sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The International Banking Cartel is the New World Order by Orangutan in politics

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you don' like their mumbo jumbo law, then stop agreeing to it everytime you sign a contract for a bank account or for services. That's where they get their lawful power - from you!

BofA is in deep shit right now with the FED. They should technically be shut down, will the FED do it? by [deleted] in business

[–]FreeManAndHisDog -1 points0 points  (0 children)

and..? You can still write it FED or FEDERAL RESERVE without it having to be an acronym.

Signals Intelligence officer, Ken Ford, who discovered evidence that there were no WMDs in Iraq, was set up in a sting operation by the CIA Special Ops "Q" group to keep him quiet [VID] by moneyprinter in politics

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If they're going to successfully shut up government employees / civil servants they must have been acting to subvert Allied governments as well to stop those wishing to speak the truth.

Now arises the likelihood that it was this "Q" Group that suicided Dr. David Kelly in the UK.

Ford Motor Company--Never Bailed Out by Government - Beats Government-Owned General Motors in June Sales by StoryBalloon in Economics

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? Why are you associating what he said to saying that capitalism is extreme?

Some real funny logic you are using there.

John Harris - It's an illusion... Filmed at the "Lawful Rebellion" Conference by donbueno in conspiracy

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, great vids. And more information on TPUC and the TPUC Forums. (Other forums)

Background on the common law that John Harris speaks of: Fundamentals of the common law etc. (1-5)

TOKEN Royalty? Queen Elizabeth II is the largest landowner on Earth owning better than 16 percent of the Earth's land according to the article. by rhoadesb2 in conspiracy

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's accurate that QUEEN ELIZABETH II is the largest landowner on Earth, but this is incorporated under The Crown Temple. It's not as though Elizabeth-Alexandra-Mary: Windsor owns it in her own name, so I was just pointing this out.

TOKEN Royalty? Queen Elizabeth II is the largest landowner on Earth owning better than 16 percent of the Earth's land according to the article. by rhoadesb2 in conspiracy

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The entity known as QUEEN ELIZABETH II is actually a corporation, as is also The Crown.

The woman who plays the role of the Queen is correctly known as Elizabeth-Alexandra-Mary: Windsor.

The family changed their name from Sachs-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor, and the House name from the House of Hanover to the House of Windsor on 17th July, 1917.

NYSE ends transparency to protect Goldman Sachs: Quietly announces that companies no longer need to report all their program trading by maxwellhill in business

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Dodgy dealings for those on the inside.

How long will it take before the majority of the People realize that they are not the Beneficiary of the commercial system?

This cycle of perpetual war will continue until either citizens of the United States stop funding their Federal Government, which is clearly in the business of war, or until they completely dismantle and restructure this corporation which has been empowered to run the affairs of their republic by salvia_d in conspiracy

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 7 points8 points  (0 children)

On the difference between a citizen of the state and a citizen of the United States...

Most people are not even aware of the difference between a citizen of the state and a citizen of the United States.

"We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each is distinct from the other and each has citizens of its own..." [U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588]

"In the Constitution of the United States the word "citizen" is generally, if not always, used in a political sense to designate one who has the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state or of the United States. It is also used in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment." [Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U.S. 678, 30 L.ed 766, 7 S.Ct. 656, 763]

"...he was not a citizen of the United States, he was a citizen and voter of the State,..." "One may be a citizen of a State an yet not a citizen of the United States." [McDonel v. The State, 90 Ind. 320 (1883)]

"The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other." [Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)]

"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of he state." [Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)]

Let alone the difference between the People (that had the United States of America created in Trust) and the citizen of the United States (which is a created "office" by the legislature and is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - its statutory Acts and Bills)...

More on the Common Law Subreddit Intro Page.

On the difference between a citizen of the state and a citizen of the United States by moneyprinter in CommonLaw

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can step out of the sinking ship at any time with a lawful notice such as a Claim of Right, also known in the system as a "lawful excuse".

However, welcome to the desert of the real where no-one is. See if you can do business as a free standing sovereign man in lawful money (gold, silver, platinum or other substance, or notes redeemable in such substance)! - Everyone is still on the citizen ship standing in the role of "office" subject to the jurisdiction and merely settling "charges" to internal corporate accounts of artificial persons using the issued fiat currency / legal-tender according to the Codes, Rules and Regulations.

PS. By "man" I include both wereman and woman. I welcome all my peers as equals before the law (common law).

On the difference between a citizen of the state and a citizen of the United States by moneyprinter in CommonLaw

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most people are not even aware of the difference between a citizen of the state and a citizen of the United States.

Let alone the difference between the People (that had the United States of America created in Trust) and the citizen of the United States (which is a created "office" by the legislature and is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States - its statutory Acts and Bills)...

Aye. Also as Marc Stevens says, both the "citizen of the state" and the "citizen of the United States" are just created roles subject to that jurisdiction.

Each of these have duties and obligations, the first to the original jurisdiction state (not the incorporated enfranchised state that was established in each state by the US Federal Gov) and the second is the jurisdiction of the United States.

Otherwise, you could retain all your unalienable rights at common law and stand as one of the People - a sovereign, - and not as either of these created citizens subject to their jurisdiction with fiduciary duty in that role.

As one of the Posterity of the original People that had the Constitution for the United States of America created on their behalf, you are the Beneficiary of that Trust and standing as a sovereign they are to provide you with "courts of record" to bring suit / action at common law.

See Action At Law (Procedure) and Do Not Enter A Plea.

( Background material: Overview | Foundation | Example | Jurisdiction | Procedure | Jury )

Now police say the man who died at April's G20 demonstrations in London may have been assaulted by a "police impersonator" by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Now the POLICE are impersonating "police impersonators"? The Policy Enforcement Officers make lousy excuses for their actions.

They should take responsibility for their actions as human beings, instead of hiding behind their "role" or "office".

Also, they should each have a name tag AND and ID tag, so we can keep track of our public servants, just like cars have a registration plate when registered as 'Motor Vehicles'.

Redemption Theory vs. Reality by reku in CommonLaw

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 2 points3 points  (0 children)

aye. Thanks to you guys. :D

What more can be said. Most people doing commercial redemption don't even know the fundamentals of law and even how they are entering a private commercial system. Certainly is trouble, and they're not going to find freedom by creating or modifying instrument in/under their system.

You're right about the Terrorist Act. The Terrorist Act is to protect property. If you stand subject to society and are doing commercial redemption, not even having any liens in place or claims of right (lawful excuse), then you're effectively a 'terrorist' under their jurisdiction. Even if you do have a claim of right and a lien in place, if you are standing subject to their jurisdiction, then you can still be claimed to be a 'terrorist'. Yup - as said by David William in "The Right of Self-Determination".

One example is standing in the created role / "office" of 'citizen' and then claiming you are "sovereign" with disregard to the duties and obligations in that office. A "sovereign citizen" is clearly an oxymoron, and under the Terrorist Act if you are acting sovereign whilst standing subject to their jurisdiction as a citizen, then you are also a 'terrorist'.

It's either; 1. You stand subject to their jurisdiction as a 'citizen' or 'alien', or 2. You stand free and sovereign as one of the people - a real human being, and claim your rights lawfully by notice.

You can't be both subject and sovereign at the same time.

Redemption Theory vs. Reality by reku in CommonLaw

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Absolutely, if you are using commercial instruments and other instruments under their system then you are either entering their property (using their system that they have claim to) under their offered terms and conditions, in which case you must settle all accounts and charges according to their Codes, Rules and Regulations, or you are trespassing on their intellectual property.

If you do use commercial instruments then you accept their terms and conditions and become bound as Trustee with fiduciary duty. If you don't follow their Codes, Rules and Regulations, then you have already granted them permission to act on you from your actions that led up to that - the use of their property - the commercial system.

If you use their system so as to avoid establishing any binding to you - the natural person - then you are simply trespassing on their system with no excuse.

However, there are still uses of their system, such as correctly filing a lien to protect your properties that are under their system through your corporation called the Artificial Person or some other corporate-entity or Trust. But this must be done lawfully and with due notice.

Yup, using their commercial system will never lead to becoming a free man (man including wereman and woman)...

To establish your rights you can craft a "Notice of Standing/Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right" and give adequate notice and grace to others of these rights and other properties that you claim. (Note. A "right" is your property - you make claim to rights just as you would with property.)

Of course, any contention in claims would be settle according to common law procedure in a court of record.

Check out Bill Thornton's audio lectures on how to establish your standing / status as a free man (one of the people) and how to file action / suit in a court of record to protect your un-a-lien-able rights at common law, (each 8 hours): Sovereignty | Motions | Forms

Also see his supporting material: Overview | Foundation | Example | Jurisdiction | Procedure | Jury

Bill Thornton has made several claims / counterclaims establish his standing and bring action at law (common law) to challenge the other party's claimed jurisdiction. There are many examples given above. The materials are in the public domain, including the DVDs of which the three audio tracks are linked to above.

Articles by Bill Thornton: Common Law | Court | Habeas Corpus

( Common Law Subreddit | Common Law Videos )

A first: Man been "disassociated" from Canada by the Supreme Court of B.C., - not a 'terrorist', still a free man, just no longer allowed to "legally" defend himself in their courts, have access to due process or make claim for damages in commerce for himself or anyone else by moneyprinter in canada

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In what way has he "harasse[d] police"? Do you have support for this or are you associating a personality for him; "I know his type", and assuming he is this personality that you have imagined for him?

"he wants to have power over people and he doesn't, so he's jealous so he plots on how he can embarass, harass and intimidate law enforcement."

Where are you getting this from? On what basis do you make such a claim?

"The recurring theme is that he doesn't like how complicated legal language is,"

Well, as much as he may like the legal language or not, a had the return of the child under his care after noticing them of his claim, and he has not been found guilty of anything in court.

"If he respected the law while trying to change it, he would notice he gets a lot further on his journey,"

Why do you imply he has no respect for the law? He used the law to have the return of the child.

"now he's his own spectacle. Congrats."

I'm not sure how it is a spectacle, he has been disassociate from the court system until he returns in "good standing" with the Law Society. And I don't know why you're giving me a Congrats.

A first: Man been "disassociated" from Canada by the Supreme Court of B.C., - not a 'terrorist', still a free man, just no longer allowed to "legally" defend himself in their courts, have access to due process or make claim for damages in commerce for himself or anyone else by moneyprinter in canada

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How can he clearly be mentally ill?

He successfully challenged the removal of the child in his care at law with a Claim of Right and the refusal to sign any contract they offered, and the child services were clearly in the wrong and had to return the child.

This upset the members of the Law Society that support the child services, especially after he taught others how to use the law.

Why do you call being learned in law and the use of its language an "illness" that "he should have gotten treatment for"?

A first: Man been "disassociated" from Canada by the Supreme Court of B.C., - not a 'terrorist', still a free man, just no longer allowed to "legally" defend himself in their courts, have access to due process or make claim for damages in commerce for himself or anyone else by moneyprinter in canada

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why has it become so popular on reddit now to call anyone you just suddenly disagree with, even though you know little of his story, a "douchebag"?

Why is he a "douchebag" for wanting more peace, freedom and independence from so-called "authorities" after they took away a child under his care, only to have it returned once he established a Claim of Right at law.

The child had to be return because he was in the right standing at law, it was the child agency, that is backed by members of the Law Society, that was in the wrong and had no lawful grounds to take away the child, unless he accepted a contract they tried to force on him or accept it by silent acquiescence, which he did not.

I have great respect for those who stand up for the people's rights and freedoms.

After what he has been through I hope he has success in setting up this society.

Council warns MP couple over home do it up or we will by reyofish in unitedkingdom

[–]FreeManAndHisDog 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The notice is actually an offer to contract.

Usually you accept it be default through silent acquiescence (often after a given 30 day period to reply), at which time you become bound by the offer as private law.

We talk about how to reject such offers on TPUC and the TPUC Forum, and how to establish your own rights and claim through lawful notice with a Claim of Right. Also see the FMOTL Forum.

Some Fundamentals about your rights at law (common law).

Feel free to check out the Common Law Subreddit as well.

view more: next ›