively by civil state law... it is a federal matter....

You good sir reminded me to look again... thank you for the inspiration...

summing up the issue...

Damage to sailors is not covered by pre-signed agreements with the DOD... the follow a whole different set of rules...

You pointed out a way all the victims in the navy and marine core can give it back with no lube....I missed it the whole time... the whole time and your words ...poof...

take a good look at what TYPE of court it would fall into...

And what it beautiful is the victims can sue their attackers... and leave out the DOD... the attackers cant use JAG for defense... (cant participate unless they are subpoenaed..) leave them out and hit the attackers hard as hell as sub-contractors to dfas...

Sir it was simple matter of WHAT type of court would this play in....

I feel like an idiot for not seeing it...

A friend is running it past JAG... four states over....

thank you for asking that basic question... what type of court?

good job OP

My questions are basic. This is because in their simplicity, leaves little wiggle room for the PTB to get out of. Wait until you see my motion to dismiss any case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Originally posted by Teckniec
Hey mr. green I'm in FL too. If you msg me your email or something maybe we can share our knowledge. I tried to message you but I have to make a certain number of posts. I have been giving my city hell as of late for trying to hide under the color of law for violating my rights.
In regards to the freeman movement, I would say not so effective here in the US, I say our best bet as I think someone mentioned before is to use our constitution and try to get juries educated on their right to nullify laws. Also there are some laws that do help protect you from the government employees 18 U.S.C. § 241& 242. There may be some stuff in your state statues too. The make things difficult so that people wont even try, you just gotta fight till your last breath and show them that you are not going to go down without a fight. Hold them to their social compact. Some common law stuff they still recognize are latin terms like mens rea and corpus delicti but for the most part they will not honor ANYTHING in your favor. Its all a game and if you want to win then study their rules and use it against them, they break their own rules a lot and if you call them out on it its quiet hysterical. Heres some stuff for if your in FL. This is the 1838 original FL constitution, why mention it? well the last section(27) of basic rights

Section 1. That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 2. That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient.

Section 6. That the right of trial by jury shall forever remain inviolate.

Section 8. That no freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land and I believe common law is part of the law of the land as well.

Section 26. That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty.

Section 27. That to guard against transgressions upon the rights of the people, we declare that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

Theres your power that freeman stuff will only get you in deep s***.

Also wanted to add that the purpose of the judicial branch of government is to judge the law as well not just accept whatever the legislator writes, there is no money in doing their job though

Also read the federalist papers regarding the judical branch. You can use that in court I have a case for that....somewhere.

edit on 10-3-2011 by Teckniec because: addition.

I too think that the freement movement, at least now & in my situation would bring more trouble than it is worth. I am going with lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by greenovni

Unfortunately, it would seem that there are indeed very #ty lawyers out there. Lawyers can be a help, or they can be perhaps the biggest hindrance ever.

You could of course always sue them in negligence, but I imagine that at this point in time you are probably quite sick of legal proceedings.

Best of luck fighting whatever taxes the State is levying upon you (presumably, incorrectly or unjustly). Did the lawyers you hired let you have a free consult/give you a short rundown of their previous trial history (which you could corroborate)? As I said, there are alot of very mediocre lawyers out there who will represent themselves as very competent and efficient professionals. Caveat emptor.

Alas though, if the State has you by the balls, there is little that the lawyer can do but mitigate the loss. The law can be unflinchingly and unrepentantly harsh

As already stated, this is not a tax case. It is a child support case for a child that is not biologically mine, from a 1 night stand when I was 16 and the "lady" in question was 29.

I am sick and tired of legal proceedings but the fight must continue...

If it is not biologically yours, can you not rebut the presumption of paternity (and free yourself from any burden) by taking a DNA test?

No, once you're stuck, you're stuck legally for a bill for a child that is not yours!

UPDATE: Our common law judge bars Jury Nullification Information With Threat Of Arrest!

depending on state that child support case can turn in to a rape of a minor case ,

but back to the "case"

to make it clear ,

something/someone that is not yours cannot be tied to you if you in question havent taken upon to resoposibility of parenting when registering who is / are the child´s parents/legal guardians/owner

so as long as your name isnt on any papers showing that responsibility is yours , your free to go .

a dna test can only coroborate your side of the story as long as it shows your not tied to the child by genes

but as said , if your name is on some sort of legal document showing youve taken upon the responsibility of parenting your legaly stuck with being a parent.

I worked for the Florida Child Support Enforcement Agency for a couple of years.

Even if a child isn't biologically yours, if you signed the BIRTH CERTIFICATE...ha ha...you're that childs father. It will take a judge to get that reversed.

If you missed the summons for paternity...same result.

If you were married to a woman who cheated and the child is proven to biologically be yours....you're the daddy.

The last one is a real kicker...even if it was known you aren't the father, but you play the father role and the child perceives you as father, the judge can rule you as the father in the best interest of the child.

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by duality90

 

I read this crap and laugh. The legislature can legislate FOR the people but NEVER "TO" the people. They can not pass ANY "statute that would restrict or hinder or violate the life, liberty or property of the private sector. And this is why ANY law must be introduced as a bill and presented TO the people for approval BEFORE it is voted on by the legislature.

Minnesaota State Constitution
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1. OBJECT OF GOVERNMENT. Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.

Sec. 2. RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. No member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the state otherwise than as punishment for a crime of which the party has been convicted.

If this legal route were taken by the legislature, then there would not be so many "laws" on the books, justice would be done and we the people would actually be free. If no one is injured and no property damaged and no ones rights violated, then there IS no crime. Personal repsonsibility IS MINE, I do not NEED the "state" to take care of me. I am NOT a "person" nor a subject to the state in any way. I live in the "private sector" not in the public sector. I do NO business in the "public sector".

I am not sure what YOU do not understand about the above. I am NOT a "person" but a flesh and blood living soul. EVERY statute refers to "any person", "a person" and "no person", I am NOT a "person", therefore these statutes do not apply to me but to corporate fictions. These statutes regulate commerce. I am not commerce. This is why you file the UCC-1 and take "control" of the strawman name or "corporate fiction" as it were.

Sorry but you will never convince someone who has studied this all their lives. We do know the truth and you are wasting our time and yours. The usurpation and subversion of the rights of man is obvious and "lawyers" are the biggest problem and should be the first gotten rid of.

The original 13th Amendment does that. But it was changed by Dishonest Abe.

I am sorry you chose the profession you did, and I feel sorry for any clients you may have, your bleeding them and that stinks. No offense.

*snip* Are you trying to tell me that every law passed by Congress or state legislature is in fact, not a law because it has not been sent for referendum by everyone? Are you insane?

Furthermore, what on earth are you going on about saying 'I am not a person' - do you not realize the absurdity of that statement? You do not understand the idea of legal personality plainly. A corporation can be a 'person' because in order to have substantive rights and the ability to raise action in court as well as be the subject of such action, an entity has to have legal personality. You have immediate legal personality because the law has deemed human beings and citizens to have individual legal personality.

Do some damned proper legal research (viz. buy/rent a textbook and do some reading, rather than spouting the illegitimate ravings of some crackpot 'freeman' movement) before you go wantonly insulting myself and other members of the thread. You constantly claim that you are 'correct' and 'right'. Is that why people are regularly able to escape conviction or escape litigation at all because any law levelled against them is illegitimate?

I think not.


Mod Note: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Originally posted by greenovni

Originally posted by Teckniec
Hey mr. green I'm in FL too. If you msg me your email or something maybe we can share our knowledge. I tried to message you but I have to make a certain number of posts. I have been giving my city hell as of late for trying to hide under the color of law for violating my rights.
In regards to the freeman movement, I would say not so effective here in the US, I say our best bet as I think someone mentioned before is to use our constitution and try to get juries educated on their right to nullify laws. Also there are some laws that do help protect you from the government employees 18 U.S.C. § 241& 242. There may be some stuff in your state statues too. The make things difficult so that people wont even try, you just gotta fight till your last breath and show them that you are not going to go down without a fight. Hold them to their social compact. Some common law stuff they still recognize are latin terms like mens rea and corpus delicti but for the most part they will not honor ANYTHING in your favor. Its all a game and if you want to win then study their rules and use it against them, they break their own rules a lot and if you call them out on it its quiet hysterical. Heres some stuff for if your in FL. This is the 1838 original FL constitution, why mention it? well the last section(27) of basic rights

Section 1. That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 2. That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient.

Section 6. That the right of trial by jury shall forever remain inviolate.

Section 8. That no freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land and I believe common law is part of the law of the land as well.

Section 26. That frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty.

Section 27. That to guard against transgressions upon the rights of the people, we declare that every thing in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

Theres your power that freeman stuff will only get you in deep s***.

Also wanted to add that the purpose of the judicial branch of government is to judge the law as well not just accept whatever the legislator writes, there is no money in doing their job though

Also read the federalist papers regarding the judical branch. You can use that in court I have a case for that....somewhere.

edit on 10-3-2011 by Teckniec because: addition.

I too think that the freement movement, at least now & in my situation would bring more trouble than it is worth. I am going with lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

From what I've seen the best defense is to not plea but answer in the form of a demurr or counter claim for subject matter jurisdiction. Also you want to get the judges oath, if he refuses you can list countless cases any case with a clear lack of jurisdiction is null and void. Don't argue with the judge just if he refuses state your cases and make a note of it on the record and you have grounds to appeal. If he intentionally tries to deny your rights you can go after his bond but thats a dangerous game to play.

reply to post by duality90


Once again you make me laugh. I spent 2 years going to law school, my father was a detective and I was going to follow in his footsteps, as it were, BUT...having spent nearly 24 hours a day in the law library at the university and learning all the fraud that happens and then getting into an arguement with the professor when I questioned it. I quit school.

I am not some crackpot Freemen. I think they have it all wrong. They do not know the UCC or they do not take the necessary steps to correct the system, they just want to fight it all the time. I work within the system to My advantage knowing the rules and the law and legal speak.

And as for "person", are you insane? Here are some legal cases defining IT..

"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different
departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated;
and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with
the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the
federal and state government." -- Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F 939, 943.

"This word `person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is absolutely
necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the word in all
the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the
status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or physical person, but
the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ... The law of persons is the
law of status or condition." -- American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, 1910:

"The word `person' in legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally
includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings., see e.g. 1, U.S.C.
paragraph 1." -- Church of Scientology v. US Department of Justice (1979) 612 F2d 417,
425:

"The people, or sovereign are not bound by general words in statutes, restrictive of
prerogative right, title or interest, unless expressly named. Acts of limitation do not bind
the King or the people. The people have been ceded all the rights of the King, the former
sovereign ... It is a maxim of the common law, that when an act is made for the common
good and to prevent injury, the King shall be bound, though not named, but when a
statute is general and prerogative right would be divested or taken from the King [or the
people] he shall not be bound." -- The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cowen (NY) 345, 348
(1825):

I could go on for days here posting information from Barron's Law Dictionary, Bouvier's, Black's and so on. Yes I have them all and more. I am not some turnip that just fell off the wagon and I do not just post crap from the interent, this info comes from work I have done to help others.

I could be more derogatory towards you but what would that solve or show, that I am stooping to your level of ignorance? I hear it all the time, some people yell it at me too!!!! "I WENT TO SCHOOL!!!!!!!!!!" I just laugh at them and walk away.

Have a wonderful day!!

reply to post by daddio


Keep it up man, we both know lawyers want us all to stay ignorant, so we are at their mercy. Last lawyer I hired, charged me 3 grand for a traffic court date, and I ended up having to pay 90% of the tickets anyway... # is corrupt as hell, take more people waking up and learning law for themselves before anything will ever change I think.

I have seen some wildly incorrect statements on this thread, some that are close to correct and some that are absolutely correct. But for the moment, let's leave all that aside. Let us come together as reasonable people and start from an assumption. Yes, let us assume for this discussion that the Freeman argument is philosophically and politically correct.

Given that, you might ask, what possible objection might I have to everyone on this thread using the Freeman defense whenever they're in legal trouble? My friends, the answer is simple:



IT DOESN'T *snip* WORK!!!!!!! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS!!!!!!!!!

I hope you'll forgive me for that outburst, but I find my eyeballs are spinning, veins are throbbing, and my fingers just acted on their own accord. Perhaps we should all retire for some nice tea.



Vulgarity and the Automatic ATS Censors

reply to post by duality90

Are you trying to tell me that every law passed by Congress or state legislature is in fact, not a law because it has not been sent for referendum by everyone? Are you insane?

Legislatures only pass statutes that restrict government through regulation. Those statutes do not apply to the people. That is the scope of thier authority by consent of the people. However they now overstep that authority and attorneys and police enforce thier decrees unlawfully on the people. "Government derives thier just powers by the consent of the governed". Democracy or mob rules does not constitute tacit consent for all to be subject to unlawful statute. The people being ignorant and through coercion intimidation and fear comply which allows attorneys like you to make an above average living off thier misery and suffering, producing and contributing nothing to society but perpetuating misery and suffering of your fellow man. As the saying goes one attorney in a town will starve, two in the same town will make a good living.

Originally posted by charles1952
I have seen some wildly incorrect statements on this thread, some that are close to correct and some that are absolutely correct. But for the moment, let's leave all that aside. Let us come together as reasonable people and start from an assumption. Yes, let us assume for this discussion that the Freeman argument is philosophically and politically correct.

Given that, you might ask, what possible objection might I have to everyone on this thread using the Freeman defense whenever they're in legal trouble? My friends, the answer is simple:



IT DOESN'T !@#$%^&*()_ WORK!!!!!!! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS!!!!!!!!!

I hope you'll forgive me for that outburst, but I find my eyeballs are spinning, veins are throbbing, and my fingers just acted on their own accord. Perhaps we should all retire for some nice tea.

You are wrong. The "Freeman" ideology may not work always but it does work, and if it works once it means the system IS a fraud. The UCC is the way to go, you can do everything, because YOU are the first lien holder of the ALL CAPS corporate fiction NAME. You get the first payment of ANY claim against the "strawman". This IS a fact and if you think there is no "strawman", look it up in Barrons Law Dictionary, 2nd and 3rd editions, WHY would it even be in there if it weren't true and real?

reply to post by daddio

You are wrong. The "Freeman" ideology may not work always but it does work, and if it works once it means the system IS a fraud. The UCC is the way to go, you can do everything, because YOU are the first lien holder of the ALL CAPS corporate fiction NAME. You get the first payment of ANY claim against the "strawman". This IS a fact and if you think there is no "strawman", look it up in Barrons Law Dictionary, 2nd and 3rd editions, WHY would it even be in there if it weren't true and real?

You are correct, however he is right in a sense because the vast majority of people are not educated on the labyrinth of the UCC and many that are cannot assert it in front of a judge well enough to make it work. I know people who in casual conversation know it inside an out but get them in front of a judge and they choke.

The bottom line is even though I agree with you the majority do rule society in general by force, apathy, or ignorance and unfortunately do not assert thier rights and the many suffer because of it. Very few can successfully assert thier rights when challenged and the attorney class have taken advantage of that and sold thier damnable craft as defending the peoples rights when in fact is keeps them in bondage.

If not for the majority ignorance people like you and I world not have to try and educate every corporate employee or officer who thinks he has jurisdiction over us and goes out of his or her way to harass us for not conforming to the corporate jurisdiction.

Most people just want to live thier lives and be left alone so they go along to get along and avoid these corporate leeches where ever they can. People are slowly waking up but it will be a long time before it reaches critical mass. However economic melt down is shortening the learning curve. Education is the key. Still most people do not have the time or desire to dig in and learn these things and we live in the world with millions of others and the majority sentiment about socieity effects our lives whether we like it or not.

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by charles1952
I have seen some wildly incorrect statements on this thread, some that are close to correct and some that are absolutely correct. But for the moment, let's leave all that aside. Let us come together as reasonable people and start from an assumption. Yes, let us assume for this discussion that the Freeman argument is philosophically and politically correct.

Given that, you might ask, what possible objection might I have to everyone on this thread using the Freeman defense whenever they're in legal trouble? My friends, the answer is simple:



IT DOESN'T *snip* WORK!!!!!!! GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEADS!!!!!!!!!

I hope you'll forgive me for that outburst, but I find my eyeballs are spinning, veins are throbbing, and my fingers just acted on their own accord. Perhaps we should all retire for some nice tea.

You are wrong. The "Freeman" ideology may not work always but it does work, and if it works once it means the system IS a fraud. The UCC is the way to go, you can do everything, because YOU are the first lien holder of the ALL CAPS corporate fiction NAME. You get the first payment of ANY claim against the "strawman". This IS a fact and if you think there is no "strawman", look it up in Barrons Law Dictionary, 2nd and 3rd editions, WHY would it even be in there if it weren't true and real?

The UCC regulates commercial contracts and nothing else... *snip*. Do you even know what a lien is!? and STOP saying you are a corporate fiction - you are not. A corporation is a body of two or more people (or one person, occupying an office that outlives the officeholder i.e. Bishop of Durham) which has legal personality in itself and can raise action in its own name as well as have action raised against it. This 'freeman' nonsense is a steaming pile of stinking lies and misconceptions about the law. If you are not a lawyer and have not read thoroughly on the subject, you plainly do not understand the fundamentals of any legal system, let alone the American one. Do you even understand what a strawman is? (it should be noted that that term basically never comes up these days, save in an isolated set of instances). It has absolutely nothing to do with you appearing before a court for a crime (presumably tax evasion since the whole 'freeman' movement is about evading taxation).



Vulgarity and the Automatic ATS Censors

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by daddio

 

You are wrong. The "Freeman" ideology may not work always but it does work, and if it works once it means the system IS a fraud. The UCC is the way to go, you can do everything, because YOU are the first lien holder of the ALL CAPS corporate fiction NAME. You get the first payment of ANY claim against the "strawman". This IS a fact and if you think there is no "strawman", look it up in Barrons Law Dictionary, 2nd and 3rd editions, WHY would it even be in there if it weren't true and real?

You are correct, however he is right in a sense because the vast majority of people are not educated on the labyrinth of the UCC and many that are cannot assert it in front of a judge well enough to make it work. I know people who in casual conversation know it inside an out but get them in front of a judge and they choke.

The bottom line is even though I agree with you the majority do rule society in general by force, apathy, or ignorance and unfortunately do not assert thier rights and the many suffer because of it. Very few can successfully assert thier rights when challenged and the attorney class have taken advantage of that and sold thier damnable craft as defending the peoples rights when in fact is keeps them in bondage.

If not for the majority ignorance people like you and I world not have to try and educate every corporate employee or officer who thinks he has jurisdiction over us and goes out of his or her way to harass us for not conforming to the corporate jurisdiction.

Most people just want to live thier lives and be left alone so they go along to get along and avoid these corporate leeches where ever they can. People are slowly waking up but it will be a long time before it reaches critical mass. However economic melt down is shortening the learning curve. Education is the key. Still most people do not have the time or desire to dig in and learn these things and we live in the world with millions of others and the majority sentiment about socieity effects our lives whether we like it or not.

All of this is wrong. Not a single person proclaiming the 'infallible truth' of the freeman doctrine has put forward any case law or statute on the matter that is actually relevant to the issue at hand. All that has been produced so far are verbatim quotes from legal dictionaries. Guess what?! Legal dictionaries contain words and terms that are no longer relevant or part of the modern law, but definitions for which are necessary in case someone goes back to read an old case and is not familiar with the meaning of a term.

The UCC was aimed at harmonising certain types of contract (unsurprisingly commercial ones) and wasn't even enacted until the 1950s.

Furthermore, just because people are too thick to read up the relevant law before they go breaking it, why do you all seem to think that gives you licence to be priapistically angry at lawyers? It's not their fault that their clients have exercised no diligence whatsoever in conducting their affairs. They are bound by the system in which they work and function. I hate to tell you, but there are many times when there is simply no means of legal recourse for a party seeking to extricate himself from a sticky situation. That is the entire purpose of law: such that we may have certainty in the regulation of our activities with others (i.e. private law).