Thread: The freeman concept.

Discuss.

No.

Aww yeah, link some video with terrible audio quality, and simply write "Discuss.". This is how we roll in Extended Discussion.

He actually handled himself very well, since he avoided getting thrown out of court by force and possibly arrested for obstruction of justice. Which is a pretty likely result in situations like this. That said I suspect that the judge came back when he wasn't there, and just made another ruling.

I actually know where people like that are coming from and I understand the arguments they are using. However you have to understand, even in cases where they are right, they often get arrested any way.

I had no idea what was even going on so I check a few related vids and they were all a bunch of petty criminals making asses of themselves as the judges clearly explained to them why they had no idea what they were talking about.

I don't know about Canadian law, so I will deal with American law, and I am sure it is similar. In the start he is basically making the claim that there are two people. Him, the individual, and the 'identity' created by the government that most people assumes to be him. The the identity created by the government has a social security number, and records, and is required to follow certain set of rules. He is rejecting that identity and saying the rules do not apply to him.

Everyone has certain rights, however you can give up your rights if you want to. Basically people who use their social security number and driver licenses have signed away their rights, and have willingly agreed to follow the government regulations imposed on them. However if you do not willing agree to sign away your rights, then the regulations do not apply to you.

So you are looking at laws that apply to everyone and regulation that only apply to the government identity of you. If you do not agree, the laws still apply but the regulations do not. It is kind of like signing a contract with the government to do as they say, but in this case he is saying he never signed that contract. So basically people like that are trying to beat the regulations by claiming they do not apply to them.

It is a bit convoluted, so that if you don't understand the background of it, it really doesn't make a lot of sense. However the judges and stuff who do understand the argument normally reject the idea and also find it very annoying that you are basically saying the laws don't apply to you. Which is why usually they just throw you in jail. Which is why often it doesn't matter if you are technically right or not, the results are you usually getting into trouble.

What a load of nonsense that wastes the time of our already overburdened courts.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

What a load of nonsense that wastes the time of our already overburdened courts.

YOU saying that it's nonsense, doesn't necessarily make it nonsense, unless you can actually prove that it's nonsense.

Look at their website, it's full of "911 truth" and "zionist conspiracy" and "water fluoridation conspiracy" nonsense. The video just show a guy being a jackass and wasting the court's time, the comments say he was later fined...

Look at what you're writing.

"In order to properly stand under common law, one must write up a claim of right in your own words clearly stating your are going to stand under common law and not admiralty law, have it signed by witnesses and preferably a Notary, then all you do is send it off to whoever goes after you."

What the hell does this mean? Admiralty law is the laws that apply to boats...

they often get arrested any way.

If they are smart they are arrested only under protest and duress.

So does this mean it actually works in Canada, or is there more to the video.

I've heard about this concept before but I don't know much about it, about to free yourself from the social contract MoSH?

Originally Posted by stonedape

So does this mean it actually works in Canada, or is there more to the video.

I've heard about this concept before but I don't know much about it, about to free yourself from the social contract MoSH?

Don't know. I've been reading through the criminal code somewhat and in that code it is applicable. Though I'll have to research it further in order to fully go into it.

Criminal Code look up sections 38 and 39.

In order to properly stand under common law, one must write up a claim of right in your own words clearly stating your are going to stand under common law and not admiralty law, have it signed by witnesses and preferably a Notary, then all you do is send it off to whoever goes after you. The man in the courtroom had his claim of rights papers with him and a few others as well. It's a rather lengthy process before they finally leave you alone, (and you have to be prepared to go through Jail possibly a few times.). for anyone who will do this I reccomend you research it thoroughly first before attempting it. Better to have all of your chess pieces on the board, instead of just placing your king and queen.

I was actually going to mention that in the post earlier but decided not to. Often times the US flag in courts has a gold fringe around it. Some people will make the claim that the US flag with a gold fringe means that is an admiralty flag, and so admiralty law applies any where it is displayed. That is one of the arguments a lot of people make, is that being in a court with the gold fringe means they are trying to trick you.

Originally Posted by Alric

I was actually going to mention that in the post earlier but decided not to. Often times the US flag in courts has a gold fringe around it. Some people will make the claim that the US flag with a gold fringe means that is an admiralty flag, and so admiralty law applies any where it is displayed. That is one of the arguments a lot of people make, is that being in a court with the gold fringe means they are trying to trick you.

Essentially some will argue that most courts are operating under admiralty law, and are only subjecting a human being to it under UCC statues. In other words they say that the court is treating you, or acting as if, you are a vessel upon the waters, treating you as a vessel of commerce instead of a vessel of a god given soul that lives on land. You are "tricked" into a contract when you state your person (name for legal fictional corporation ie a vessel on waters of commerce.) to the court. However a contract must be signed by both parties in blue ink on a piece of paper otherwise it is fraud and punishable by law. Stating that YOU ARE your legal fiction to a judge in the courtroom is you unwittingly agreeing with their contract, which is fraud anyway. If you ever go to court and are asked your name, ask the judge if you doing so will be entering into a contract with him.... So they say anyway....

I've heard about this too. But in reality if it worked, every lawyer would use it in any case where they stood to earn a tonne of money.

Technically speaking, the law is almost certainly on the side of the "freemen". Unfortunately, the police and courts don't understand the law, and they will put you in prison anyway.

Originally Posted by cmind

Technically speaking, the law is almost certainly on the side of the "freemen". Unfortunately, the police and courts don't understand the law, and they will put you in prison anyway.

Yes, the people who write and enforce the law don't understand it...

They don't most of the time. Or they do and choose to ignore it.
And they didn't write it, at least not all of it. And they only enforce the law selectively.

Originally Posted by tommo

They don't most of the time. Or they do and choose to ignore it.
And they didn't write it, at least not all of it. And they only enforce the law selectively.

Says the person with a law degree?

Says Spartiate

What?

I have a law degree.

o really

Really.

fancy shmancy