New Zealand Freeman-on-the-land

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


If you liked Meads v. Meads, you might enjoy reading the following court decision in Ontario that cited it.

R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160 (CanLII)

Justice Fergus O'Donnel definitely has a sense of humour.

reply to post by erwalker


And justice prevails with an acquittal for actual proper legal reasons having nothing at all to FMOTL BS - I wonder how that will be seen in their circles??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


They would probably proclaim it a victory for the FOTL pseudo-legal arguments.

Have you ever heard of Bill Turner, a NZ FOTL guru?

I was wondering if he had actually ever been in court practicing what he preaches on Youtube or does he just attempt to get others to follow his advice?

Its "I couldnt care less" not "I could care less".

Actually, it's "I couldn't care less", not "I couldnt care less". There is such a thing as punctuation.

Also, it's "It's", not "Its". There is such a thing as apostrophe.

a reply to: Shoujikina

I know it was missing apostrophes. It would not let me use apostrophes in my signature for some reason. I just tried fixing it again and it substituted a backslash for the apostrophes I used. Feel free to try it yourself in your signature.

I gave up trying to fix it the last time I was looking at my sig but for your benefit I got rid of the contractions altogether.

Finally managed to fix it. I had to use "& # 3 9" (without the spaces) in place of the apostrophes to get them to show up in my signature.

Your quibble has little to do with the actual content of the post.

I had an interesting conversation with a learned type many years ago, with regards to N.Z. He maintained that it was originally administered from Sydney in new South wales. the legislation revoking the Charter has never been changed, so legally N.Z.is still administered from Australia. The fact that from the time the Australian states federated in 1905, it was assumed that N.Z. would federate as well, and become a state in the federation. When Canberra was getting ready to assume the position of Capital, seats in the Senate and roads were named in anticipation of a federated N.Z. So technically New Zealand is a rogue State of Australia. The legal implications are such a mine field that they have to be ignored.

originally posted by: anonentity
the legislation revoking the Charter has never been changed, so legally N.Z.is still administered from Australia.

He is of course wrong!

New Zealand, originally part of the colony of New South Wales, became a separate Colony of New Zealand on 1 July 1841.[43] The colony gained a representative government in 1852 and the 1st New Zealand Parliament met in 1854.[44] In 1856 the colony effectively became self-governing, gaining responsibility over all domestic matters other than native policy. (Control over native policy was granted in the mid-1860s.)[44] Following concerns that the South Island might form a separate colony, premier Alfred Domett moved a resolution to transfer the capital from Auckland to a locality near the Cook Strait.[45] Wellington was chosen for its harbour and central location, with parliament officially sitting there for the first time in 1865. As immigrant numbers increased, conflicts over land led to the New Zealand Wars of the 1860s and 1870s, resulting in the loss and confiscation of much Māori land.[46] In 1893 the country became the first nation in the world to grant all women the right to vote[47] and in 1894 pioneered the adoption of compulsory arbitration between employers and unions.[48] In 1907, at the request of the New Zealand Parliament, King Edward VII proclaimed New Zealand a dominion within the British Empire, reflecting its self-governing status. Accordingly, the title "Dominion of New Zealand" dates from 1907.[49][50] In 1947 the country adopted the Statute of Westminster, confirming that the British parliament could no longer legislate for New Zealand without the consent of New Zealand

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: hellobruce
I think the point he was making , was that, he could find no legal instrument that divorced said Colony from its status, as part of New South Wales. Ipso facto, legally all subsequent developments were in error.

originally posted by: Shoujikina

Its "I couldnt care less" not "I could care less".

Actually, it's "I couldn't care less", not "I couldnt care less". There is such a thing as punctuation.

Also, it's "It's", not "Its". There is such a thing as apostrophe.

No offense but, did you just necro a year old thread just to correct some poor chaps punctuation?

Let it go man.......let it goooooo

a reply to: erwalker
Man Im loving that judgement... and Im only a few lines in.

I'm not bothered that this is an old thread just for that link, I wasnt even here when this thread started

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It certainly looks that way. Dead threads need to stay dead

When it comes to individual sovereignty, here's my way of putting theory into practise:

"The Sovereign Man's Notice Of Commencement Of Land Use"

Logical continuation - that is to say Engl ish translation of "Notice Of Conclusion Of Business Contract Regarding Realization Of The Agritourism Farm Vivian" - will be published on the Internet soon, in circa 10 days...

a reply to: Mythkiller

Hi Mithkiller, would be great to catch up with you if you're still here. I am located in Auckland. Keen to find like minded folks to update and prepare ourselves for rightfully exercising our rights and privileges which have been hidden from as all along.
Is it possible to contact you live somewhere, like Skype or Fb messenger, or similar? Thanks for your contribution and info which you have so far put out.

cheers,
GG

Hey mythkiller, I've been a seeker of truth for many years though mostly at the start concerning spiritual truth and the unravelling of religious and Christian doctrine . I've never done anything in an official manner like write or compile my findings, or sources etc as my research has been primarily for my own edification. Of course as the years have rolled by I have found the legal plot to be so well constructed and have devoted a lot of time to delving into its workings as well. My question to you is have you been successful in establishing or gaining the respect of the legal system or do they continue to harass you? The reason I ask is because I have found that there is a process through the UCC called "secure party creditor" or SPC for short, by which you can legally change your status from debtor to creditor and by doing so through legal channels secure a legal and financial platform or foundation from which to claim that status. Of course I expect the legal system to test any attempt to claim a creditor's standing over the current legal structure, but that is to be delt with when the time comes. I myself am in the process of pursuing this and seek any others who may have done so and in so doing may be able to help me with some of the information required to fill out the paper work. I look forward to hearing from you and hope you have been sucessful in your bid for true legal, financial and spiritual freedom!! a reply to: Mythkiller