The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
timhau said:
Not flags that you can see, maybe, but if the judge is wearing Stars-and-Stripes underwear with gold fringes, it counts too!

(You can see what the next totally reasonable request is, can't you?)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether I'd be more concerned knowing that a Canadian judge is wearing Stars-and-Stripes underwear (with or without gold fringes) or anticipating what else there might be coming that I might not want to know. :D
 
UCC and Birth Certificate myths - The US Treasury Deparmentment' s view:

The Story

A stripped-down version of this scheme is as follows: When the United States went off the gold standard in 1933, the federal government somehow went bankrupt. With the help of the Federal Reserve Bank, the government converted the bodies of its citizens into capital value, supposedly by trading the birth certificates of U.S. citizens on the open market. After following a complicated process of filing UCC documents with either the Secretary of State of the person's residence or another state that will accept the filings, each citizen is entitled to redeem his or her "value" by filling out a sight draft drawn on their (nonexistent) TreasuryDirect account. The scheme asserts that each citizen's Social Security Number is also his or her account number. As a part of the scheme, participants also file false IRS Forms 8300 and Currency Transaction Reports in the name of law enforcement officials and other individuals they seek to harass.

The Reality

Drawing such drafts on the U.S. Treasury is fraudulent and a violation of federal law. The theory behind their use is bogus and incomprehensible. The Justice Department is vigorously prosecuting these crimes. Federal criminal convictions have occurred in several cases. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has tried to alert the banking community to this fraud. See Suspicious Transactions, Fictitious Sight Drafts. (3K txt file, uploaded 5/16/00)
Click to expand...

From here.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Here's an earlier one, in which she wanted to take a film crew into court with her.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66453
Click to expand...

Wow. How many court appearances will she need before she figures out that this stuff really doesn't work the way she thinks it does?

In a way, it's a shame she couldn't film it. I would have loved to have seen her, with a straight face, that "ask for a dismissal on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction due to you not being a vessal on the high sea".
 
Last edited:
Can I get something straight here? Does this "on the land" thing actually mean "not at sea, thus not bound by these 'Admiralty Courts'"?

I thought it was all about the "land", in terms of land ownership and personal sovereignty, my home is my castle and that sort of thing. But this section from that surreal thread linked to above makes me think otherwise.

Ian2day said:
Under what jurisdiction is this Court. Is it a county court, a royal court, a crown court, a civil court, admiralty, commercial. Dont be fooled by the buildings name or location. Check the PASSENGER LIST attached to an external wall by the entrance to see if your strawman is listed and what vessal is listed and if the captain and the name of the company is listed. If the strawman is being challenged about an incident that occurred on land and not water. Then your Strawman was not a sailor or passenger of a vessal, then there is no charge to answer. Ask for a dismissal on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction due to you not being a vessal on the high sea. If asked to take an oath. Use this time to declare yourself a freeman on the land with God given rights and not under the jurisdiction of a maritime admiralty court.
Click to expand...


This is really much, much stranger than I ever realised.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
This is really much, much stranger than I ever realised.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

With all the talk of "Admiralty Law" and "Admiralty Courts", that's what it looks like to me. They think that statutes are laws of the sea... or something.

Poor Number 6 in that thread. He really wants to tell them they're all idiots, but similarly doesn't want to lose face / in-group status by rubbishing the whole thing. You can almost hear his brain whirring...
 
I've just been reading through the early posts on this thread. Hilarious stuff.

Especially said:
As for the Jesuits, they infiltrated England, big time, and are today running whole areas of our government, our secret services, our mass media, our newspapers, television etc. Haven't heard about it ? Have you heard of the Knights of Columbus and their control of the CIA ? How many directors have been members of that one group ?
Click to expand...
Especially said:
But I've already told you I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Right ? Why do you make the silly mistake of saying I am one ?
Click to expand...


:D ROFL :D LOL :D HeeHeeHAHAHA! :D​


Especially said:
Corporate policemen, corporate governments, corporate local government, corporate politicians, corporate bankers, corporate monarchies, corporate news channels, corporate contractors, corporate scams at every level. Corporate prison, corporate courts. Corporate lawyers.
Click to expand...


Corporate tinkers, corporate tailors, corporate sailors, corporate butchers, corporate bakers, corporate cabinet makers, corporate slugs, corporate snails, corporate puppy-dog-tails, corporate sugar, corporate spices, corporate all-things-nice, corporate fruitcakes, corporate nuts... Corporate Freemen On The Land.
 
drkitten said:
Have you seen the followup thread?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84422

Apparently she managed to get herself sent up for a week for contempt of court.

And the charges STILL haven't been resolved, as far as I can tell.

I fear she may be getting more chances to get used to the inside of that cell....
Click to expand...

I feel really, really sorry for her - it's bad enough to be someone spouting off about all this "freeman" nonsense but to actually listen and then act on it...
 
Me too. She seems easily led, while claiming to be autonomous and responsible for her own actions. It's a nice little fantasy of being the oppressed freedom fighter, but it's very sad when it gets your car crushed and gets you a criminal conviction and a jail term.

Rolfe.
 
I've just realised Especially's 24-hour suspension was swiftly extended to a week, after he sent an abusive email to Darat. So we'll just have to get by without him, somehow. It'll be tough, but I expect we'll manage.

Rolfe.
 
Why was he suspended? For being simultaneously ignorant, arrogant and not quite as entertaining as we had hoped?
 
lionking said:
Don't forget the big fonts. :)
Click to expand...

Of course, who could forget the big fonts?

By the way, some FOTLer on another forum was boasting about how terribly well-read he was on the law. He mentioned that he was in the middle of reading "The Common Law of England" by W B Odgers, which is a perfectly respectable work written in the early 20th century. (It's also available online for anyone who wants to trawl through the 2 volumes of it.)

Unfortunately for FOTLers, the more works of genuine scholarship they claim to have read, the more dense they show themselves to be.

I mean, these sentences are the opening lines of the preface of the edition this chap is reading:

"The first edition of this book, which was published in 1911, is now out of print. Since its appearance, there have been numerous statutes, which have affected the Common Law of England in many respects."

Tell me again how statutes have no effect on the common law?
 
Last edited:
RHolmes said:
Good lord! I believe that's the very definition of "asking for it". I'm not a big fan of censorship, but that was just silly.
Click to expand...
So far from censorship. I believe that the mods showed super-human tolerance.

Anyway, off topic, sorry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom