The Freeman Movement and England

[Mojo]

If the prosecutor were honest or unbiased, then he might very well hesitate to start all over, but the Founding Fathers were aware that a government might persecute an individual by repeatedly trying him for the same crime. The Fifth Amendment is designed to prevent that. But the amendment applies only to persons. Is there any law preventing a unscrupulous prosecutor from unfairly targeting freemen?

He doesn't need to. The fourteenth amendment also states that it applies to persons, so if they are not persons freemen can be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law.

 

[jargon buster]

grndslm on the founding fathers

They definitely knew what Common Law was, tho. They were definitely some of the most moral MEN for a good 50 years or so.

they wrote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

They wrote and supposedly believed that whilst the genocide of the American Indian was allowed to take place.

Oh yes, moral men indeed.

 

[Cocana The Second]

Last time I checked... American Law Dictionaries have "locked in" the same "British Law" terms. Perhaps corporation doesn't mean the same thing to the Avg. Joe in London, but to a lawyer... it means the same thing... a legal fiction with separate privileges & duties from its members.. along with limited liability.

Wrong again! In case you haven't noticed, US law and English law are different. Your law even has different nuances between states.

Since you like legal dictionaries, let me give you a definition from an English legal dictionary (Mozley & Whiteley's) -

Corporation. A number of persons united and consolidated together so as to be considered as one person in law, possessing the character of perpetuity, its existence being constantly maintained by the succession of new individuals in the place of those who die, or are removed. Corporations are either aggregate or sole. Corporations aggregate consist of many persons, several of whom are contemporaneously members of it, e g the mayor and commonalty of a city, or the dean and chapter of a cathedral. Corporations sole are such as consist, at any given time, of one person only, e g the King or Queen, a bishop, a vicar etc. A corporation must sue, or be sued in its corporate name

And from the same source -

Company. A body of persons associated together for the purpose of trade or business. Companies are formed (1) by charter, (2) by special Act of Parliament, (3) by registration at Companies House.

Companies are regulated chiefly by the Companies Act 1985 [now 2006]

The liability of members of a companies is usually limited, either by charter, Act of Parliament, or memorandum of association

As I said before, you are totally wrong to regard English corporations as the same as US corporations. The words have different meanings in law and common understanding. You'd best get back to the drawing board on your City of London Corporation theory.

Well... do you know what the definition of a "person" is??

A person is a corporation, association, firm, partnership, co-partnership, etc.

If you knew that... you would obviously know that a person and a man are not the same animals... far more different than the difference between a company and a corporation.

As to the usual freeman rubbish about who is a "person," I see that colleagues have already put you right there.

 

[Cocana The Second]

.

Perhaps "human being" is.. but that ain't me, either. Human means "of man", and that ain't me.

That has to be a stundie, right there!

 

[catsmate]

They're not allowed to have cell phones. If they did either one, they would cease to be Amish.

While pretty much everything you've posted is nonsense let's look at this particular piece of rubbish. Here is a good overview of the relationship between the Amish and technology. Perhaps you could read it before pontificating about matters you don't understand?
Anyway on cellphones:

Cell phones have become fairly common, especially among Amish businessmen, and may yet prove to be controversial. Howard Rheingold wrote an article on the use of the cell phone by the Amish in WIRED magazine in January, 1999. He noted that the Amish are actually quite sophisticated "because they have an elaborate system by which they evaluate the tools they use." Modern Americans, and much of the world at large, will unleash a new technology and then see what happens, for good or bad. "Amish are very adaptive techno-selectives who devise technologies to fit their self-imposed limits."

And telephones in general:

The Amish have, of course, used telephones for years. Before they were common in the home, they used ones in town. Later, as they became more common, a phone booth or phone "shanty" was often built outside, and shared by several neighbors. The idea was to keep those disruptive phones out of the house. "It's not the use, but the abuse, of the phone we worry about." Many Amish businesses rely on answering machines or services, or instruct their patrons to call at a certain hour when they will be at the outdoor phone.

Regardless of what a statute says, the Amish have the freedom of religion, which includes the freedom from "modern day hassles, technology

No it doesn't, not in the real world.

 

[grndslm]

This seems to be a common problem with FOTLers. They don't understand that the law assumes that the words are interpreted as having their usual meaning in English, and specific legal definitions are only required to clarify or avoid ambiguity, for example specifying that "person" includes artificial persons as well as (the usual english meaning of) natural persons.

Do you realize that if a statute contains the definition, you MUST use that definition??

What is a person in law dictionaries isn't important if the statute has the definition for person within, which it usually does. The answer is in the statute!!

Are you the owner of this vehicle sir?
Am I obligated to give you that information?
Whats your name sir?
Am I obligated to give you that information?
Yes
Who says?
Me, now one last time whats your name?
I am not obligated to give you that information?
You are under arrest for failure to provide your name in contravention of the Road Traffic Act sections 164 & 165
But I dont consent to that act
Get in the van sir, you can explain it all to the desk sergeant.

OK... so you wanna take a ride, eh??


==============
+ Are you the owner of this vehicle sir?
- That would depend on who is asking. May I see your drivers license, your badge number, and your business card?
+ Sure. Here ya go. Now are you the owner of this vehicle sir?
- Why do you make the presumption that this is a vehicle and not an automobile, as clearly made a distinction between in these numerous Supreme Court cases.... {hands Notice of Supreme Court Cases (see Travel section in my sig) & Title 18, Section 242 of the U.S. Code -- "Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law"}
+ UMM.... I really have no idea. I'm enforcing something that I don't actually understand. I'm certainly not an attorney. Let me go ask my superior what I need to do...

**10 min later**

+ Step out of the car, please.
- That will not be a problem, provided that you can prove I have committed a criminal act against my fellow man.. otherwise, I reserve my right to stay in my locked vehicle, with my window just barely cracked, and my cell phone straight at your face!
+ Umm... The Rules of the Road state that everyone operating a motor vehicle must present a drivers license upon demand, or else I'll need to write you a citation.
- That's just fine and dandy, but that is not a motor vehicle. I am not for hire. This is my private automobile. Nowhere in Title 63 of the MS Code will you find the term automobile for the reasons I've outlined in that Notice I presented you with. This private conveyance is NOT registered to your corporate body, therefore, it cannot be a motor vehicle... because all motor vehicles must be registered, right? If you do not have evidence that my Common Law "RIGHT" to travel in an unregistered, private carriage is... I'm going to be going about my business. Thanks.
+ DURRRR....
===============

+ What's your name, sir?
- I might be able to help you out with that, as soon you prove that you're a real cop. I'll need to see your drivers license, badge no, & business card.
+ Sure thing. Here ya go... Now what is your name?
- I don't have a name. But people call me Kyle. Am I free to go?
+ NO.
- Are you detaining me?
+ YES. What is your last name, Kyle?
- Are you sure that a man is obligated to have a last name?? If so, please cite the law for me.
+ DURRR.... TELL ME YOUR LAST NAME BEFORE I BUSSA CAP !!
- Madonna doesn't have a last name. Cher doesn't have a last name. Bono doesn't have a last name. Would you shoot them, too?
+ SHUT UP!! STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!! THAT'S MY JOB!!
- Sorry sir, but I've really gotta run now. If you can't prove to me that an automobile is mentioned in Title 63 of the MS Code (because I know it's not), nor if you can prove to me that I'm required to have a last name (I could make one up for you, if you can find such a statute)... then I'll need to be rippin' and runnin' right about now. Thanks, tho. BYE!!
+ WAIT!
- OK. You've got one last chance to be productive before I kick rocks.
+ What is your SSN?
- Am I obliged to give you that??
+ OF COURSE NOT... GTFO HERE!!
===============

+ What's your name?
- That would depend, ossifer. Are you acting legally or lawfully?

(Surely you've heard that one before, right??)

I'm hitting the sack, tho. You get the idea. There's a thousand different things to conditionally accept or simply question, if you actually know what the law actually states. Notices are a great help, too... especially ones that show you have the "RIGHT" to "TRAVEL" in a "PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE" and the ossifer can get up to 10 years for deprivation of rights under the color of law.

Equality before and under the law is paramount.

G'nite!!!

BTW... You sounded like a "pud" (I'll have to start making up names... or is fictional name-calling not allowed here, either??) when you weren't sure whether you were obligated to provide a name or not -- "I am not obligated to give you that information?"

That doesn't sound very reassuring for somebody who knows what they're talking about. I'd bust your window out if I were a cop, too... with you able to type out your fear and all. PUDDIN'! So sweet!!

 

[TSR]

I'll bet you 100 Federal Reserve Notes that you cannot provide us with a verse of Christ Jesus speaking about beating slaves.

.
Lillybet, to save you the research in case you don't know it off the top of your head, it's Luke 12:47-48.

I'll split the $100 with you, m'kay? Altho he didn't specify the denomination of the "Federal Reserve Note," so we *could* argue zie owes us $10,000 -- not that zie has any intention of paying up, anyway.

And BTW, grndslm, can you point me to a definition, anywhere, from any source, which says "indigent" has "naked" as the sole qualification?

 

[zooterkin]

In Mississippi, I've actually had a cop tell me that the driver can be double-fisting beers for all he cares, provided that the driver's BAC is not above .08%.

Really? Wouldn't that make it hard to adequately control the vehicle? I guess you don't have the concept of driving without due care and attention there.

It is perfectly legal and lawful to do what I do here. It makes no sense to arrest someone if they weren't drinking. Likewise, it makes no sense to arrest someone if they just started drinking. It's no different than drinking a Root Beer in the car, is it??

Again, in the UK you can be charged if you are doing anything that is deemed to interfere with your control of the car, even just eating a sandwich.

 

[Mojo]

Do you realize that if a statute contains the definition, you MUST use that definition??

certainly. But the words used in that definition are taken as having their standard English meaning, so there is no problem with, for example, including the word "person" as part of the definition of a person for the purposes of a statute.

What is a person in law dictionaries isn't important if the statute has the definition for person within, which it usually does. The answer is in the statute!!

What is written in law dictionaries is just there for convenience. It is all sourced to legislation or to judicial decisions, and those are the authoritative statements, not whatever is in the dictionary. This is why the FOTLer insistence that Black's Law Dictionary is some sort of authority is so wide of the mark.

 

[Mojo]

I'll bet you 100 Federal Reserve Notes that you cannot provide us with a verse of Christ Jesus speaking about beating slaves.

You evidently haven't seen the "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" thread.

Or read the Bible in any great detail.

 

[zooterkin]

You evidently haven't seen the "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth" thread.

Or read the Bible in any great detail.

To be fair, neither has the OP in that thread.

 

[Elizabeth I]

They were definitely some of the most moral MEN for a good 50 years or so. I don't think they referred to themselves as "human" all that often, however. They might have spoken generally about the human race... but I have this inclination that they felt men were a spiritual step above humans. If anything, you want to be a man... nothing more , nothing less.

Judging by your waffling at the end of that paragraph I suspect that "When in the course of human events..." had just come to your mind.

If the FF were not human, then they were not a part of the "course of human events" and could not possibly have been affected by it and had no right to perpetrate the American Revolution on their (at the time) lawful sovereign - and he was even sovereign under your silly definition, since he ruled by the grace of God.

And you "have this inclination"? So everyone else must accept the literal truth of the nonsense you spout but we must follow your "inclination" about what the FF really meant when they were writing clear explicit English?


Moving on, with regard to "Christ Jesus" talking about beating slaves:

.
Lillybet, to save you the research in case you don't know it off the top of your head, it's Luke 12:47-48.

Thanks, I know the quote but would have had to look up the citation.

I'll split the $100 with you, m'kay? Altho he didn't specify the denomination of the "Federal Reserve Note," so we *could* argue zie owes us $10,000

I like the way you think.

Grndslm, I agree with TSR and you owe me $10,000, which I will split with him/her because I am an honorable person. (I am not a man and have no intention of becoming one.)

-- not that zie has any intention of paying up, anyway.

Of course, you're right.

 

[jargon buster]

grndslm wrote

+ Are you the owner of this vehicle sir?
- That would depend on who is asking. May I see your drivers license, your badge number, and your business card?
+ Sure. Here ya go. Now are you the owner of this vehicle sir?
- Why do you make the presumption that this is a vehicle and not an automobile, as clearly made a distinction between in these numerous Supreme Court cases.... {hands Notice of Supreme Court Cases (see Travel section in my sig) & Title 18, Section 242 of the U.S. Code -- "Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law"}
+ UMM.... I really have no idea. I'm enforcing something that I don't actually understand. I'm certainly not an attorney. Let me go ask my superior what I need to do...

**10 min later**

+ Step out of the car, please.
- That will not be a problem, provided that you can prove I have committed a criminal act against my fellow man.. otherwise, I reserve my right to stay in my locked vehicle, with my window just barely cracked, and my cell phone straight at your face!
+ Umm... The Rules of the Road state that everyone operating a motor vehicle must present a drivers license upon demand, or else I'll need to write you a citation.
- That's just fine and dandy, but that is not a motor vehicle. I am not for hire. This is my private automobile. Nowhere in Title 63 of the MS Code will you find the term automobile for the reasons I've outlined in that Notice I presented you with. This private conveyance is NOT registered to your corporate body, therefore, it cannot be a motor vehicle... because all motor vehicles must be registered, right? If you do not have evidence that my Common Law "RIGHT" to travel in an unregistered, private carriage is... I'm going to be going about my business. Thanks.
+ DURRRR....
===============

+ What's your name, sir?
- I might be able to help you out with that, as soon you prove that you're a real cop. I'll need to see your drivers license, badge no, & business card.
+ Sure thing. Here ya go... Now what is your name?
- I don't have a name. But people call me Kyle. Am I free to go?
+ NO.
- Are you detaining me?
+ YES. What is your last name, Kyle?
- Are you sure that a man is obligated to have a last name?? If so, please cite the law for me.
+ DURRR.... TELL ME YOUR LAST NAME BEFORE I BUSSA CAP !!
- Madonna doesn't have a last name. Cher doesn't have a last name. Bono doesn't have a last name. Would you shoot them, too?
+ SHUT UP!! STOP ASKING QUESTIONS!! THAT'S MY JOB!!
- Sorry sir, but I've really gotta run now. If you can't prove to me that an automobile is mentioned in Title 63 of the MS Code (because I know it's not), nor if you can prove to me that I'm required to have a last name (I could make one up for you, if you can find such a statute)... then I'll need to be rippin' and runnin' right about now. Thanks, tho. BYE!!
+ WAIT!
- OK. You've got one last chance to be productive before I kick rocks.
+ What is your SSN?
- Am I obliged to give you that??
+ OF COURSE NOT... GTFO HERE!!
===============

+ What's your name?
- That would depend, ossifer. Are you acting legally or lawfully?

(Surely you've heard that one before, right??)

grndslm, if you really believe that sceanario would occur between yourself and a police officer, I can safely assume you have never spoken to one.
What planet are you on?
Police Officers are not there to waste time arguing points of law with you, thats a job for the court.
The officer will simply ignore your inanaity and process you.
If you think any differently get yourself a video camera and go outside your front door, take a drive and post the resulting debate on Youtube for all to see.

 

[Mojo]

Grndslm, I agree with TSR and you owe me $10,000

Produce a proper fee schedule and you can work that up to several million.

 

[tsig]

If you believe that a person is a corporation, association, firm, partnership, co-partnership, & natural person...

Don't you think it would be more logical to presume that a natural person would be more like a natural association, or a natural co-partnership???

There's no way you could possibly make me believe that I am on the same level as fictitious entities.

You have the right to understand the nature and cause of the charges presented against you.. BEFORE you plea. How many people ask to understand the nature and charges??

If you simply say, "I do not feel as if I have been arraigned", then they cannot continue... because they cannot WAIVE the arraignment without YOUR CONSENT. They may offer to enter a plea on your behalf... but would you consent?? ... or would you object?? I'd say, "On and for the Record.... The judge has entered a plea on his own behalf, and he has accepted the consequences that he might stumble upon, but I am NOT entering a plea." To plea is to beg, and there's no need for me to BEG from some coersive thugs.

Right. Notice how I put quotation marks around "tricked".

I was focused on things that weren't important, like what does indigent mean. How indigent do I need to be before I can pick either one. Why does such a loaded question need to be asked in order to distribute justice?

And I was focused on that X next to my signature line... not the signature line below it for the judge. The pen markings truly took my focus off of what I was supposed to be doing... reading the document ("contract") that I was attaching my signature to. And it was definitely a contract. Two signatures were required. At minimum, my silent acquiescence would be required if the judge entered a plea of not guilty on my behalf. But why would I be silent when I have the right to ask questions, understand the nature & cause of the charges against me, and simply... NOT BEG THE COURT AT ALL. It is my RIGHT to WAIVE the BENEFIT/PRIVILEGE of THE COURT... Because WHY? Well, because I am the CREDITOR for the court, of course.

Constitution isn't real, eh? Uniform Commercial Code isn't real?? Contract law isn't real? Silent acquiescence isn't real?? Arraignments aren't real? Common Law isn't real? Supreme Court case precedent isn't real?? Statutes aren't rules of a society?? I'm not allowed to withdraw myself from society???

I'll lead you to your proofs!!! I can point them all out if you really doubt their validity.

Living "in" a society is a rebuttable presumption. That I am receiving benefits from their society is another rebuttable presumption.

A Freeman, as well as all men, should actually read their Social Security Insurance cards... it straight up says, "This does not belong to you. It belongs to the Social Security Administrator.... No government agent is required to receive your SSN."

Simply ask... "Am I obligated to give you my SSN?" And then the officer is required to answer with a "NO!"

Repeat for Last Name, Address of Residency, etc...

You are only required to give a name here. I am Kyle. What's your name and what do you want from me?? Oh, you want my information... can you prove that I am required to have such information?? Oh, you can't?? Well... I'll see ya later.

DUCK = Daffy, Donald, & Natural DUCK

Based on the only part of this definition that we can work with... A Natural DUCK sounds more like a cloud in the shape of a duck... not a REAL, LIVING, BREATHING DUCK!!

Do you UNDERSTAND?? That Daffy and Donald don't BREATHE? DO you UNDERSTAND that they are *NOT* REAL!??

They will only get jurisdiction if you agree to it. There's no other way it could happen.

Since you are obviously all too familiar with the Law... why don't we run thru a scenario, any scenario you can come up with... starting with the policy enforcer. SHOOT!!

Really... the more I talk to you attorner-types, the more I'm sure that you are the real cause of society's ails. You lack even the smallest fraction of integrity.

Whenever I read your posts I'm left with the impression you're not arguing with what we said but with the voices in your head.

 

[Ladewig]

There's no way you could possibly make me believe that I am on the same level as fictitious entities.

Of all the things you have said since you have arrived here, I find this one the most confusing.

Imagine that I sell meat pies and across the street a small corporation sells meat pies. Mr. X comes along and claims that both our businesses put human flesh in our products. Sales fall off for both of us. Under U.S. law both I and the corporation have the right to bring a civil suit against Mr. X.

In this particular type of case, the law looks at both plaintiffs as the same. How am I harmed or diminished in any way by having a corporation have a right that men like myself have?

 

[Ladewig]

I know you have a lot of questions thrown at you, so I'll try to keep mine brief.

- That's just fine and dandy, but that is not a motor vehicle. I am not for hire. This is my private automobile. Nowhere in Title 63 of the MS Code will you find the term automobile for the reasons I've outlined in that Notice I presented you with.

So did the law makers intend to make that distinction? Did they intend to exclude people like you from the requirements about drivers licenses or was it just the result of sloppiness?

 

[Ladewig]

To me, the stance [claiming birth bond money] seems illogical. I have not heard of one case where anyone has succeeded in doing this, tho I have seen a "guide" to how "master the UCC". I'm not willing to test it out myself.

Just posted it... http://freemen.freeforums.org/mastering-the-ucc-t145.html

Why did you post something that you find illogical?

For the record, the posted .PDF includes material such as

Know all men by these presents, that JOHN HENRY DOE, the Debtor, hereby establishes this Indemnity Bond in favor of John Henry Doe, the Secured Party, in the sum of present and future Collateral Values up to the sum of One hundred billion United States Dollars ($100,000,000,000), for the payment of which bond, the Debtor hereby firmly binds its successors, heirs, executors, administrators, DBA’s, AKA’s, and third-party assigns, jointly and severally.

 

[Ladewig]

One more quick question:

Have you personally ever collected money from a fee schedule?

 

[Hans]

Whenever I read your posts I'm left with the impression you're not arguing with what we said but with the voices in your head.

Hmmmmmm it is nice to have a real FMOTL type here, insanity served up fresh and from the horses mouth is refreshing. Lets be nice to him and see what other crazy stuff he comes up with.