well, if there is no bail contract then how could there be duress that you failed at using to defend your uneducated opinion ?

You might feel that you under duress, but you have the free choice of whether or not you enter into a bail contract. There is no "compulsion by threat, force, coercion, restraint nor constraint" applied to you for the purpose of entering into that contract. You are in custody because the state has accused you of doing soemthing illegal. You are not in custody for refusing to enter into a bail contract, even though you remain in custody if you do not.

The court could care less if you enter into a bail contract. Either way they get their pound of flesh. Most likely they prefer you not enter into a bail contract because thats more money  for the state, more prisoners, more lobbying for more public funds to pay for more corrections infrastructure, services, supplies, and personel.

One point is that you are in custody.

The other point is that you have the FREE CHOICE to get out of custody or stay in custody until the preceedings ocurr. Ergo, no duress, coercion, or force concerning the contract.

The situation of being IN CUSTODY is what what would be causing the duress you speak of.

Now if they threatened, coerced, or held you in prison specifically because you refused to enter into a bail contract, and/or until you did enter into a bail contract for the sole purpose of entering into a bail contract, THEN that would be duress and an unlawful contract/action, because that would be forcing you to enter into contract. You have every right to sit in jail instead of entering into a bail contract.

I never said I agreed with government. I said that bail is an agreement to appear in front of the judge (sometimes with additional stipulations you must agree to or not be released). An agreement is a contract. Plain and simple.

I think you should go to some bailbonds and courthouse websites and look for yourself or talk to your attorney to add some clarity.

Well, I do not know where else to go with this other than to say the gun is not relevent. The state does not care if you agree to surety requirements at all, so there is no force, no coercion, and no ambiguity. If you want something from someone else, there is an agreement to some terms, either vocal or written. If you do not want something, you do not enter into that agreement. You are assuming everyone wants to be free. I want to be free as well. However there are some who commit crimes just to have food to eat and a place to live and sleep in a moderate climate, so they never enter into a surety bond contract, so where is the force and coercion?

a contract is an agreement between parties that is intended to be enforceable by law.

surety bond is not telling a person, "pay up or I will chain you".

you are already chained up (in custody) and to get out of custody you have to AGREE to certain conditions stipulated by the state, whether its at the side of the road and you sign a ticket AGREEING to show up in court, or you are handcuffed at the magistrate AGREEING to show up later for court.

If that isnt an agreement/contract, I dont know what is. I deal with contracts daily. Its a contract, just like all the other agreements between a person and the state I mentioned previously.

How is what you dont care about even relevent to being lawful or not ?



that is why our founding fathers created a Constitutional Republic instead of a mob-rules socialist/communist democracy. They knew the dangers. They were experienced and well-educated ... some were even attorneys, politicians and diplomats.

While for some its the state, the organisation you refer to many call their community (friends and neighbors and family).



you do ... voluntarily by contract ... every time you apply or register or get licensed,  take tax subsidies, pay taxes, use public funds in any voluntary way, or do not rebut their presumptions if not under contract.


look, no one is debating your right to be governed if you want that. Hell most today could not survive without it, but that doesnt mean there are not responsible people who want to be sovereign and free and totally liable and responsible for themselves, without living beneath the yoke of enslavement, tyranny, and oppression of government...

so while you may not care about the governments lawful right to govern, many do.

and let me tell you your fellow citizens are not who you truly need protection from.

Yea Icke is out there with the lizard stuff, but alot of his other stuff hits close to home, even though Jordan Maxwell gave most of it to him.

The name game is lame. I think thats intentional disinformation to put the kibash on the sovereign movement.

The guy posted bail ?

would appear to be a contract as would be the paying of the fines ?

wonder if he had a license and registration (contracts).

the link is a 503 error for me - i will read it later.

You are assuming they have a supreme right to govern you.

where does that right come from ?

By what authority ?

Wher eis it written ?

Maybe by the consent of the governed ?

meaning you must CONSENT TO THEM GOVERNING YOU in order for them TO govern you.

Its in our founding document, you know the one that announced to the world our Declaration of independence.

To consent is to contract, telling them, yes, you may govern me.

There is also legal presumption. In the maxums of Law it states and unrebutted presumption/testimony/affidavit is Judgment in Commerce, so we need to know who we are, assert it to authority presuming otherwise, not be under contract, and we are free.

thats my take on it thusfar.

but i am stil llearning.

yea i posted in the wrong place and deleted my post. I thought this was the thread where they cops were intimidating the sovereign in another thread

where does it state we must follow statutes ?

there must be a contract with government, right ?

where does the authority come from ?

becasue some PUBLIC SERVANT told you so ?

last time I checked we are only allowed to be governed by the consent of the governed.

now if you contract with government and take their privilages and benefits, then you consent, but there is always remedy.

no, they are standing up for their personal sovereignty.

police are simply the slaves overseers ... the enforcers ... remedy for this lies in a court.

Massa must discipline and subjugate the slaves when they get uppity.

I disagree. I think laws and rules are the exact same thing. We call them statutes, and to be enforceable, there need to be a contract between you and government of some kind. An application, a SS#, a registration, a license, etc, which can all be rescinded, severed, or otherwise removed via remedy, because they are all voluntary. If you doubt that they are voluntary, check the legislation. They cant say you signed this so now we can enslave you for life.



thats where free flesh and blood sovereigns who go about it right seek and get their remedy.

if its not done correctly, you get in more trouble ... but then even with that there is ALWAYS a remedy. They can not deny you remedy from what I understand.



the police are the enforcers ... the overseers ... i expect nothing less ... the remedy is in court.

there are many successes. I dont like the freeman label .. i like to think of is as standing up for your sovereignty

whatever or whoever you think created you.

we have the right to do anything we damn well please so long as we honor our agreements (in commerce) and do no harm (not infringing on anyone else or their property).

its under common law I think.

with that we are 100% responsible for ourselves and liable.

I do not think you will find one court case where a free sovereign flesh and blood man or woman has been denied the right to do the above when they have not contracted their rights away for benefits and privilages and have asserted their supreme authority over themselves to those who presumed authority over them. Remember the Maxims of Law. A claim or affidavit undisputed becomes judgment in commerse by default of law, thus so long as we have no contract with government and we dispute their authority and jurisdiction, we reign supreme over ourselves and our property ... so long as we infringe on no one else or their property, and honor our agreements.

at least I havent been able to find one, and I have been looking everyday.

again I am only in the research stage, but I plan on real world application to become completely free after adequate preparation.

We all have creator-endowed (birth) rights that can not be taken away ... ever.

Although your rights can not be taken away, we can, and do, give them away and/or relinquish them to the state by contract, where they quite happily give us benefits and privilages for fees, taxes, and control in return ... and discipline if we do not follow the rules under which we have contracted our rights away.

To understand this, ask yourself a simple question ...

By what authority (connective tissue) does the government govern you, fine you, arrest you, make you apply for things, make you register for stuff, and license you for activities ?

If you start quoting statutes, then ask yourself by what authority do they require you adhere to statutes ... what makes the statutes apply to you ?

Think long and hard on that one before answering and if you can answer please post a reputable source. To me its all about consent of the governed.

Government never has and never will state that you dont have those rights, because the recognize that you do have them. They just dont want you to know that you ahve them to keep the fraud going, money rolling in, and their slave control structure in place.

By their contracts we agree to, our ignorance, and misconception that we are under obligation to them and their statutes (rules).

Where is it written that we must listen to government when we are only governed by the consent of the governed ?

It does not say consent of SOME of the governed.

It does not state consent of representatives of the governed.

It states by consent of the governed.

... requiring YOUR consent.

FYI Canadian Law and American Law is almost identical, based on English Admiralty Law.

I am still researching this, but so far I have not seen where those videos have been inaccurate.

The majority of the people involved in bitcoins are not in it for its viability as a mechanism for trade and barter (alternative form of currency), so we are seeing less demand, less market volume, lower btc-to-fiat currency values.

Until people actually start truly believing in it for what it is intended to be, and using it regularly, we will see these cycles from time to time, with the market correcting itself.

If you believe in it, use it ... frequently.

Actively persue ways to use it. Create ways to use it for goods and services. Contact existing merchants in your area and try to convince them research it to start accepting it.

Consumers, merchants and service providers know of the problems with our current system, but few know we have lawful choices. If they know we have lawful choices, change can start ocurring.

Your only alternative is to continue using fiat currency with the attached TAX of interest debt making its value much less with every dollar printed/coined.

Never liked Carlin until very late in his life when he became extrmeely political.

Just goes to show its never to late to educate the sheeple.

Good Man.

Well, since war couldnt do it, they have created an ideological shift through indictrination and manipulation in our schools, universities and colleges, advertising, print, radio, tv, and film, and using scare tactics in pretty much every facet of our lives.

Now those very indoctrinated and manipulated people are getting into power positions in the executive, legislative, and judicial systems of our governments.

Much like some water spilled on your floor does no damage if you clean it up, but a nice steady slow drip will completely destroy the wood in your home over time. Water will always find a way, much like the evil in man, so attention to detail and due dilligence is required by every citizen to protect the very freedoms they believe they enjoy. Remove apathy and disinterest and you have a constitutional republic again.

For thousands of years, Man has not changed. All that has changed is knowledge. Man is just as good and bad as he was thousands of years ago.