The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where has this idea of red ink come from? And by that I mean what is their er.. reasoning logic evidence gibberish for why it's important?
 
Darat, you got me thinking, and I found this. This fantastic site appears to explain everything, including how the US is still a British colony and the truth about chemtrails and aspartame. I might make it my home page.

The use of red is not appropriate for accepted for value. It would make more sense to use blue and I can explain why.

Red ink-is representative of blood and means that you are a real human being because only a Man can sign with blood.

The reason you are accepting something for value is so that they can use your social security (social insurance) number to pay the described value by using the insurance that is provided for your public trust (capital letter straw man.) If you sign it in red than you don't have the privilege of insurance being provided to pay debts. You are not the public trust but you are its "authorized representative" and as the authorized representative you do have to pay taxes for the income that is derived through the use of that public trust. So if you gave a ssn when you got your job and bank account you need to pay federal income tax. The federal income tax is what pays for the insurance.

So if you sign it in blood and don't provide a ssn for the treasury to access the insurance account the note will not get paid and they will probably continue to come after you.

If you use bank accounts, checks, and you don't get paid in gold or silver, but debt notes from the fed you have to pay the tax.

However you can always pay it with the same process and pay the public trust fees with the insurance of the public trust.
Click to expand...
 
dudalb said:
I admit I would LOVE to see a FOTL loon try this crap on a company owned by members of a certain Italian American Fraternal Organization, and have a couple of big guys name Guido and Luigi show up to talk with him about it.....
Click to expand...
One thing is for sure, they both have very different definitions of "contract". ;)
 
Pikachu said:
FMOTL trial continued

The trial that went part heard a couple of weeks ago resumed this week. Even more supporters turned up this time (prompting several of my colleagues to enquire whether the common law forbids soap and water).
The defendant began this time by standing in the doorway and demanding to know whether his inalienable rights would be preserved if he entered the courtroom. The chair (thoroughly fed up after last time) told him he would get a fair trial and his human rights would be upheld. This didn't satisfy chummy who didn't want his human rights he wanted his inalienable rights (even if he couldn't pronounce them)..
Click to expand...

(snipped and my bolding) The poor loon smelled like chum and probably didn't contract to have a fishing licence. ;) Please keep the interesting stuff coming, Pikachu.
 
I nipped over to the David Icke forum just now.
I can assure that merlincove guy that our defendant tried everything he suggests. Several times.
The trouble is - it doesn't work.
A magistrates' court is not a court of record so there is no record for him to insist on. (Especially when various recording instruments have been removed from his supporters).

I see that they have now shifted from what to do in court to saying don't go at all.
Not attending a criminal court usually means attending it in handcuffs at a later date and acquiring convictions under the Bail Act. With the possibility of awaiting your trial in jail.
 
Pikachu said:
I nipped over to the David Icke forum just now.
I can assure that merlincove guy that our defendant tried everything he suggests. Several times.
The trouble is - it doesn't work.
A magistrates' court is not a court of record so there is no record for him to insist on. (Especially when various recording instruments have been removed from his supporters).

I see that they have now shifted from what to do in court to saying don't go at all.
Not attending a criminal court usually means attending it in handcuffs at a later date and acquiring convictions under the Bail Act. With the possibility of awaiting your trial in jail.
Click to expand...

With any luck some of his supporters will get hit with contempt charges and can begin their own odyssey thru the justice system.
 
From merlincove on the icke site

"it is funny how fmotl dissenters will choose to have their jollies at what they perceive to be fmotl fails and yet continue to invariably ignore fmotl applications that have led to the upholding of freeman principles when weighed against statutory rule.

i have been called to court many times for none payment of council tax etc, and each time i have enetered into peaceful none compliance with orders given and sent in offerance to attend.

i can not fully understand why the freeman needs to attend a courtroom full of kangaroos for summary made-an-example-of style conducts.

If the freeman lives his or her life removed from statute, then why attend an arena structured around the application of statute law above the commonly accepted law of the land?

it baffles me in all honesty.

Of course the antiterrorist has given us some worthwhile information on how one may conduct themselves in the courtroom if ever we are unfortunate enough to arrive in a situation of addressing a judge in the court room.

What the guy in the op should perhaps have done, when asking if his inalienable rights would remain intact, is insist on a record being made of such, and not simply take the half assed word of the judge, and should the judge then go down the path of saying that the case would go on in his absence, then again a statement for the record needed to be made to the fact that the defendant was attending but was being denied access to the court room as a man under common law.

For my own part I have been called to attend court on many occasions, and each time I have written to the court explaining that I exist under common law and that I have agreed to attend to the matter raised in the hearing via private remedy (conditional acceptance) which has been refused by the suitor. The statement of fact has been worded to express my concern that my requests to pay were ignored on the most part and that the hearing affords itself as a stay of my payment which I was willing and able to make with immediate effect given the provision of contractual evidence to show a debt existed.

I have never received any further correspondence from either the court or council in effect to the payment requested.

It is simply a mater of procedure.

It is interesting how the dissenters of a concept that I have shown to work repeatedly choose to ignore such and throw in matters of abuse of power on behalf of the system in effect to ridicule the fmotl concepts.

Yoz, you can argue the toss with these guys

It will make little difference.

Freeman philosophy continues to work. While some will try to thwart freedom by discussing its failures, freedom and freeman concepts are fighting back the darkness through common sense applications and a refusal to consent to ANY jurisdiction that is put forward.

It is a sad fact that a freeman in the courtroom is under the courts jurisdiction simply by his attendance to the court house. And furthermore, when the freeman is removed from the court and then enters again, without a clear and recorded declaration, his re-entrance into the court room places him under their jurisdiction if his inalienable right is not re-asserted.

By attending the court the attendee agrees to attend a place of business to be judged, and as such, by the act of his attendance he agrees that the court has the power to judge and stand over him – by the act of attending he surrenders to the court any right he has as a freeman and agrees to stand under their order."



Is he actually claiming he doesn't pay his council tax? Funny how it would be impossible to prove such a thing and we just have to take his word or is it his bond for this.Is this is the best he can manage as way of proof? I've got to take the word of a man who follows david icke?
His flailing and humiliation would be over if he could show a single provable case.
 
Last edited:
BobHaulk said:
Is he actually claiming he doesn't pay his council tax? Funny how it would be impossible to prove such a thing and we just have to take his word or is it his bond for this.Is this is the best he can manage as way of proof? I've got to take the word of a man who follows david icke?
His flailing and humiliation would be over if he could show a single provable case.
Click to expand...

He's reached the high office of moderator on Icke's forum no less & is therefore a big wheel in the moonbattery community.
 
During one of the many breaks in proceedings, I heard one of the audience advising another (who was taking notes!) about how to put all his property into a trust so the state and his mortgage company can't touch it.
One of the worst pieces of advice I have ever heard. Trusts are tricky things which most lawyers pass off onto specialists. And in this country at least they don't work like that.

And now over on Icke's I have seen the thread "Do you understand Trusts". Seems having comprehensively failed to understand Law they've discovered Equity...
 
Pikachu said:
And now over on Icke's I have seen the thread "Do you understand Trusts". Seems having comprehensively failed to understand Law they've discovered Equity...
Click to expand...

No doubt the Judges over the Chancery Division are studying that thread as I write & are in awe of the legal dynamos contributing to it.
 
Pikachu said:
I see that they have now shifted from what to do in court to saying don't go at all.
Not attending a criminal court usually means attending it in handcuffs at a later date and acquiring convictions under the Bail Act. With the possibility of awaiting your trial in jail.
Click to expand...



Victory!
 
Pikachu said:
During one of the many breaks in proceedings, I heard one of the audience advising another (who was taking notes!) about how to put all his property into a trust so the state and his mortgage company can't touch it.
One of the worst pieces of advice I have ever heard. Trusts are tricky things which most lawyers pass off onto specialists. And in this country at least they don't work like that.

And now over on Icke's I have seen the thread "Do you understand Trusts". Seems having comprehensively failed to understand Law they've discovered Equity...
Click to expand...

This appears to be life imitating art. A few years back the British School of Motoring were promoting their professional instructors with adverts that included lines like "You wouldn't trust your best mate Ron (played by chavvy teenaged actor) to give you advice on how to split the atom, would you?"

I'm glad I found this thread, the Lulz on 9/11 have dried up, rather.
 
Comsat Angel said:
Hmmm. I dunno, it didn't work out too well for Jan Hus.
Click to expand...

Maybe not personally,but it served as nice cause for civil war,which created some "export" to coutries around.

It is generaly here regarded as one of darkest period of our history.

So in the end his teachings even after defeat of hardline Husits took some roots and are still active.

In that one must be carefull whom he eliminates...
 
Pikachu said:
During one of the many breaks in proceedings, I heard one of the audience advising another (who was taking notes!) about how to put all his property into a trust so the state and his mortgage company can't touch it.
One of the worst pieces of advice I have ever heard. Trusts are tricky things which most lawyers pass off onto specialists. And in this country at least they don't work like that.

And now over on Icke's I have seen the thread "Do you understand Trusts". Seems having comprehensively failed to understand Law they've discovered Equity...
Click to expand...

It's all so simple says Mark1963:

"In simple terms.

The PUBLIC side is your strawman and everything related - it is the Trustee and is always guilty in court. As a Trustee the fiduciary is your responsibility.

The court being Trustees themselves attempt to get you to accept their position of Trustee - in other words you become the sole Trustee in that court and so fiduciary becomes your responsibility.

The PRIVATE side is your human self and Beneficiary and that is the place where we all can easily get remedy (we believe).

There are two type of Trust:

Express - everything is laid out and stated or written down

Implied - the heinous Trust, it's mostly invisible and this is what we are trapped in - it does not need to be written down and is often formed by an action.

Remedy is on the way and initial challenges to the Implied Trusts are on the way."

Then he and GG get into learned debate on Trusts that I admit I couldn't follow. The rabbit hole was too deep and vertigo set in.:boggled:
 
tsig said:
It's all so simple says Mark1963:
<snippage>

Then he and GG get into learned debate on Trusts that I admit I couldn't follow. The rabbit hole was too deep and vertigo set in.:boggled:
Click to expand...

For some reason, the FOTL legal expertise reminds me of the mechanical engineering expertise in It Broke!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom