Look guys, I'm only telling you what I have studied, what I know and what I have actually put into practice, its not a method most will be familiar with, and most people when they first hear about this always ridicule it. This world operates in a completely different way to what you think it does, the "elite" people that have put this system in place have relied on mass ignorance, and even more than that, somehow it have become accepted practice to ridicule those who are prepared to step outside the box and actually challenge the system. At first you may find it funny, but can you honestly say you are happy with how things are handled by our government?, not to mention, is it not really beyond those with higher knowledge to put a system of slavery in place for the masses?. Check out just for starters.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
JamieJohnson
2 months ago
Straight Male, 48
0 miles · Farnham
Forum
If people realised the true extent of the theft these Ministers have been comitting all these years, it would be instant carnage, to handle this corrupt system you have to be very rational, since my first post I have learnt plenty more about how the system really works, when people first hear the real story, they always bury their head in the sand, most are not comfortable knowing the true extent of the lie we have all been living, to others it makes perfect sense. Your Birth certificate is where it starts, your death certificate is where it ends, these people that govern us have put a price on us, and they have been cashing in on our lives, literally, they speak of a debt of a few , there's the biggest lie!. Did you know that you can see your birth certificate trading on the stock market?, I've seen mine, we are all each worth millions(in fiat currency), we get only a fraction of that in our life time, who do you think gets the rest?, if you thought you might be worth approx £34,000, , wouldn't you like to have some?, I now use that money to pay my bills!, who would like to know how?, and by the way, its not fraud!
Quote by fluff_n_stuff
If we all refused to repay our debts, despite the moral obligation to do so (even in the absence of a legally enforceable contract), would that make us equally as corrupt as the MP's we've been slating all week?
And it has worked, I Have just had a HSBC Loan discharged:-), the basis is very simple, the bank did not loan me anything and they know it.
This all stems from everyone's Birth Certificate, when you are born your parents are told that they MUST register their child within 42 days, in the legal world MUST is MAY, it is a choice. Once a child is registered the Birth Certificate is created, this certificate is actually a treasury bond, it has a value, and it is your 1 share in the United Kingdom Corporation, its value is millions. When you go to the bank for a loan, the bank does not lend you money, it releases those funds from your bond, and sells it to you with interest, they never had money to lend you in the first place.
The Birth Certificate also has another use, it creates a fictional entity called "The Person", it is the creation of your title such as Mr, Miss or Ms. You were never born with those titles, you are simply human, the birth certificate actually creates a company out of your name, this is why it is mostly written in capital letters on your bills etc. In law they cannot attach a debt to a human being, they need you to act on behalf of the fiction, a statute can only be attached to a fiction, if the human being chooses not to act on behalf of the fiction, then there is no case, a Statute is "The legislated rule of society, given the force of law by given consent of the governed"(Blacks Law Dictionary 4). In other words, If I the 'supposed governed' do not consent to any statute, then there is no case, I am not a Company, they just need me to be one to extract money from me. The bank cannot prove that I am a Fiction, They did not provide equal consideration, and I do not belong to the society in which they believe, it is simple when you know how, but you cannot get side tracked by them trying to trick you into being something that you are not.
This all stems from everyone's Birth Certificate, when you are born your parents are told that they MUST register their child within 42 days, in the legal world MUST is MAY, it is a choice. Once a child is registered the Birth Certificate is created, this certificate is actually a treasury bond, it has a value, and it is your 1 share in the United Kingdom Corporation, its value is millions. When you go to the bank for a loan, the bank does not lend you money, it releases those funds from your bond, and sells it to you with interest, they never had money to lend you in the first place.
The Birth Certificate also has another use, it creates a fictional entity called "The Person", it is the creation of your title such as Mr, Miss or Ms. You were never born with those titles, you are simply human, the birth certificate actually creates a company out of your name, this is why it is mostly written in capital letters on your bills etc. In law they cannot attach a debt to a human being, they need you to act on behalf of the fiction, a statute can only be attached to a fiction, if the human being chooses not to act on behalf of the fiction, then there is no case, a Statute is "The legislated rule of society, given the force of law by given consent of the governed"(Blacks Law Dictionary 4). In other words, If I the 'supposed governed' do not consent to any statute, then there is no case, I am not a Company, they just need me to be one to extract money from me. The bank cannot prove that I am a Fiction, They did not provide equal consideration, and I do not belong to the society in which they believe, it is simple when you know how, but you cannot get side tracked by them trying to trick you into being something that you are not.
Quote by Jaq-kryps
well that wasn't difficult to find.
How to get out of Debt (the simple DIY Method)
"You just send the letters"
Whenever you receive a demand for payment from a Bank, Building Society, or Loan Company, all you need to do is to respond correctly, the drift of which is to request them to provide three things:
1. Validation of the debt (the actual accounting), and
2. Verification of their claim against you (a sworn affidavit or even just a signed invoice - signed is important!), and
3. A copy of the contract binding both parties.
Write to say you would be happy to pay any financial obligation you might lawfully (important word!) owe as soon as these three documents are received.
They can't validate the debt because they never sustained a loss.
They can't verify any claim against you - as a flesh and blood human being with a living soul - they will be attempting to talk to your legal fiction NAME.
They can't produce a copy of the contract because a lawfully binding one doesn't exist.
What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract.
What they refer to as 'your contract with us' is not a valid, bilateral, agreement - since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the Credit Card (or whatever) 'application', namely:
1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are actually creating the credit with our signature), and
2. Equal Consideration. They bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose. ("Consideration" means 'something of value', e.g. money, or an item of value - something they are trading for your signature/promise - something they have to lose), and
3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud), and
4. Signatures of BOTH Parties/Meeting of the Minds (Corporations can't sign because they have no Right, or Mind, to contract, because they are soulless legal fictions)
Credit Cards and Loans are win/win for them, and lose/lose for everyone else - it is the slickest con game on the planet.
But you have to know, and realise all this. If you don't they will steamroller you. They will try every trick in the book, because it is their life-blood.
Stick to your guns.
ENSURE THAT EVERY LETTER YOU SEND CLEARLY STATES "Without Prejudice", which means that you reserve all Rights in law, and yield to no contract unless it is lawful by virtue meeting the four conditions above.
Conditions (1) and (2) can never be met. Simply because they never have any money to lend in the first place. Banks are not allowed, by law, to lend any Depositor's money. Loan Companies do not have any Deposits anyway. Therefore they can only ever lend what you gave to them in the first place, based on your signature on the Loan Application.
THEY LEND BACK TO YOU - WHAT YOU GAVE TO THEM - VIA YOUR SIGNATURE/PROMISE!
They will get the message, because they know they are operating fraudulently.
But what about my Credit Rating?
IN THEORY, since you have no judgment against you, your Credit Rating should remain intact.
(I did say … "In theory")
Banks/Building Societies/Loan Companies have never had, nor ever will have, any money to lend you … except your own (created by your signature on a Promissory Note - called a Loan Agreement).
So they con you into paying them in order to use your own money.
The 'wrong' is that they charge you for the use of your own money. It is 'right' not to let them play this confidence trick on you.
If you do (somehow) end up in court
You will be asked your name, or whether you name is <whatever> … e.g. Veronica Chapman.
The correct reply is "If I tell you my name, will I have a contract with you?"
If the answer is "No", then you say "I'm a flesh and blood human being, with a living soul, and commonly called Veronica" (Obviously substitute your own Given Name - or use mine which would constitute a fraud … your choice). If they continue to use your legal fiction NAME (e.g. 'Ms. Chapman'), do your best to ignore it, until they make it clear they are addressing you, and then repeat "I'm sorry, were you addressing me? I'm commonly called <whatever>".
If the answer is "Yes" then you can say "Then you need to provide me with FULL DISCLOSURE, some CONSIDERATION, the LAWFUL TERMS AND CONDITIONS, and we would both need to SIGN. Is that not so?".
Either way, you would be seriously looking at "Case Dismissed"!
If they threatened 'Contempt of Court' (a trick they often use), then the response is "Is that CIVIL or CRIMINAL contempt?".
DO NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL YOU RECEIVE AN ANSWER. (Do not be sucked into filling in 'empty silence').
If the answer is "Criminal", then the response is "Who makes the CLAIM, what is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?". If they say "The COURT makes the CLAIM", the response is "You know that the court is not a human being, and that only human beings, blessed with a living soul, can make a CLAIM!".
If the answer is "Civil", then the response is "Please explain the CONTRACT. Will you provide FULL DISCLOSURE, what is the CONSIDERATION, and will you provide the SIGNATURE of a human being with a living soul?"
(I wish I had known about this when I was young!)
(By the way, they generally hate LIPs - Litigants In Person - who actually know the ropes. On the other hand, if you stick to your guns, there's not a whole lot they can do about it. But they are sharks, and will try every trick. You need to remain alert.
Back to Square 1, defining and defending yourself
Preparation
You have to understand the situation. You have to understand it intimately. You have to be it. Every fibre in your body and soul. If you do that, I believe you can take on the world.
And there is only one way. And that is to think clearly.
Clarity of thought is impossible whenever 'religious overtones' are introduced into the equation. Any 'religious overtones', of any kind. As soon as 'faith' enters the equation, 'dogma' rears its head. In that case one is playing someone else's game.
The only way to win is to operate solely by one's own rules.
There is nothing to stop one having personal religious beliefs. That is a personal choice, and each is free to make it, but it must be kept out of the initial equation, otherwise the equation will become subjective, and then won't work in all situations, conditions and contexts.
It's the only way. Nothing else will work in all contexts. Therefore, there will always be a context in which you can be defeated.
You think you can rely on 'God', and 'Jesus'? How many billions, throughout history, thought the same thing - only to find out it actually didn't help them in the slightest, because they still died horrible, excruciatingly painful, deaths? It might have helped them spiritually, in order to overcome the pain, but not in any real, practical, terms. (At least none you would ever be able to use in order to convince me, that's for sure). Dead is dead. So they inspired millions? Dead is still dead.
You can, of course, look at it this way: Leave 'God' out, for practical purposes, and then - once practice has been established - insert 'God' back in. For your own satisfaction and peace of mind. That would be fine by me, if that's your choice, because at least you would be thinking clearly in order to establish the initial 'practice'. And that would engender 'good practice'. 'Practice your faith' on top of that, by all means.
For the above reasons you will find that everything I write leaves 'God' out of the equations. This result is equations that only involve living, breathing, human beings with a living soul or spirit, pitched against forces, which may quite possibly derive from Satanism, but are - in practical terms - simply there to be confronted and defeated.
So can we make a start?
What is supreme on Planet Earth? What has not only life but demonstrable, unfettered, imagination? A cat? A dog? A monkey? No - you know the answer to this question.
'Homo sapiens' is Latin, and means 'wise human'.
Human! Use your wisdom! What is supreme on Planet Earth? The living, breathing, homo sapiens with its living soul. Surely this is the only entity that is demonstrably supreme for all practical purposes?
So, let's formulate this as our initial 'Understanding':
Whereas it is my understanding that there is nothing in practical terms more supreme than a living, breathing, imaginative human being blessed with a living soul, and
Are we getting somewhere? How about ...
Whereas it is my understanding that it is impossible to distinguish one soul from any other, and therefore all souls must at all times and in all situations be considered equal in all respects in any fair, just and reasonable situation, and
... as the next step in our 'understanding'?
Are you catching my drift? Do you see my point? No scope for any argument or objection to the contrary can remain. Otherwise there will be a context in which these understandings fail.
So, we can continue ...
Whereas it is my understanding that anything and everything must derive from the aforesaid axioms, and
... can't we?
Then continuing ...
Whereas it is my understanding that any numerical grouping of such souls can be referred to as 'people', and
Whereas it is my understanding that a society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and
... starts to work towards the goal we want to achieve.
Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of a society, and
Whereas it is my understanding a legislated rule of a society can be given the force of law to act upon, or lawfully bind, all members of that society, and
Whereas it is my understanding if a living soul chooses by free will not to be a member of any society then statutes created by said society do not bind that soul to said statute law, and
Whereas it is my understanding a living soul who chooses by free will not to be a member of any society can be referred to as a Freeman-on-the-land, and
Whereas it is my understanding a Freeman-on-the-land remains entirely and solely under Common Law jurisdiction, and
Whereas I ___________ am a Freeman-on-the-land, and
... so on.
All the rest is 'bells & whistles'. (Some being necessary, depending on one's view). For example it might be possible to 'salt to religious taste' as:
Whereas it is my understanding that my Nation is founded on the principles of the supremacy of God and the rule of law, and
Whereas it is my understanding that the Number Two position in that hierarchy is not claimed by anyone, and
Whereas it is my understanding that the Governments of this Nation seem to rely on deception in order to gain the power to govern, and
Whereas I am desirous of living my life as a 'Child of God', and
Whereas it is my understanding that the only power able to claim authority over a 'Child of God' is God, and
Whereas it is my understanding that neither the Government, nor its agents nor its representatives are God, or above God, and
Whereas it is my understanding that by legally claiming the Number Two position in said hierarchy I occupy a position above all Governments and their agents and employees and representatives, and
... but I doubt it. Me? Personally speaking I wouldn't risk watering it down like that. It is actually dripping with fallacies. To my mind too many loopholes remain open to challenge. Being an atheist, I could challenge the whole thing.
Such 'understandings' would only stand up to scrutiny if God were alive (hiding in Argentina?) and could be asked to provide proof s/he were the entity to the satisfaction of the requirements in law. And then those assertions would stand some chance of being verified. Until that becomes a possibility it is pointless making such assertions because they demonstrably nothing more than 'faith'. 'Faith' is not the same as 'understanding'. (That's why they are different words).
Whereas it is my faith ..., and
... will get nowhere if another person has a different 'faith'.
Overall Implementation
If you think creating a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right is the hard bit, then think again. You've only just begun, to quote a '60s song by The Carpenters.
No-one said it would be easy (to quote yet another '60s melody).
A journey of 1,000 miles starts with the first step - to quote another truism. A Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right is only the first, small, step.
This is because 'The System' will attempt to override or ignore it at every turn.
In order to enforce it - and it can be enforced, that much we know for sure - you will have to side-step all the bricks, 'rockets', 'hand grenades' and 'mortar shells' thrown your way.
One thing you/we all have in our favour is 'numbers'. Perhaps that, and the ability to think clearly, are our two best assets.
Consequently the more people doing this, and reporting back 'success' and/or 'failure', the more we will all - eventually - succeed.
Here we have to remember two things:
(a) The Scientific Method, which says that every experience/experiment 'tells you something', and the understanding that 'the trick' is to determine what that 'something' is, and how best to use it, and
(b) To treat success and failure the same. In other words don't get excited about success, or depressed by failure - simply stay completely calm and pass the information around for the benefit of all
These are wise words, I can assure you. ('Experimental failure'? It tells you how NOT to do it. Whatever you tried was wrong. Think of some other way)
Specific Implementation
It is certain that you will end up in situations where you have knowledge of the truth and the other party has no knowledge whatsoever, for example when dealing with a policeman.
In other cases you will be dealing with those who have the knowledge but will not tell you and, indeed, will attempt to pull every 'fast-one in the book', against you - in order to trap/trick you into submission. For example in so-called Courts of Law, which are - in reality - merely Courts of Commerce.
Police
These have to be dealt with carefully, because they are big and ugly. And by their ingrained nature assume everything goes their way - which is patently untrue of course.
It is essential, therefore, to remain calm and polite at all times, and use questions. Use questions in response to questions. You will, of course, be told by the officer "I ask the questions ... you provide the answers!".
One of the first things to say (before he does, if possible) is "Officer, have you observed me breaching the peace or causing harm, injury or loss?". If they answer "No", or "Well no, not as such" then you can respond "They why have to stopped me?"
They will respond "We clocked you at 85 in a 70 limit" (or 'whatever').
You can respond "But that is perfectly lawful under Common Law". ("'Lawful", not "legal")
You are likely to get "Ooow, I don't know about that. All I know is I'm going to book you".
"How can you book me for something that is perfectly lawful?", is likely to result in "I don't know what you're are talking about ... are you trying to be 'funny' ... what's your name?" (As you know, they will probably know your name from the Registration Number).
"Officer, in no way whatsoever am I trying to be 'funny' as you put it. I'm simply discussing the law. The law of the land. Did you not swear to uphold the law of the land when you entered into service as a policeman?"
"Of course I did, what's that got to do with it?" (etc)
"I think officer, with the greatest respect, your Oath of Service has everything to do with it because - if you check - and you surely can - you will discover that you have no right to book me under the law of the land. The law of the land does not preclude travelling at 85 mph The law of the land only precludes me from causing harm, injury or loss to someone else, and you've already admitted that was not the case".
You'll get "Oh! So you are trying to be 'funny' then. We'll see about that!". And so on. You can respond:
"Officer, for your own protection, I suggest you make a note of everything I have said. I'll repeat it for you if you wish. You can discover the position on the website I suggest that you write that down at the absolute minimum ... you have the Internet, don't you?"
Obviously if you have an established Claim of Right you can point out that they can be charged and could end up having to pay serious financial penalties. And so it behoves them to find out the situation before they detain someone with an established Claim of Right. (Bearing in mind one's visible appearance gives no clue whatsoever, how would they know in advance that they were running into a brick wall?).
Courts
First and foremost if you breached Common Law, then nothing very much below will help you. You have the right to a defence but - if you did something indefensible - then the best thing to do is 'cop a plea'. The following only applies if you are accused of violating a Statute. (Which is, of course, most of the time)
This is where it gets very nasty. If you attempted to dismiss the original summons as outlined in the 'Long Arm' article, then you are only likely to find yourself in court if you were arrested. Some of the above arguments may ward that off, but it is unlikely because the police, to all intents and purposes, are simply robots. "Doing my job". Jobsworths. Of course, they are not "Doing their job" at all. Nothing like it. (As fully explained in that article)
Every trick will be played on you. Since one Kangaroo Hearing is different to any other Kangaroo Hearing it is really impossible to give many examples. But there are many things you can try. I include those which - in various circumstances - have led to varying degrees of success.
The most important thing is to be alert, and never to forget that you are surrounded by sharks. Yes, even those who may smile at you. (Never forget "Good cop - bad cop")
These are so many situations. Some examples are given below.
Just remember the basics.
In a court de jure, a Court of Justice, you could obtain justice under Common Law. In such a court each member of the Jury has a soul to which you can appeal, and therefore you could defend your actions if you considered that you had the right to do them. Explaining the situation, and the position you were in, to a Jury would be your best bet.
But you won't be in a court de jure unless there is a Jury. In the absence of a Jury you will be in a court de facto. A Count of Commerce. A court that has no soul. You are a living soul and cannot obtain justice from such a court, so don't kid yourself. The best thing you could ever achieve is "Case withdrawn!" or "Case dismissed!", generally on technical grounds. So you have to go for the technical grounds, because that is your only hope.
Technical Grounds
Contempt of Court
Whatever you try to do you are likely to be threatened with Contempt of Court. There is even the story of someone who had said nothing at all and was threatened as "I told you to remain silent! If you persist you will be in Contempt of Court". That indicates how desperate the sharks can get.
The appropriate response to such a threat is "Would that be Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt?". The result will be a long pause. (A Bench may even retire to consider). Do not say anything at all until an answer is given.
If, eventually, the answer is "Criminal", then the appropriate response is "Who makes the CLAIM, what is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?".
Then wait again, saying nothing else. There is no answer to that one. The Recorder on the Bench, or the Judge, might make the CLAIM, but the remainder of the question is fundamentally unanswerable.
They may say (in the United Kingdom, for example) "The Crown", or "The Ministry of Justice", or whatever. This is rant. The response is "You know only a HUMAN can make a CLAIM, so where is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?"
If, on the other hand, the answer is "Civil", then the appropriate response is "Where is the CONTRACT between myself and yourselves? I do not agree to any CONTRACT. I would not agree to any CONTRACT between myself and yourselves for many reasons, not least of which you have not provided FULL DISCLOSURE, you have not offered any CONSIDERATION, and have shown no intent to provide a LAWFUL SIGNATURE as a party to one"
('Consideration' in this context, means 'something of value', for example an amount of money, or an object of value)
At this point you have them acting CRIMINALLY outside any lawful jurisdiction, and outside of IMMUNITY in their own courtroom. It is only lawful for HUMANS to make a contract, so a 'court' has no power to do that, because a 'court' is not a human being. Sure, an 'officer' could sign on behalf of the 'court', but they would NEVER do that because they know the ramifications of the LIABILITY that would entail. There will NEVER be 'Full Disclosure' (quite the opposite!) and they have nothing of value to offer.
When you say "I don't agree to the terms of the contract" the Bench will know they do not have a contract with you, and if you have committed no crime they have no authority to arrest you or even be conducting the hearing - they are OUT of their lawful jurisdiction and OUT of their IMMUNITY
The result will be a long bout of silence from the Bench or any Judge.
Harassment on making your points
One of the tricks is to silence you as much as possible, such that you are suppressed from obtaining dismissals on technical grounds.
This can be combatted by the statement "I am going to make an OFFER OF PROOF" or "I am going to OFFER INTO EVIDENCE". This would allow you to state any relevant facts for the Court Record.
Finally there is "Rush to judgment", as in "Are you trying to RUSH ME TO JUDGMENT?"
These have all been shown to work extremely well.
More explanations are in the book Sui Juris (meaning 'in my own jurisdiction')
Miscellaneous points
Really only applicable once you've 'found your feet'.
First of all: How do you know your name? Your parents told you. And, of course, you believed that. No doubt they showed you a Birth Certificate ... but how do you - actually - know that is you? How do you know that the Certificate you think is yours is not that of a twin? Or a previously birthed person who died?
Yes, of course it is unlikely. But 'likely' is not the point. There is no such thing as 'hard' or 'soft' evidence. There is only evidence ... or not.
How can you swear on oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when you are relying on HEARSAY.
And no established court de jure allows hearsay evidence.
Knowledge of your name is hearsay. Knowledge of your date of birth is hearsay. Yes, you were around at the time you left the womb, but you really couldn't state, for certainty, precisely what date that was.
Then the next thing is that if you were to ask the following question "Is it true that only those with a licence are able to practice law?", the answer would always be "Yes!". To which you could respond "But I do not have a licence, does this mean I cannot defend myself in a court of law?".
If you wanted to tie the court in knots, this would be a good tack. Of course they would pretty soon roll out the "Contempt of Court" business.
In Summary
It is a risky business. One is up against robots and sharks.
What alternative do we have?
The only one I can see is to 'sit back and take it'.
There will be 'casualties'.
There have already been 'casualties'.
However there are people out there trying their best for you and I.
Do we let them down?
Personally I think the absolute minimum we can do - at the very least - is to provide support.
Oh! And by the way! Need I remind you? Most (if not all) of us have forefathers and ancestors who gave their lives so that we would remain free of all but the absolute most essential restrictions. All we have to do is to pick up where they left off. With that behind us, is it right to hand despotism and thorough corruption (Thatcher-Major-BLiar-Brown-Cameron-Clinton-Bush-Obama style i.e. Bilderberger style) to our children & grandchildren - who will have the face the full force of it?
Remember: The job of any Government is to (a) Ward off invaders (i.e. ATTACK them, not COLLUDE with them, however subtle ... yes I'm talking 'EU' & 'NAU', etc), and (b) PROTECT our freedoms, not ERODE them.
And that's their job, in total. Nothing else.
It is certainly not their right to DECEIVE us from cradle to grave.
"You just send the letters"
Whenever you receive a demand for payment from a Bank, Building Society, or Loan Company, all you need to do is to respond correctly, the drift of which is to request them to provide three things:
1. Validation of the debt (the actual accounting), and
2. Verification of their claim against you (a sworn affidavit or even just a signed invoice - signed is important!), and
3. A copy of the contract binding both parties.
Write to say you would be happy to pay any financial obligation you might lawfully (important word!) owe as soon as these three documents are received.
They can't validate the debt because they never sustained a loss.
They can't verify any claim against you - as a flesh and blood human being with a living soul - they will be attempting to talk to your legal fiction NAME.
They can't produce a copy of the contract because a lawfully binding one doesn't exist.
What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract.
What they refer to as 'your contract with us' is not a valid, bilateral, agreement - since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the Credit Card (or whatever) 'application', namely:
1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are actually creating the credit with our signature), and
2. Equal Consideration. They bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose. ("Consideration" means 'something of value', e.g. money, or an item of value - something they are trading for your signature/promise - something they have to lose), and
3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud), and
4. Signatures of BOTH Parties/Meeting of the Minds (Corporations can't sign because they have no Right, or Mind, to contract, because they are soulless legal fictions)
Credit Cards and Loans are win/win for them, and lose/lose for everyone else - it is the slickest con game on the planet.
But you have to know, and realise all this. If you don't they will steamroller you. They will try every trick in the book, because it is their life-blood.
Stick to your guns.
ENSURE THAT EVERY LETTER YOU SEND CLEARLY STATES "Without Prejudice", which means that you reserve all Rights in law, and yield to no contract unless it is lawful by virtue meeting the four conditions above.
Conditions (1) and (2) can never be met. Simply because they never have any money to lend in the first place. Banks are not allowed, by law, to lend any Depositor's money. Loan Companies do not have any Deposits anyway. Therefore they can only ever lend what you gave to them in the first place, based on your signature on the Loan Application.
THEY LEND BACK TO YOU - WHAT YOU GAVE TO THEM - VIA YOUR SIGNATURE/PROMISE!
They will get the message, because they know they are operating fraudulently.
But what about my Credit Rating?
IN THEORY, since you have no judgment against you, your Credit Rating should remain intact.
(I did say … "In theory")
Banks/Building Societies/Loan Companies have never had, nor ever will have, any money to lend you … except your own (created by your signature on a Promissory Note - called a Loan Agreement).
So they con you into paying them in order to use your own money.
The 'wrong' is that they charge you for the use of your own money. It is 'right' not to let them play this confidence trick on you.
If you do (somehow) end up in court
You will be asked your name, or whether you name is <whatever> … e.g. Veronica Chapman.
The correct reply is "If I tell you my name, will I have a contract with you?"
If the answer is "No", then you say "I'm a flesh and blood human being, with a living soul, and commonly called Veronica" (Obviously substitute your own Given Name - or use mine which would constitute a fraud … your choice). If they continue to use your legal fiction NAME (e.g. 'Ms. Chapman'), do your best to ignore it, until they make it clear they are addressing you, and then repeat "I'm sorry, were you addressing me? I'm commonly called <whatever>".
If the answer is "Yes" then you can say "Then you need to provide me with FULL DISCLOSURE, some CONSIDERATION, the LAWFUL TERMS AND CONDITIONS, and we would both need to SIGN. Is that not so?".
Either way, you would be seriously looking at "Case Dismissed"!
If they threatened 'Contempt of Court' (a trick they often use), then the response is "Is that CIVIL or CRIMINAL contempt?".
DO NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL YOU RECEIVE AN ANSWER. (Do not be sucked into filling in 'empty silence').
If the answer is "Criminal", then the response is "Who makes the CLAIM, what is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?". If they say "The COURT makes the CLAIM", the response is "You know that the court is not a human being, and that only human beings, blessed with a living soul, can make a CLAIM!".
If the answer is "Civil", then the response is "Please explain the CONTRACT. Will you provide FULL DISCLOSURE, what is the CONSIDERATION, and will you provide the SIGNATURE of a human being with a living soul?"
(I wish I had known about this when I was young!)
(By the way, they generally hate LIPs - Litigants In Person - who actually know the ropes. On the other hand, if you stick to your guns, there's not a whole lot they can do about it. But they are sharks, and will try every trick. You need to remain alert.
Back to Square 1, defining and defending yourself
Preparation
You have to understand the situation. You have to understand it intimately. You have to be it. Every fibre in your body and soul. If you do that, I believe you can take on the world.
And there is only one way. And that is to think clearly.
Clarity of thought is impossible whenever 'religious overtones' are introduced into the equation. Any 'religious overtones', of any kind. As soon as 'faith' enters the equation, 'dogma' rears its head. In that case one is playing someone else's game.
The only way to win is to operate solely by one's own rules.
There is nothing to stop one having personal religious beliefs. That is a personal choice, and each is free to make it, but it must be kept out of the initial equation, otherwise the equation will become subjective, and then won't work in all situations, conditions and contexts.
It's the only way. Nothing else will work in all contexts. Therefore, there will always be a context in which you can be defeated.
You think you can rely on 'God', and 'Jesus'? How many billions, throughout history, thought the same thing - only to find out it actually didn't help them in the slightest, because they still died horrible, excruciatingly painful, deaths? It might have helped them spiritually, in order to overcome the pain, but not in any real, practical, terms. (At least none you would ever be able to use in order to convince me, that's for sure). Dead is dead. So they inspired millions? Dead is still dead.
You can, of course, look at it this way: Leave 'God' out, for practical purposes, and then - once practice has been established - insert 'God' back in. For your own satisfaction and peace of mind. That would be fine by me, if that's your choice, because at least you would be thinking clearly in order to establish the initial 'practice'. And that would engender 'good practice'. 'Practice your faith' on top of that, by all means.
For the above reasons you will find that everything I write leaves 'God' out of the equations. This result is equations that only involve living, breathing, human beings with a living soul or spirit, pitched against forces, which may quite possibly derive from Satanism, but are - in practical terms - simply there to be confronted and defeated.
So can we make a start?
What is supreme on Planet Earth? What has not only life but demonstrable, unfettered, imagination? A cat? A dog? A monkey? No - you know the answer to this question.
'Homo sapiens' is Latin, and means 'wise human'.
Human! Use your wisdom! What is supreme on Planet Earth? The living, breathing, homo sapiens with its living soul. Surely this is the only entity that is demonstrably supreme for all practical purposes?
So, let's formulate this as our initial 'Understanding':
Whereas it is my understanding that there is nothing in practical terms more supreme than a living, breathing, imaginative human being blessed with a living soul, and
Are we getting somewhere? How about ...
Whereas it is my understanding that it is impossible to distinguish one soul from any other, and therefore all souls must at all times and in all situations be considered equal in all respects in any fair, just and reasonable situation, and
... as the next step in our 'understanding'?
Are you catching my drift? Do you see my point? No scope for any argument or objection to the contrary can remain. Otherwise there will be a context in which these understandings fail.
So, we can continue ...
Whereas it is my understanding that anything and everything must derive from the aforesaid axioms, and
... can't we?
Then continuing ...
Whereas it is my understanding that any numerical grouping of such souls can be referred to as 'people', and
Whereas it is my understanding that a society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and
... starts to work towards the goal we want to achieve.
Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of a society, and
Whereas it is my understanding a legislated rule of a society can be given the force of law to act upon, or lawfully bind, all members of that society, and
Whereas it is my understanding if a living soul chooses by free will not to be a member of any society then statutes created by said society do not bind that soul to said statute law, and
Whereas it is my understanding a living soul who chooses by free will not to be a member of any society can be referred to as a Freeman-on-the-land, and
Whereas it is my understanding a Freeman-on-the-land remains entirely and solely under Common Law jurisdiction, and
Whereas I ___________ am a Freeman-on-the-land, and
... so on.
All the rest is 'bells & whistles'. (Some being necessary, depending on one's view). For example it might be possible to 'salt to religious taste' as:
Whereas it is my understanding that my Nation is founded on the principles of the supremacy of God and the rule of law, and
Whereas it is my understanding that the Number Two position in that hierarchy is not claimed by anyone, and
Whereas it is my understanding that the Governments of this Nation seem to rely on deception in order to gain the power to govern, and
Whereas I am desirous of living my life as a 'Child of God', and
Whereas it is my understanding that the only power able to claim authority over a 'Child of God' is God, and
Whereas it is my understanding that neither the Government, nor its agents nor its representatives are God, or above God, and
Whereas it is my understanding that by legally claiming the Number Two position in said hierarchy I occupy a position above all Governments and their agents and employees and representatives, and
... but I doubt it. Me? Personally speaking I wouldn't risk watering it down like that. It is actually dripping with fallacies. To my mind too many loopholes remain open to challenge. Being an atheist, I could challenge the whole thing.
Such 'understandings' would only stand up to scrutiny if God were alive (hiding in Argentina?) and could be asked to provide proof s/he were the entity to the satisfaction of the requirements in law. And then those assertions would stand some chance of being verified. Until that becomes a possibility it is pointless making such assertions because they demonstrably nothing more than 'faith'. 'Faith' is not the same as 'understanding'. (That's why they are different words).
Whereas it is my faith ..., and
... will get nowhere if another person has a different 'faith'.
Overall Implementation
If you think creating a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right is the hard bit, then think again. You've only just begun, to quote a '60s song by The Carpenters.
No-one said it would be easy (to quote yet another '60s melody).
A journey of 1,000 miles starts with the first step - to quote another truism. A Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right is only the first, small, step.
This is because 'The System' will attempt to override or ignore it at every turn.
In order to enforce it - and it can be enforced, that much we know for sure - you will have to side-step all the bricks, 'rockets', 'hand grenades' and 'mortar shells' thrown your way.
One thing you/we all have in our favour is 'numbers'. Perhaps that, and the ability to think clearly, are our two best assets.
Consequently the more people doing this, and reporting back 'success' and/or 'failure', the more we will all - eventually - succeed.
Here we have to remember two things:
(a) The Scientific Method, which says that every experience/experiment 'tells you something', and the understanding that 'the trick' is to determine what that 'something' is, and how best to use it, and
(b) To treat success and failure the same. In other words don't get excited about success, or depressed by failure - simply stay completely calm and pass the information around for the benefit of all
These are wise words, I can assure you. ('Experimental failure'? It tells you how NOT to do it. Whatever you tried was wrong. Think of some other way)
Specific Implementation
It is certain that you will end up in situations where you have knowledge of the truth and the other party has no knowledge whatsoever, for example when dealing with a policeman.
In other cases you will be dealing with those who have the knowledge but will not tell you and, indeed, will attempt to pull every 'fast-one in the book', against you - in order to trap/trick you into submission. For example in so-called Courts of Law, which are - in reality - merely Courts of Commerce.
Police
These have to be dealt with carefully, because they are big and ugly. And by their ingrained nature assume everything goes their way - which is patently untrue of course.
It is essential, therefore, to remain calm and polite at all times, and use questions. Use questions in response to questions. You will, of course, be told by the officer "I ask the questions ... you provide the answers!".
One of the first things to say (before he does, if possible) is "Officer, have you observed me breaching the peace or causing harm, injury or loss?". If they answer "No", or "Well no, not as such" then you can respond "They why have to stopped me?"
They will respond "We clocked you at 85 in a 70 limit" (or 'whatever').
You can respond "But that is perfectly lawful under Common Law". ("'Lawful", not "legal")
You are likely to get "Ooow, I don't know about that. All I know is I'm going to book you".
"How can you book me for something that is perfectly lawful?", is likely to result in "I don't know what you're are talking about ... are you trying to be 'funny' ... what's your name?" (As you know, they will probably know your name from the Registration Number).
"Officer, in no way whatsoever am I trying to be 'funny' as you put it. I'm simply discussing the law. The law of the land. Did you not swear to uphold the law of the land when you entered into service as a policeman?"
"Of course I did, what's that got to do with it?" (etc)
"I think officer, with the greatest respect, your Oath of Service has everything to do with it because - if you check - and you surely can - you will discover that you have no right to book me under the law of the land. The law of the land does not preclude travelling at 85 mph The law of the land only precludes me from causing harm, injury or loss to someone else, and you've already admitted that was not the case".
You'll get "Oh! So you are trying to be 'funny' then. We'll see about that!". And so on. You can respond:
"Officer, for your own protection, I suggest you make a note of everything I have said. I'll repeat it for you if you wish. You can discover the position on the website I suggest that you write that down at the absolute minimum ... you have the Internet, don't you?"
Obviously if you have an established Claim of Right you can point out that they can be charged and could end up having to pay serious financial penalties. And so it behoves them to find out the situation before they detain someone with an established Claim of Right. (Bearing in mind one's visible appearance gives no clue whatsoever, how would they know in advance that they were running into a brick wall?).
Courts
First and foremost if you breached Common Law, then nothing very much below will help you. You have the right to a defence but - if you did something indefensible - then the best thing to do is 'cop a plea'. The following only applies if you are accused of violating a Statute. (Which is, of course, most of the time)
This is where it gets very nasty. If you attempted to dismiss the original summons as outlined in the 'Long Arm' article, then you are only likely to find yourself in court if you were arrested. Some of the above arguments may ward that off, but it is unlikely because the police, to all intents and purposes, are simply robots. "Doing my job". Jobsworths. Of course, they are not "Doing their job" at all. Nothing like it. (As fully explained in that article)
Every trick will be played on you. Since one Kangaroo Hearing is different to any other Kangaroo Hearing it is really impossible to give many examples. But there are many things you can try. I include those which - in various circumstances - have led to varying degrees of success.
The most important thing is to be alert, and never to forget that you are surrounded by sharks. Yes, even those who may smile at you. (Never forget "Good cop - bad cop")
These are so many situations. Some examples are given below.
Just remember the basics.
In a court de jure, a Court of Justice, you could obtain justice under Common Law. In such a court each member of the Jury has a soul to which you can appeal, and therefore you could defend your actions if you considered that you had the right to do them. Explaining the situation, and the position you were in, to a Jury would be your best bet.
But you won't be in a court de jure unless there is a Jury. In the absence of a Jury you will be in a court de facto. A Count of Commerce. A court that has no soul. You are a living soul and cannot obtain justice from such a court, so don't kid yourself. The best thing you could ever achieve is "Case withdrawn!" or "Case dismissed!", generally on technical grounds. So you have to go for the technical grounds, because that is your only hope.
Technical Grounds
Contempt of Court
Whatever you try to do you are likely to be threatened with Contempt of Court. There is even the story of someone who had said nothing at all and was threatened as "I told you to remain silent! If you persist you will be in Contempt of Court". That indicates how desperate the sharks can get.
The appropriate response to such a threat is "Would that be Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt?". The result will be a long pause. (A Bench may even retire to consider). Do not say anything at all until an answer is given.
If, eventually, the answer is "Criminal", then the appropriate response is "Who makes the CLAIM, what is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?".
Then wait again, saying nothing else. There is no answer to that one. The Recorder on the Bench, or the Judge, might make the CLAIM, but the remainder of the question is fundamentally unanswerable.
They may say (in the United Kingdom, for example) "The Crown", or "The Ministry of Justice", or whatever. This is rant. The response is "You know only a HUMAN can make a CLAIM, so where is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?"
If, on the other hand, the answer is "Civil", then the appropriate response is "Where is the CONTRACT between myself and yourselves? I do not agree to any CONTRACT. I would not agree to any CONTRACT between myself and yourselves for many reasons, not least of which you have not provided FULL DISCLOSURE, you have not offered any CONSIDERATION, and have shown no intent to provide a LAWFUL SIGNATURE as a party to one"
('Consideration' in this context, means 'something of value', for example an amount of money, or an object of value)
At this point you have them acting CRIMINALLY outside any lawful jurisdiction, and outside of IMMUNITY in their own courtroom. It is only lawful for HUMANS to make a contract, so a 'court' has no power to do that, because a 'court' is not a human being. Sure, an 'officer' could sign on behalf of the 'court', but they would NEVER do that because they know the ramifications of the LIABILITY that would entail. There will NEVER be 'Full Disclosure' (quite the opposite!) and they have nothing of value to offer.
When you say "I don't agree to the terms of the contract" the Bench will know they do not have a contract with you, and if you have committed no crime they have no authority to arrest you or even be conducting the hearing - they are OUT of their lawful jurisdiction and OUT of their IMMUNITY
The result will be a long bout of silence from the Bench or any Judge.
Harassment on making your points
One of the tricks is to silence you as much as possible, such that you are suppressed from obtaining dismissals on technical grounds.
This can be combatted by the statement "I am going to make an OFFER OF PROOF" or "I am going to OFFER INTO EVIDENCE". This would allow you to state any relevant facts for the Court Record.
Finally there is "Rush to judgment", as in "Are you trying to RUSH ME TO JUDGMENT?"
These have all been shown to work extremely well.
More explanations are in the book Sui Juris (meaning 'in my own jurisdiction')
Miscellaneous points
Really only applicable once you've 'found your feet'.
First of all: How do you know your name? Your parents told you. And, of course, you believed that. No doubt they showed you a Birth Certificate ... but how do you - actually - know that is you? How do you know that the Certificate you think is yours is not that of a twin? Or a previously birthed person who died?
Yes, of course it is unlikely. But 'likely' is not the point. There is no such thing as 'hard' or 'soft' evidence. There is only evidence ... or not.
How can you swear on oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when you are relying on HEARSAY.
And no established court de jure allows hearsay evidence.
Knowledge of your name is hearsay. Knowledge of your date of birth is hearsay. Yes, you were around at the time you left the womb, but you really couldn't state, for certainty, precisely what date that was.
Then the next thing is that if you were to ask the following question "Is it true that only those with a licence are able to practice law?", the answer would always be "Yes!". To which you could respond "But I do not have a licence, does this mean I cannot defend myself in a court of law?".
If you wanted to tie the court in knots, this would be a good tack. Of course they would pretty soon roll out the "Contempt of Court" business.
In Summary
It is a risky business. One is up against robots and sharks.
What alternative do we have?
The only one I can see is to 'sit back and take it'.
There will be 'casualties'.
There have already been 'casualties'.
However there are people out there trying their best for you and I.
Do we let them down?
Personally I think the absolute minimum we can do - at the very least - is to provide support.
Oh! And by the way! Need I remind you? Most (if not all) of us have forefathers and ancestors who gave their lives so that we would remain free of all but the absolute most essential restrictions. All we have to do is to pick up where they left off. With that behind us, is it right to hand despotism and thorough corruption (Thatcher-Major-BLiar-Brown-Cameron-Clinton-Bush-Obama style i.e. Bilderberger style) to our children & grandchildren - who will have the face the full force of it?
Remember: The job of any Government is to (a) Ward off invaders (i.e. ATTACK them, not COLLUDE with them, however subtle ... yes I'm talking 'EU' & 'NAU', etc), and (b) PROTECT our freedoms, not ERODE them.
And that's their job, in total. Nothing else.
It is certainly not their right to DECEIVE us from cradle to grave.
