The Freeman of the Land……..Nothing but Snake oil

I have been thinking about this subject for quite some time. It is an aside to my Independence material that I am cautiously working on slowly but surely; unfortunately time constraints at the present time are considerable.

Anyway, a number of my friends in the recent past have been absorbed by the phenomena of ‘Freeman of the Land’. Many, on the spot, will have a convincing argument and at times I have been caught off-guard in my aims to debunk the theory.

Instead, I have decided to sit down for 10 and actually think the theory through.

First of all, the Freeman of the Land movement is not based completely in the United Kingdom; it probably originated in the United States and is also common in Canada. The Canadian example is important because later on we shall discuss what is, for me, the defining detail on the movement as made by a Canadian Judge, who has helpfully given guidance to all around the world by means to debunk the theory.

First of all, let me say that I do not think we should just completely disregard this theory as stupid, even although those who hear the theory either completely subscribe or completely disregard it.

In short, the Freemen believe that their country is operating under Admiralty/Maritime Law as opposed to Civil Law. The apparent proof that they claim to have of this, is the corporate status of the nation and the pseudo-legal definition of a person all somehow put their country under admiralty jurisdiction.

Another misconception is that Common Laws are the only real laws that Freemen have to obey. They are convinced that statutes are not laws and therefore, do not need to be obeyed.

It would appear that there are many videos on YouTube around this matter. A quick search provides this video by the ‘Freedom Rebels Network’:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj7yaqBFCh0

“This 2 part video shows a laymen representing a birth certificate in court and claiming freeman status under common law, the police are called to the courtroom and realise they are powerless to do anything and because the judge cannot prove jurisdiction over him, the freeman dismisses the case himself and walks out, with police around him”

My first comment on this matter is that this sort of action, recording inside a courtroom, would see you in trouble. This is obviously a magistrates court and I am not 100% clued up on the rules and regulations of how English Courts work however I am fairly sure that this behaviour would be deemed to be contempt of court as defined as

“A deliberate disruption of proceedings in court, whether staged by persons involved in those proceedings, or by demonstrators etc. may be punished as contempt and in most cases will be dealt with by the court acting of its own motion.”

Watching this video above, the law states is often incorrect….and some of it is just random words as far as I can tell. There is no rhyme or reason to it, it’s, for want of a better word…bullshit!

The problem that many Freemen have with their argument is that it completely alienates itself from the reality of the world that we live in.

Freemen often argue that they have not consented to the law that they are deemed to have encroached. What they don’t appear to realise is that they HAVE consented to the law. Consent does not require a signature on a piece of paper.  Parliament make the laws, Parliament is made up of elected members and therefore consent is just that; GENERAL consent. If everyone is against it, then it is not consent.

They are correct on one point, all laws are man-made. However, what Freemen attempt to do is to replace one set of laws that have been in place for hundreds of years and are generally accepted by the majority of people with laws they have developed by themselves and are accepted by very few, particularly the judiciary.

Much of their argument appears to circulate around Clause 61 of the Magna Carta. I will, for quickness, copy and paste this from Wikipedia:

Clause 61[edit]

The 1215 document contained a large section that is now called clause 61 (the clauses were not originally numbered). This section established a committee of 25 barons who could at any time meet and overrule the will of the King if he defied the provisions of the Charter, seizing his castles and possessions if it was considered necessary.[18] This was based on a medieval legal practice known as distraint, but it was the first time it had been applied to a monarch.

Distrust between the two sides was overwhelming. What the barons really sought was the overthrow of the King; the demand for a charter was a “mere subterfuge.”[19] Clause 61 was a serious challenge to John’s authority as a ruling monarch. He renounced it as soon as the barons left London; Pope Innocent III also annulled the “shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the King by violence and fear.” He rejected any call for restraints on the King, saying it impaired John’s dignity. He saw it as an affront to the Church’s authority over the King and the ‘papal territories’ of England and Ireland, and he released John from his oath to obey it. The rebels knew that King John could never be restrained by Magna Carta and so they sought a new King.[20]

England was plunged into a civil war, known as the First Barons’ War. With the failure of Magna Carta to achieve peace or restrain John, the barons reverted to the more traditional type of rebellion by trying to replace the monarch they disliked with an alternative. In a measure of some desperation, despite the tenuousness of his claim and despite the fact that he was French, they offered the crown of England to Prince Louis of France.[21]

As a means of preventing war, Magna Carta was a failure, rejected by most of the barons,[22] and was legally valid for no more than three months.[23] The death of King John in 1216, however, secured the future of Magna Carta.[24]

The important part of this to note is the fact that it was law for only 3 months.

The following is another excerpt on the matter that I feel gives a fairly clear perception of this belief and is not worth my time revisiting:

To use myself as an example, if I were a freeman on the land, I would say that “MIKE ROTHSCHILD” is my government-assigned strawman identity, and that “Mike Rothschild” is my God-given flesh and blood identity, which I can legally obscure by adding in meaningless identifiers or punctuation (ie, declaring myself to be “Mike:Rothschild” or “Mike of the family Rothschild.”) This is similar to sovereign citizens adding random commas to their name, such as survivalist author James Wesley, Rawles. So if I were a freeman, and I broke the law, it would be my strawman persona that did it, not my flesh and blood one. I would view that law as illegitimate, as I never gave consent to it. And when a citation arrived bearing my government strawman name, it would be null and void to me, as it’s sent to a legal representative of myself to whom I give no recognition.

If I do choose to meet with a government official as a result of a summons, I would insist that the meeting take place under common law (as opposed to maritime law, which is what FOTL believers think courts operate under), demand to see evidence of the oath taken by the judge, refuse legal representation (as all lawyers are contracted with the governmental corporation) and rely on the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 to declare that I have been lost at sea for seven years, and am therefore legally dead. If this fails, I would simply object to everything the judge says and refuse my consent to any legal proceeding.

 

There’s much more to FOTL, but those are the basic pillars. And if it all has the familiar patina ofexquisitely detailed gibberish that all conspiracy theories have, it should. Freeman on the land relies on willful misinterpretation of a millennium of law to construct a world where anarchy reigns and anyone can do anything they want, provided they “know their rights” – rights that are entirely made up. Legalese might be a catchy way to refer to complex, jargon-laden legal language, but it is not actually a language, and jamming punctuation or capital letters into your name doesn’t have any statutory effect on it.

 

In fact, none of what FOTL attempts to use has any legal effect. The laws it cites have long been superseded by other statutes, and its nonsensical concepts of strawman personas, notices of intent, not “standing under” understanding, nautical gibberish and lawful rebellion have absolutely no standing in any court in any country in this century. And every FOTL attempt to use this soup of crap to get out of paying taxes, fines, rent or insurance has failed. Nobody has ever successfully used freeman tactics, and the only thing they’ve done is gum up the courts and frustrate judicial officials as an excuse to get out of paying debts and living under the laws that apply to everyone.

 

In looking for some court cases, I can see that this topic has been discussed quite a lot and therefore I am going to cover much of the same ground many others have.

Comment is free, but woo is sacred

Posted by legalbizzle on November 15, 2011

So the Freeman on the Land movement seems pretty marginal. All that stuff about choosing whether statutes apply to you, and how debt isn’t real because they capitalised your name – everyone with a functioning brain can see that it’s nutty woo, right?

Well, it turns out that the Guardian has an open mind on these issues. At any rate, they’ve given a Comment Is Free platform to the not-in-any-way-a-loony-conspiracy-theorist Jon Witterick to push his GetOutOfDebtFree site.

The full quote from which the Guardian’s opinion site takes its name (and which is one of the foundation stones of the newspaper’s mission) is “Comment is free, but facts are sacred.” I couldn’t agree more.

So, some facts:

“After a bit of research, I realised the debt collectors buy debts for less than 10p in the pound, after the bank writes the debt off.”

Well, not all debt collectors buy debts. Almost all lenders attempt to collect their own debts first, and many (perhaps most) specialist debt collectors recover debt as agent for the original creditor.

After a time, creditors do write debts off, but that’s how they recognise bad debts for accounting purposes (that is, to show them as a provision or impairment in their accounts). It doesn’t mean that the debt is extinguished, although it’s reasonable to suppose that lenders will focus their efforts on more collectable debts.

Some of that bad debt may then be sold on to specialist debt collectors – that’s an obvious way of realising income to offset what would otherwise be a profit-reducing bad debt in that year’s accounts. depending on the age of the debt and how easy it is to collect (for example, whether it is secured or not), prices could range from 1p to 90p in the pound.

But Mr Witterick’s website promotes his methods as applying to all creditors and debt collectors, and his customers (followers? cult members?) use them in that way. Cue baffling demands that the original lender provide proof that the debt has been assigned to them, and more in that vein.

“I also found out that under the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the debt collector is actually paying off our debt when they buy it.”

Er, did you? The Bills of Exchange Act defines a bill of exchange as:

“…an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person, or to bearer.”

Which is to say, it is a document by which Person A can require Person B to pay money to Person C at some future time. It is not relevant whether this is in settlement of an existing obligation that Person B owes to Person A, or whether Person A will settle with Person B after the order has been paid, or whether there is no settlement between them at all. (It will be obvious, I think, that this is the origin of our modern bank notes.)

A bill of exchange involves three parties, and has no mutuality of obligation between Person A and Person B. It is not a contract, which I imagine is one reason why it requires a statutory basis to have effect.

By contrast, a debt sale is an arrangement between two parties only, whereby Person A contractually assigns to Person C his legal right to collect a debt from Person B. The difference is that no order is required to be made to Person B, because the obligation to repay the money already exists.

Because the debt sale is a contractual arrangement between Person A and Person C, consideration is required to effect the assignment (unless done under deed, but in any event the right to collect has value that the buyer pays for). The price paid by the buyer is just that, and not a settlement of the original debt.

So the Bills of Exchange Act seems to be irrelevant to the collection and sale of consumer debts. Gosh, what a surprise.

“I also realised how debt collectors trick us into contracts with them, by asking us how much we could pay. When you agree to one pound a month, which costs more to administrate, they now have a contract with you, where none existed.”

So, to recap: either the debt collector is acting as agent for the original creditor, or the rights of the original creditor have been assigned to them. Either way, the relevant contract is the credit agreement under which you originally borrowed the money.

There is therefore no need for the debt collector to “trick” anyone into a new contract, because the old one is perfectly good enough to enforce all the way to court and beyond (they might well want to get you to make a token pay for the purposes of section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980, but that’s a different story).

I can’t helping pausing to note, however, that even if the original contract couldn’t be relied on, it’s not clear that an agreement to pay a pound a month would create a new contract in the absence of consideration on the part of the debt collector. Oh, and regulated consumer credit agreements (which this would presumably be in most cases) have to be made in writing.

“[Mary Elizabeth Croft] explained that fractional reserve banking is basically fraud, as the banks do not have the money they lend us.”

Well, yes, fractional reserve banking is odd when you try to concentrate on it. And yes, to an extent the system relies on confidence and people not thinking about it too hard.

But fraud? No, because it is not deception with a view to making a wrongful profit. And because it is expressly recognised as lawful behaviour. And… oh, what’s the point?

“Croft suggested sending the debt collectors letters with a list of questions, which if they could not answer, would render the debt void.”

GetOutOfDebtFree provides templates for these letters. The questions are along the lines of “Please provide validation of the debt: the actual accounting”, “Please provide a lawful contract” and “Prove that you have agency in this matter.”

Three things about this. First, GOODF actually recommends that you ignore the answers that the lender gives you, even if they do actually (for example) send a copy of your contract. That seems to make the “if” in the above quote somewhat redundant.

Second (and, well, duh), anybody can ask any number of questions that a lender can’t answer. Why’s my debt orange? Where’s my elephant? What’s the point of Eric Pickles?

And third, how would failing to answer even reasonable questions render a debt void, unless the obligation to answer them was an express contractual or statutory obligation on the creditor? Pretty much the only things that a creditor under a regulated consumer credit agreement needs to do are provide annual statements, send default and arrears notices, and provide a copy of the agreement on request or on a defended claim.

So, are we getting the picture yet?

For the rest of it: yes, let’s have fun with calls from debt collectors (but they are mostly normal people just like you, doing their best); yes, let’s look at how we do banking (but simply defaulting would affect normal people just like you as much or more than it would the bankers); and yes, by all means let’s occupy various parks and squares.

Oh yes, the Occupy movement. Turns out there’s another CiF piece up today, part of which (the final third) is written by “commonly known as dom” and purports to deal with “law”.

“Commonly known as dom” is another Freeman:

“The prison without bars is made by bits of paper. Bits of paper like your birth certificate. All registered names are Crown copyright. The legal definition of registration is transfer of title ownership, so anything that’s registered is handed over to the governing body; the thing itself is no longer yours. When you register a car, you’re agreeing to it not being yours – they send you back a form saying you’re the “registered keeper”. It’s a con. That’s why I say I’ve never had a name.”

That quote is (to use a technical legal term) bollocks. Names are not Crown copyright, registration is not transfer of title, and your car doesn’t belong to the Government.

And this:

“According to the law books, a “natural person” (or human being) is distinct from the “person” as a legal entity. All the statutes and acts are acting up on the “person”, and if you’re admitting to being a person, you are admitting to be a corporation that can be acted upon for commerce.”

Ahem. You are a person, you know. It’s how you were born. Unless you’re, y’know, a robot. Or an alien. OH MY GOD, ALIENS.

But Dominic (you don’t mind if I call you Dominic, do you?) is entitled to his view. It’s utter woo, but it’s his right to believe it.

But “educating” a protest movement, who frankly need all the genuine legal help they can get, in this risible shite? That’s not “lawful rebellion”, it’s irresponsible.

And it’s irresponsible for the Guardian to legitimise the Freeman woo by giving it CiF space. This isn’t comment, an arguable position, a political viewpoint. It’s legally and factually wrong, and (as I blogged last week) it gets the people who follow it into trouble.

Even worse, it’s a David Icke endorsed conspiracy theory. Doesn’t that sit rather uncomfortably, to say the least, in the newspaper that publishes Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science column?

Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (Canadian)

 

Almost a year ago, I and some other legal bloggers wrote about a phenomenon known as the Freemen on the Land movement. I called the post Freemen of the dangerous nonsense, for that is exactly what the movement is, for those desperate enough to sign up to it. Now a Canadian judge has done many judges around the world a huge favour by exploding the movement’s ideas and leaders (or “gurus”) in a carefully referenced and forensic 192-page judgment, which should be read by anyone who has ever taken a passing interest in this issue, and certainly by any judge faced by a litigant attempting the arguments in court. 

The Freemen, alongside other groups with similar creeds, believe that if you change your name and deny the jurisdiction of the courts, you will be able to escape debt collectors, council tax and even criminal charges. As this member of the Occupy London movement, “commonly known as dom” wrote in guardian.co.uk (of all places) “if you don’t consent to be that “person”, you step outside the system“.

As you may have guessed, this magical technique never works in the courts, but judges are often flummoxed when faced with the arguments, which are odd and in many ways risible. But what has been lacking is an authoritative, systematic judgment explaining, in detail, why that is. Until now, that is.

Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Canada has published a ruling which deals exhaustively with the movements’ (there are a number of similar ones of varying craziness and scariness) history and arguments. He groups the various movements including the Freemen under the title “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants” (OPCA).

Clearly, this is Judge who has had enough. After “[o]ver a decade of reported cases” which “have proven that the individual concepts advanced by OPCA litigants are invalid”,

What remains is to categorize these schemes and concepts, identify global defects to simplify future response to variations of identified and invalid OPCA themes, and develop court procedures and sanctions for persons who adopt and advance these vexatious litigation strategies.

His aim? To “uncover, expose, collate, and publish the tactics employed by the OPCA community, as a part of a process to eradicate the growing abuse that these litigants direct towards the justice and legal system we otherwise enjoy in Alberta and across Canada“. Good for him. Somebody needed to do it.

The facts of this particular case are neither particularly interesting nor relevant to much of what the Judge says about the movements. Rather, he has used this relatively simple case where a litigant advanced Freemen-type arguments (“he was not Dennis Meads, the “corporate identity”, but was present as Dennis Larry Meads, “a flesh and blood man””) as a hook to hang a much wider exposition of the movement and its ideas.

What the judgment says

This is a long judgment, on the scale of a reasonably sized book. I will try my best to point out a few interesting bits but I would recommend that you read it. It is well set out and easy to follow. My numbered references are to paragraphs.

Justice Rooke begins with a fascinating summary of the (surprisingly recent, only beginning in the last 20 years or so) history of movements such as the Freemen [172], Detaxers [169], Sovereign Men/Citizens [176], the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International [183], and Moorish Law [189].

One thing which is crucial to understand is that despite its anarchical tone, the movement has leaders or “gurus” who peddle its ideas to people. This is (you might have guessed) usually for a fee. The gurus focus on people who are at crunch points in their lives, such as those facing bankruptcy, foreclosure on their home or difficult litigation involving access to their children. So,

an OPCA litigant in court is likely operating under instructions obtained from a commercial source, and has been told to conduct and frame his or her court activities in an unnatural, incorrect, and distorted context. The litigant is instructed to follow a script that is, in all probability illogical, and certainly contrary to law.

Another interesting if unsettling aspect of the movements is the links to violence – see [175] (“Alarmingly, certain members of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement believe they have an unrestricted right to possess and use firearms.”) The danger is such that the FBI classifies the Sovereign Men, the chief US proponents of the ideas, as a domestic terrorist movement [181].

How to spot them and what to do with them

Justice Rooke goes on to explain how to spot OPCA litigants [from 203] by the odd way their documents are presented, their distinctive language [220], the obsolete, foreign, or typically otherwise irrelevant legislation they cite [228] such as our very own Magna Carta, Black’s Law Dictionary and their own birth certificate [230] and the claim that they are immune to the court’s jurisdiction (‘magic hats’) [302], of which there are many shapes and sizes. There are many other identifying features which have been discussed on this blog as well as others.

Then the Judge goes on to explain why the arguments don’t work. I will not summarise the arguments. They are well laid out and referenced, reaching back to basic contract law to, for example, explain why the bizarre unilateral “agreements”  produced by the movements are illusory. Although Canada-focussed, this section could form the basis of any judicial response to the Freemen arguments on these shores.

The oppressive, malignant entity

The Judge also considers appropriate court strategies for dealing with OPCA arguments so as to minimise the wasting of the court’s and, as importantly, other litigants’ time in facing down the arguments. This should be of interest to the UK courts, which could also follow this guidance:

I believe that a key element of an appropriate and successful response to OPCA litigation is that these proceedings be segregated, where possible, to minimize their effect on the innocent other parties involved. The suggested novel and conventional OPCA-specific court procedures (judicial review of suspect documents, show cause hearings, court security procedures, contempt, security for costs, elevated costs and damages, declaration of vexatious litigant status) may be a starting point for that objective.

A second aspect is that innocent parties be indemnified for the legal costs associated with OPCA litigation. No, or little, cost should flow to a litigant who is abused by OPCA strategies.

However, dealing with the cases systematically and efficiently will not be easy given the nature of the movement and the attitude of its adherents:

That challenge is not assisted by guru indoctrination that court and state actors are parts of an oppressive, malignant entity, or at a minimum willing supporting characters of a dark, concealed design. Given that, to say that the typical OPCA litigant appears to be ‘tightly wound’ is an understatement.

Importantly, the Judge also discusses the duties of lawyers [642] in such cases.

Eighth circle of hell

The Judge reserves his real ire not for the OPCA litigants or ideas, but its “gurus” who sell those ideas [669], for whom he quotes Dante’s Inferno:

evil counsellors – those who used their position to advise others to engage in fraud, and “the falsifiers” – alchemists, counterfeiters, perjurers, and imposters, into the inner canyons of the eighth circle of hell.

He goes on, and this really is the crux (recall my use of the snake oil picture to illustrate my first post):

Persons who purposefully promote and teach proven ineffective techniques that purport to defeat valid state and court authority, and circumvent social obligations, appear to fall into those two categories. That they do so, and for profit at the expense of naive and vulnerable customers, is worse.

For litigants, he provides this very useful set of questions to ask of those selling the ideas to them, which I will copy in full:

  1. Why do these gurus seem to have little, if any, wealth, when they say they hold the proverbial keys to untold riches?
  2. Why do those gurus not go to court themselves, if they are so certain of their knowledge? If they say they have been to court, ask them for the proceeding file number, and see if their account is accurate. Those are public records.
  3. Can that guru identify even one reported court decision where their techniques proved successful? If not, why then are all successes a tale of an unnamed person, who knew someone who saw that kind of event occur?
  4. How are their ideas different and distinct from those surveyed and rejected in these Reasons?
  5. How are these advisors different from the OPCA gurus who have been unsuccessful and found themselves in jail? What did Porisky, Warman, and Lindsay do wrong?
  6. Will your advisors promise to indemnify you, when you apply the techniques they claim are foolproof? If not, why?
  7. If they cannot explain these points, then why should you pay them for their legal nonsense?

Your spells fail

Judges do not have an easy job. Like sports referees, they are criticised when they get it wrong but rarely praised when they get it right. They are respected but not loved, and garner little support from other public figures for the valuable work that they do.

But, as any lawyer knows, judges have to play the hand which they are dealt, whether in relation to a particular case or a social phenomenon such as the Freemen and their sister-movements. Sometimes, this means that they are on the front line of a battle between citizens and the state, and it is hard enough to deal with the sensible arguments. In a way, the barmy ones are much harder if the system is to remain fair but also efficient.

So, I think we should raise our (non-magic) hats to Associate Chief Justice Rooke who has taken the time and effort to attack the OPCA movement head-on, and provide other judges, worldwide, an extremely useful, practical and sensible approach for dealing with this dangerous phenomenon. And as interesting and sometimes amusing as it may be, dangerous is what it is. For people are signing up to these arguments, often paying to do so, in proceedings which could ruin their lives. And, as this Judge put it:

You cannot identify one instance where a court has rolled over and behaved as told. Not one. Your spells, when cast, fail.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Fun Stuff, Politics

Tags: ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

4 Comments on “The Freeman of the Land……..Nothing but Snake oil”

  1. Mark Says:

    Any freemen willing to refute this persons claims? Please keep it professional everyone as in my view it is very childish to swear, abuse etc and takes away from your argument also it’s only one persons opinion so don’t go mental.
    Keep calm and retort 🙂

  2. Adam Says:

    If we have the power to appoint the people who make the laws then we have the power to carry out those actions ourselves.

    “Derativa potestas non potest esse major primitiva. The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.”
    “Derativa potestas non potest esse major primitiva. The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.”
    “Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.”

    Maxims of Law
    from
    Bouvier’s 1856 Law Dictionary

    The idea of consent is paramount before everything else in a lawful society because without consent we wouldn’t live in a democracy would we? I would argue we do not. Now if we have the power to give consent then we must have the power to remove it if we feel the authority isn’t no longer fit to govern. I think that argument can be very easily made herE IN Canada. So then what is the process to remove consent? Why is the system fighting so hard to maintain control over people that simply want to be free to do as they please? No let me be clear, that doesnt meant the ability to act unlawfully. But let us be clear on that, the Law and Statutory regulation are not the same, even if the statutes have been given the color of law. I have never met a freeman who advocates violence or anarchy. They all promote freedom, liberty, peace and love. Virtues which seem to be all but lost on the general public these days. Rook is human and as such is susceptible to human frailties such as bias, frustration, greed, power and control. I would say the tone of his ruling clearly identifies his mindset. Also consider some of the comments he made back on 2007 regarding a rape victim.

    http://thecurvature.com/2007/12/13/judge-on-rape-survivor-its-the-stupid-people-who-need-protection/

    I dont think Rooke is competent to uphold the law and this ruling is a direct attack on the very foundation of Law.

    The governments remove people while they peacefully publicly assemble to discuss issues they disagree with and the government meets them with violence. Pretty sure that goes against our Rights…. And now those who seek the relief in the courts from unjust administrative tyranny are faced with this ruling.

    Although there where a few interesting bits that came through that offer some clarity.

    Mr. Meads: “A lot of things have happened today that I need to wrap my mind around. The one thing that comes out to me loud and clear is you’er treating the person Dennis Meads with all of these statements, and not the living soul. You are enticing me into slavery…”

    The court: I am going to let someone else deal with your living soul. im just going to deal with your person.

    Which supports the work done by Rob Pagè:

    “They have separated our body from our mind and soul and they claim jurisdiction over the body and act upon it in such manner. The courts statement exactly supports my research in that area. Oxford Defines person as `III. The living body of a human being;either (a) the actual body, as distinct from clothing atc., or from the mind or soul.` They have attempted to split us up into pieces and they act upon one of the pieces(body) and have no regard for the other pieces(mind and soul). The above statement from the courts proves this point. I will also suggest that he has created this duality between the soul and the man yet he questions where and why everyone is seeing this duality between the person and the man. Rooke is contradicting himself on many occasions throughout his ruling in this regard.”

    There has to be a way of revoking consent and they do indeed offer the solution.

    [318] Of course, it is indeed possible to cease to be governed by Canadian law. One only need leave Canada and break formal ties with this jurisdiction.

    Send back your SIN and any other government contract with a notice of understanding and a claim of write and you have exited any obligation to CANADA under sec. 39 of the criminal code.
    The land belongs to the sovereigns of this fair land not the corporate government CANADA registered in Washington DC.

    Adam

  3. Ina Says:

    I see a lot of interesting posts on your website.

    You have to spend a lot of time writing, i know how to save you a lot of
    work, there is a tool that creates high quality, SEO friendly articles
    in couple of seconds, just type in google – k2 unlimited content

  4. ad sense Says:

    I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was good.
    I don’t know who you are but certainly you are going to
    a famous blogger if you are not already 😉 Cheers!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: