So, you think you are free and the government treats you right ...

[Bind]

http://www.youtube.com/p/1B289953BD4AE100?version=3&hl=en_US&fs=1

[1713969907]

1713969907

[1713969907]

1713969907

[Minsc]

Is that your YouTube channel?  All of Part 1 is unlisted.  The other parts are listed.

I found how to watch them in order http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1B289953BD4AE100

[Hawker]

Do you have a transcript?

[Minsc]

I am on the 5th video.  This is some kind of legal trickery where Canada's legal system is based on trust law and if you refuse to identify by your name and use some title, then it breaks.

[Minsc]

I researched it and I read it's just a fraud thing con artists promote.  Anyone know???

[Hawker]

I researched it and I read it's just a fraud thing con artists promote.  Anyone know???

Wow!  You have a lot of spare time on your hands don't you!

[Bind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tScuHwVtRcY&feature=player_embedded

[Minsc]

http://www.examiner.com/skepticism-in-denver/the-freeman-on-the-land-myth-debunked
http://forum.theuklibertarian.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=70
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Militi_71/3074-71.asp
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20111022freeman

[molecular]

http://www.youtube.com/p/1B289953BD4AE100?version=3&hl=en_US&fs=1

what the hell did I just watch?

[Bind]

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.

[Hawker]

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

Really?  What creator and where does he get these rights from? 

[Bind]

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

Really?  What creator and where does he get these rights from?  

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.

[Minsc]

Bind,

There's laws and rules.
Then there's what the courts will actually agree to.

Those are two different things.  You need to get a high court to rule in favor of freeman philosophy so a legal precedent can be used.

Oh and see this thread.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49576  First video is very funny.

[Bind]

There's laws and rules.

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.

Then there's what the courts will actually agree to.

Those are two different things.  You need to get a high court to rule in favor of freeman philosophy so a legal precedent can be used.

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.

Oh and see this thread.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49576  First video is very funny.

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

[Hawker]

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

Really?  What creator and where does he get these rights from?  

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.

It seems you don't know much about common law.  Its the king's law - often laid down in courts called the King's Bench.  If you accept common law, you accept the sovereignty of the state.  If you don't, its enforced anyway as this poor sap found out.

http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-2875189.html

[Hawker]

...snip...

right, because police never unlawfully intimidate.

for all we know this guy is being intimidated ... the police cant even answer the question of what he';s being charge with or for. For all we know this sovereign never rescinded, severed, or removed himself from existing contracts with the state that allows them to hold statute over his head ... we just do not know. Not enough information to do anything but guess. I see a rational calm man being oppressed and telling the cops they are acting unlawfully.

http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-2875189.html

He was charged with driving without insurance.  He was convicted of it and paid a fine to avoid jail. 

You really should read the article. 

[Bind]

...snip...

right, because police never unlawfully intimidate.

for all we know this guy is being intimidated ... the police cant even answer the question of what he';s being charge with or for. For all we know this sovereign never rescinded, severed, or removed himself from existing contracts with the state that allows them to hold statute over his head ... we just do not know. Not enough information to do anything but guess. I see a rational calm man being oppressed and telling the cops they are acting unlawfully.

http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-2875189.html

He was charged with driving without insurance.  He was convicted of it and paid a fine to avoid jail.  

You really should read the article.  

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

[Hawker]

...snip...

right, because police never unlawfully intimidate.

for all we know this guy is being intimidated ... the police cant even answer the question of what he';s being charge with or for. For all we know this sovereign never rescinded, severed, or removed himself from existing contracts with the state that allows them to hold statute over his head ... we just do not know. Not enough information to do anything but guess. I see a rational calm man being oppressed and telling the cops they are acting unlawfully.

http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-2875189.html

He was charged with driving without insurance.  He was convicted of it and paid a fine to avoid jail.  

You really should read the article.  

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

  Now your reply makes more sense. 

[Bind]

http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-2875189.html

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

[Hawker]

http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-2875189.html

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

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=179368

Good old David Icke.  If we didn't have such a fine creator of conspiracy theories, we would have to invent him.

[Bind]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=179368

Good old David Icke.  If we didn't have such a fine creator of conspiracy theories, we would have to invent him.

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).

[Hawker]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=179368

Good old David Icke.  If we didn't have such a fine creator of conspiracy theories, we would have to invent him.

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).

I am not sure you know what a contract is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

When you get bail, a man with a gun says "Pay up or I will chain you up."  A contract require "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Mutual_assent" and I'm sure you will agree with me that "mutual assent" is totally lacking from a bail arrangement.  Its also lacking from payment of fines where the man with the gun also says "Pay up or I will chain you up."

Maybe if you stop trying to reinterpret these things as contracts and accept them as acts of governance, it will make the legal process easier to understand.

[Bind]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=179368

Good old David Icke.  If we didn't have such a fine creator of conspiracy theories, we would have to invent him.

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).

I am not sure you know what a contract is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

When you get bail, a man with a gun says "Pay up or I will chain you up."  A contract require "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Mutual_assent" and I'm sure you will agree with me that "mutual assent" is totally lacking from a bail arrangement.  Its also lacking from payment of fines where the man with the gun also says "Pay up or I will chain you up."

Maybe if you stop trying to reinterpret these things as contracts and accept them as acts of governance, it will make the legal process easier to understand.

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.

[Hawker]

...snip...

I am not sure you know what a contract is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

When you get bail, a man with a gun says "Pay up or I will chain you up."  A contract require "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract#Mutual_assent" and I'm sure you will agree with me that "mutual assent" is totally lacking from a bail arrangement.  Its also lacking from payment of fines where the man with the gun also says "Pay up or I will chain you up."

Maybe if you stop trying to reinterpret these things as contracts and accept them as acts of governance, it will make the legal process easier to understand.

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.

An agreement where one person has a gun and will use it if the other person does not agree is not a contract.  Read it up.  

You are confusing yourself if you think that a judge who sets bail conditions is entering a contract with you.  He doesn't ask your agreement and even if you don't want bail, you get kicked out.

EDIT: you may be referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Released_on_recognizance which is an agreement you enter into?  Its one form of bail where you don't need someone to put up security.  Breach of the bail conditions is not considered a breach of contract

[Minsc]

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

I watch all these freeman videos on the internet.  Freeman are using their own unique legal theories that vary from one to the other.  And they're just words.  What matters is whether a judge will back them up.  If you can get a legal precedent than the judge will have to back it up, but they don't do that.  They just interpret the law themselves and do things like interpreting "understand" as "stand under" which the court doesn't do.

Freemen would do better forming political parties and electing politicians that serve their interests.  Also they need to form legal assistance groups to find out what actually works in court, it's not right or wrong, it's what you can get the judges to agree with.

[Bind]

An agreement where one person has a gun and will use it if the other person does not agree is not a contract.  Read it up.  

You are confusing yourself if you think that a judge who sets bail conditions is entering a contract with you.  He doesn't ask your agreement and even if you don't want bail, you get kicked out.

EDIT: you may be referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Released_on_recognizance which is an agreement you enter into?  Its one form of bail where you don't need someone to put up security.  Breach of the bail conditions is not considered a breach of contract

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?

[Hawker]

An agreement where one person has a gun and will use it if the other person does not agree is not a contract.  Read it up.  

You are confusing yourself if you think that a judge who sets bail conditions is entering a contract with you.  He doesn't ask your agreement and even if you don't want bail, you get kicked out.

EDIT: you may be referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Released_on_recognizance which is an agreement you enter into?  Its one form of bail where you don't need someone to put up security.  Breach of the bail conditions is not considered a breach of contract

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?

You are all over the place logically.  "The state does not care if you agree to surety requirements at all, so there is no force, no coercion, and no ambiguity"

In simple terms, if you don't do what they say, they kill you or lock you up.  That is coercion.  There is no definition of coercion that is not covered by a man with a gun saying "Do as I say or I shoot."

So please stop calling that a contract.

[Bind]

You are all over the place logically.  "The state does not care if you agree to surety requirements at all, so there is no force, no coercion, and no ambiguity"

In simple terms, if you don't do what they say, they kill you or lock you up.  That is coercion.  There is no definition of coercion that is not covered by a man with a gun saying "Do as I say or I shoot."

So please stop calling that a 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.

[Hawker]

You are all over the place logically.  "The state does not care if you agree to surety requirements at all, so there is no force, no coercion, and no ambiguity"

In simple terms, if you don't do what they say, they kill you or lock you up.  That is coercion.  There is no definition of coercion that is not covered by a man with a gun saying "Do as I say or I shoot."

So please stop calling that a 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.

Agreement under duress is not a contract.  Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

[Bind]

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.

[Hawker]

Someone who enters into a bail contract is not under duress. You might feel that you under duress, ...snip...

There is no such thing as a bail contract.

This is getting sad.  Please read a little law before making posts like that.

[Bind]

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

[Hawker]

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

Ah very clever.  You deleted your post saying there was a contract.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49109.msg592587#msg592587

Luckily I quoted you   Otherwise it would get confusing wouldn't it?

[Bind]

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

Ah very clever.  You deleted your post saying there was a contract.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49109.msg592587#msg592587

Luckily I quoted you  Otherwise it would get confusing wouldn't it?

Not quite, son, but nice try at trying to divert attention away from yourself.

we already went through this...

...snip...

right, because police never unlawfully intimidate.

for all we know this guy is being intimidated ... the police cant even answer the question of what he';s being charge with or for. For all we know this sovereign never rescinded, severed, or removed himself from existing contracts with the state that allows them to hold statute over his head ... we just do not know. Not enough information to do anything but guess. I see a rational calm man being oppressed and telling the cops they are acting unlawfully.

http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-2875189.html

He was charged with driving without insurance.  He was convicted of it and paid a fine to avoid jail. 

You really should read the article. 

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

  Now your reply makes more sense. 

and you know it ... or did you forget your acknowlegement ?

it was about another thread entirely.

I have been ramming home bail is a contract for days now.

the question remains ....

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

[Hawker]

Its the duress means there CANNOT be a contract. 

[Bind]

Its the duress means there CANNOT be a contract.  

ok so I am sitting in jail.

my attorney comes in with some  paperwork for my divorce preceedings ... a contract.

I am under duress from being in jail, does that make my contract I just signed for something else entirely, void because of the duress ??

thats what you are saying.

where is the compulsion by threat, force or coercion ?

let me quote the facts for you again.

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.

please ... just call the courthouse information office ... or a bail bond agent.

I will give you one out .. I will admit that a contract might be unenforceable if someone was under enough mental anguish and could be found to be mentally incapable of entering into a contract, if proven by a competent medical professional. But that wouldnt relate to bail I am affraid... unless you admit being in jail was the better alternative. You would be argueing TO be put back into jail.

[Hawker]

If bail were a contract, the prisoner would be able to breach it any time he wants and get his surety back simply by saying "I was under duress."

[Bind]

If bail were a contract, the prisoner would be able to breach it any time he wants and get his surety back simply by saying "I was under duress."

You can not get out of a contract by simply claiming duress. You need to prove duress to the court by "a preponderance of evidence".

Bail agreements have been around for hundreds of years and I know of no cases where duress was sucessfully used to disolve that agreement.

[Minsc]

You can not get out of a contract by simply claiming duress. You need to prove duress to the court by "a preponderance of evidence".

Bail agreements have been around for hundreds of years and I know of no cases where duress was sucessfully used to disolve that agreement.

You feared rape?

[Minsc]

I found legal precedents that freeman arguments don't work in court.  http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp

[Bind]

I found legal precedents that freeman arguments don't work in court.  http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss1.asp

Let me get this straight. You are using the propaganda arm of the world zionist movement to solidify your negative theory about the Freemen ?

Go do some historical research on the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

Did you research the cases listed or are you taking the ADL's word for it ?

I will be the first to admit most Freemen dont do things right. The biggest problem they have is not disolving existing and past contracts they have/had with government, the existance of which gives the consent to govern them and make statutes apply to them. If you got a social security number, you are taxable. A social security number is voluntary and you can get it severed from your identity. The tax code states its a voluntary tax.

I would bet every one of those cases, if they are real and if they are indeed Freemen, either didnt follow proper proceedure (even though substance is SUPPOSED to rule over form), or had existing contracts with government that allowed them jurisdiction over them.

I'll check them out in the next few days though.

Thanks for posting it.

By the way, if you do things right you are no longer a citizen of the corporation of the United States of America. You would be a free sovereign man on the land.

[Hawker]

If bail were a contract, the prisoner would be able to breach it any time he wants and get his surety back simply by saying "I was under duress."

You can not get out of a contract by simply claiming duress. You need to prove duress to the court by "a preponderance of evidence".

Bail agreements have been around for hundreds of years and I know of no cases where duress was sucessfully used to disolve that agreement.

That would be because a bail agreement is not a contract.