Freeman-on-the-Land

kamana

From what I can gather (I'm new to this) courts operate under maritime law or contract law. Flesh and blood humans are supposed to operate under common law, which is not to harm anyone or property and not to enter into fraudulent contracts. (ish)
Do we knowingly give up our common law rights when we go to court or are we tricked into it. At what point do we lose common law?
Any help please.....?

dats_right

kamana wrote: »

From what I can gather (I'm new to this) courts operate under maritime law or contract law. Flesh and blood humans are supposed to operate under common law, which is not to harm anyone or property and not to enter into fraudulent contracts. (ish)
Do we knowingly give up our common law rights when we go to court or are we tricked into it. At what point do we lose common law?
Any help please.....?

Your question makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The main sources of law under which the Courts operate in this jursidiction are: 1) the Constitution which takes precedence over all other laws (except EU); 2) Legislation; 3) EU laws; 4) Common Law i.e. Judge made law.

kamana

What is Common Law?
It's the "law-of-the-land". And the Grand Deception starts when you do not realise the implications of the apparently insignificant word "land". And the very real difference between "the land" and "the sea". There is "law-of-the-sea". It's sometimes called Maritime Law. Or Admiralty Law, and so on. Other terms, meaning the same thing, are Civil Law, Commerce Law, Fleet Law, etc. Statutes are the "law-of-the-sea" and, if you committed the (apparent) violation on dry land, then you are only subject to the law-of-the-land. And the only "law-of-the-land" is Common Law. Statutes, passed by any Parliament, are the "law-of-the-sea"


from Veronica Chapmans' website


When I started reading this stuff I thought it sounded a little loopy. It goes against everything we were led to believe but if there is common law how can its protection be taken away without your consent?

Quaver

links please?

Sounds like complete bull to be honest.

r14

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

Might make things a bit clearer for you. Whatever that woman wrote is completely off the wall. Years ago there was a separate branch of Admiralty Courts that dealt with the law of the sea but they diminished in importance and their function has been absorbed by other jurisdictions.

The primary law of the land is the Constitution followed by legislation. The "Common law" is judge made law that slots in after these. A judge can never make law which contradicts legislation or the constitution.

The Common law is so called because it is a law common to all the people who live in the land. This distinguishes it from pre-common law days where each individual community had their own separate laws. While it is called the law of the land this doesn't in any way mean that it is superior to legislation or that the parliament can only legislate for the sea (what use would that be).

Just googled that Veronica Chapman and she really does seem like a looper.

Lesson here is don't believe everything you read on the internet... unless it's written by me

r14

http://www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel

I'm saying nothing but :eek:

kamana

r14 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/TheFreemanChannel

I'm saying nothing but :eek:

hahaha I know.. I saw that channel as well and he looks like a nut job but I'm still looking into it.

here's a few more links

http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/WFS/ThinkFree.html

http://www.tpuc.org/Common-Law

dermot_sheehan

What i think the original poster is getting at is that Common Law acts in personam and Admiralty acts in rem.

For example in an Admiralty action you can "arrest" a ship, take a case against the ship for a debt owedand have it sold to pay the debt.Admiralty historically was international maritime law and different from the legal system applicable away from tidal waters.

Common Law governs generally though today. Admiralty actions survive and the High Court of Ireland has the admiralty jurisdiction that previously existed prior to the enactment of the constitution. For a case to be an admiralty case though it must involve ships (for example I know of PIAB refusing to give an assessment for someone injured on a yacht in a port since it was an admiralty case and not a personal injuries action). This fact nicely turned a circuit court personal injuries case into a high court admiralty one.

kamana

thanks for the input lads. Following on from this , is it true what the likes of Rob Menard and Mary Elizabeth Croft say about the person? That a man or woman is not a person but they have a person, much the same way that paperwork creates a company, birth certs create a person?

dermot_sheehan

No, the certificates are just evidence that a certain event occured.

A companies incorporation certificate is conclusive evidence of the fact that a company was lawfully incorporated under the companies acts section 19 companies act 1963 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1963/en/act/pub/0033/sec0019.html#zza33y1963s19)


A birth certificate is presumptive evidence that a person with a particular name was born on a particular day
section 68 civil registration act 2004
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0003/print.html#partviii-sec68

maidhc

gabhain7 wrote: »

What i think the original poster is getting at is that Common Law acts in personam and Admiralty acts in rem.

You are not surely suggesting actions in rem only apply to the law of the sea?!?

kamana

when a birth is registered what exactly does that mean? what is the legal definition of register? is ownership given up?

Quaver

ownership given up???

Registering a birth is simply registering that you were born and the facts surrounding this. See:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/registrar_birth_marr_death

kamana

Quaver wrote: »

ownership given up???

ya i know it sounds kinda "nurse nurse he's out of bed again" but when something is registered is title handed over?

Quaver

kamana wrote: »

ya i know it sounds kinda "nurse nurse he's out of bed again" but when something is registered is title handed over?

As in registering a house/car? It's more that you register the fact that a transfer has taken place and the house is now in your name. It's the transfer itself (be it by deed, contract whatever) that hands over ownership, not the registering of the transfer.

Seriously, where do you find this stuff?

kamana

Quaver wrote: »

As in registering a house/car? It's more that you register the fact that a transfer has taken place and the house is now in your name. It's the transfer itself (be it by deed, contract whatever) that hands over ownership, not the registering of the transfer.

Seriously, where do you find this stuff?

have a look at this..the music is a bit annoying though..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpqIHMdSNEs&NR=1

kamana

here's a good 'un http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eehm7orZy9E&NR=1

Quaver

kamana wrote: »

here's a good 'un http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eehm7orZy9E&NR=1

more suited to the Conspiracy Theories forum methinks?:p

windofchange

kamana wrote: »

What is Common Law?
It's the "law-of-the-land". And the Grand Deception starts when you do not realise the implications of the apparently insignificant word "land". And the very real difference between "the land" and "the sea". There is "law-of-the-sea". It's sometimes called Maritime Law. Or Admiralty Law, and so on. Other terms, meaning the same thing, are Civil Law, Commerce Law, Fleet Law, etc. Statutes are the "law-of-the-sea" and, if you committed the (apparent) violation on dry land, then you are only subject to the law-of-the-land. And the only "law-of-the-land" is Common Law. Statutes, passed by any Parliament, are the "law-of-the-sea"


from Veronica Chapmans' website


When I started reading this stuff I thought it sounded a little loopy. It goes against everything we were led to believe but if there is common law how can its protection be taken away without your consent?

Oh dear...dear me.

"Statutes are the "law-of-the-sea".

Only if passed by lizards, who live in the sea. This is beyond moronic.

The internet is ruining the world. Well, not really, but you just know some poor person may have put something like this down on an exam. Ouchy.

kamana

windofchange wrote: »

Oh dear...dear me.

"Statutes are the "law-of-the-sea".

Only if passed by lizards, who live in the sea. This is beyond moronic.

The internet is ruining the world. Well, not really, but you just know some poor person may have put something like this down on an exam. Ouchy.

to dismiss something without understanding it will lead to a lifetime of ignorance. i haven't spent very long looking into this lark but so far it seems to stand up. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7678707764082656820

i don't think some poor person would have put it down on an exam because the law society wouldn't teach it in the first place, so they wouldn't know about it.
i threw this into legal discussions even though i realised it would sound nuts and no-one would have heard about it but if it is loopy how come stuff like this http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1328 is happening?

Quaver

kamana wrote: »

to dismiss something without understanding it will lead to a lifetime of ignorance. i haven't spent very long looking into this lark but so far it seems to stand up. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7678707764082656820

i don't think some poor person would have put it down on an exam because the law society wouldn't teach it in the first place, so they wouldn't know about it.
i threw this into legal discussions even though i realised it would sound nuts and no-one would have heard about it but if it is loopy how come stuff like this http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1328 is happening?

It doesn't stand up. These people are quoting laws and using literal meanings of words as they were 100+ years ago, it isn't relevant these days. It would not stand up in a courtroom, you might get away with it once for a minor offence, but would you really take that risk?

These people are more or less arguing that we shoudldn't be bound by the law, but have they ever thought of the consequences of living in a world where everyone tried this crap?

Milk & Honey

kamana wrote: »

but if it is loopy how come stuff like this http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1328 is happening?

What is the point of this. The case was remanded to Court 54. If the defendant does not attend it is likely that a warrant for his arrest will be issued,and when arrested he will be kept in custody until he can be brought before the court and asked to plead.He did not get away with anything. What will he do when he is in custody? He, according to himself, does not have a legal personality and so cannot make an Article 40 application.

kamana

I think partly this thread is about legal fiction. Can anyone can tell me if a legal fiction in your name is created when your birth is registered? How can I be registered for something without my consent? If you haven't heard about it then thats fine but it's a huge question.:P


Article 40 application.??

r14

kamana wrote: »

to dismiss something without understanding it will lead to a lifetime of ignorance. i haven't spent very long looking into this lark but so far it seems to stand up. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7678707764082656820

Anyone who knows anything about the law is dismissing this because it is utter nonsense. We can't understand it because it makes absolutely no sense. The people who are talking about this freemen on the land stuff keep going on about laws needing the consent of the governed. Guess what you do consent to the law passed by Parliament when you vote (and if you don't vote you give up your right to complain about the laws)

Milk & Honey wrote: »

What is the point of this. The case was remanded to Court 54. If the defendant does not attend it is likely that a warrant for his arrest will be issued,and when arrested he will be kept in custody until he can be brought before the court and asked to plead.He did not get away with anything. What will he do when he is in custody? He, according to himself, does not have a legal personality and so cannot make an Article 40 application.

+ 1.

That fellow who thought he scored a great victory by standing in court and arguing that he was not a person... WOW. If he fails to appear before the court that he insists he doesn't recognise he will be arrested. Refusing to recognise the jurisdiction of the court did not work for Saddam Hussein and it's not working for Karadzic. Just because you don't recognise the court doesn't mean society will let you escape without penalty. I'd love to be there the day he finds this out.

Also since he's not really a person he can't invoke Art 40 but you can just bet he'll spout up with clause 38 of the Magna Carta:
"No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him, except by the legal judgement of his peers or by the law of the land."

This group seem to be getting confused about the right of habeus corpus whcih can only be denied by the law of the land. Kamana - law of the land is not mentioned here as the opposite of law of the sea. It simply means the law in force in the country which includes the Constitution and legislation, both of which have a lot more democratic legitimacy than the Magna Carta has.

kamana wrote: »

I think partly this thread is about legal fiction. Can anyone can tell me if a legal fiction in your name is created when your birth is registered? How can I be registered for something without my consent? If you haven't heard about it then thats fine but it's a huge question.:P

Once again these people are confusing two issues. A person is a natural person no matter what. Your birth cert does not make you a person. You have all the rights and responsibilities of a human person upon birth. The birth cert is evidence of your birth. It is not necessary to register your birth cert in order to be a person (obviously).

A company is a legal person (very different) and you have to get a certificate of incorporation in order for the company to legally come into existence. There is no comparable requirement for a natural person.

No legal fiction is created in your name when you register your birth cert.

(btw Art 40 of the Constitution is the modern basis of habeus corpus)

Phew - rant over. Sorry for that just I watched some of those videos and the stupid things those people were saying really got on my nerves

kamana

r14 wrote: »

Once again these people are confusing two issues. A person is a natural person no matter what. Your birth cert does not make you a person. You have all the rights and responsibilities of a human person upon birth. The birth cert is evidence of your birth. It is not necessary to register your birth cert in order to be a person (obviously).

A company is a legal person (very different) and you have to get a certificate of incorporation in order for the company to legally come into existence. There is no comparable requirement for a natural person.

No legal fiction is created in your name when you register your birth cert.

You say that a person is a natural person no matter what but ....


person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

I don't know what more evidence of a birth is needed than the existence of a man? You also said ..


"No legal fiction is created in your name when you register your birth cert."
I didn't register my birth cert. It was done without my consent....:rolleyes:

Another question.What is the Law that requires people to stand in the courtroom when the judge comes in?? Has it to do with jurisdiction?

Bringing Saddam into it is a little over the top.:eek: ...The link I gave was to a lad in Dublin who declined to give a blood test or urine sample, there is no victim in that claim.

Back to consent.....I understand that the only government in Ireland is a representative one,
representation requires mutual consent and in the absence of mutual consent neither representaion or governance can exist.....

Quaver

kamana wrote: »

You say that a person is a natural person no matter what but ....


person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

I don't know what more evidence of a birth is needed than the existence of a man? You also said ..


"No legal fiction is created in your name when you register your birth cert."
I didn't register my birth cert. It was done without my consent....:rolleyes:

Another question.What is the Law that requires people to stand in the courtroom when the judge comes in?? Has it to do with jurisdiction?

Bringing Saddam into it is a little over the top.:eek: ...The link I gave was to a lad in Dublin who declined to give a blood test or urine sample, there is no victim in that claim.

Back to consent.....I understand that the only government in Ireland is a representative one,
representation requires mutual consent and in the absence of mutual consent neither representaion or governance can exist.....

Your posts hurt my head. Instead of reading up and doing research on these "legal theories", why don't you do some research and read up on other well-established (and in my view) correct legal principles.

r14

kamana wrote: »

You say that a person is a natural person no matter what but ....

person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages. (See: party, corporation)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

Natural person and a legal person are legal definitions. The definition you have given treats the two as if they are the same but they are not.

Got this from Osborn's Law Dictionary (9th ed)
Person: ... Persons are of two kinds, natural and artificial. A natural person is a human being; an artificial person is a collection or succession of natural persons forming a corporation.

kamana wrote: »

"No legal fiction is created in your name when you register your birth cert."
I didn't register my birth cert. It was done without my consent....:rolleyes:

It was done without your consent because you were a minor and incapable of consenting. Your parents obviously got your birth certified. It is simply a a form of evidence which the State uses to ascertain who you are. Useful if you want to get things like passports etc. If you don't want your birthcert/passport feel free to get rid of it but you might find it hard to get by without the State's help when seeking to travel/open bank accounts etc.

kamana wrote: »

Another question.What is the Law that requires people to stand in the courtroom when the judge comes in?? Has it to do with jurisdiction?

You just have to show the judge some respect because he is a representative of the justice system of the State which administers Justice in our name.

kamana wrote: »

Bringing Saddam into it is a little over the top.:eek: ...The link I gave was to a lad in Dublin who declined to give a blood test or urine sample, there is no victim in that claim.

Until the next time he drink/drug drives and kills somebody.

kamana wrote: »

Back to consent.....I understand that the only government in Ireland is a representative one,
representation requires mutual consent and in the absence of mutual consent neither representaion or governance can exist.....

You consent to the government by living in this society. As long as you use our justice system, seek our medical care and generally invoke the constitutional rights (privacy, freedom etc) that our society has decided to give you, you are a part of this society and bound by its rules.

Feel free to head off and try to start your own country on any bit of land not already owned by someone else (Don't think there are many left though).

You seem very interested in all this stuff so it might be a good idea to get a few books written by legal people dealing with the whole idea of the rule of law etc. I find Irish constitutional books aren't great on it but if you can get your hands on some French, British or US Constitutional books they really go into the whole theory behind government etc.

freefromgov

Milk & Honey wrote: »

What is the point of this. The case was remanded to Court 54. If the defendant does not attend it is likely that a warrant for his arrest will be issued,and when arrested he will be kept in custody until he can be brought before the court and asked to plead.He did not get away with anything. What will he do when he is in custody? He, according to himself, does not have a legal personality and so cannot make an Article 40 application.

Well now there Milk & Honey .......your not correct the judge was trying to remand this man ,whoever he is and he did not, this guy walked out of the court the Gardai did nothing to interfere with him...... Do you think they just forgot to take him as a prisoner on remand...?????

Quaver

freefromgov wrote: »

Well now there Milk & Honey .......your not correct the judge was trying to remand this man ,whoever he is and he did not, this guy walked out of the court the Gardai did nothing to interfere with him...... Do you think they just forgot to take him as a prisoner on remand...?????

He remanded him on bail, so the guy does get to walk free, and if he doesn't turn up in 7 days he will be arrested. He's not going to get away with refusing to take a blood/urine test because he interprets the law differently, if he doesn't like it, then move somewhere else.

freefromgov

r14 wrote: »

Anyone who knows anything about the law ( clearly not you )is dismissing this because it is utter nonsense( Ignorance is never a good replacement for wisdom ). We can't understand it because it makes absolutely no sense(to you perhaps, but then you don't seem to have had any cause to question). The people who are talking about this freemen on the land stuff keep going on about laws needing the consent of the governed. Guess what you do consent to the law( so do you think consent to be governed can be withdrawn ) passed by Parliament when you vote (and if you don't vote you give up your right to complain about the ( don't you mean Statutes )laws)

You are incorrect on so many levels my friend. You do not seem to comprehend the meaning of the word consent.
what you are describing is a catch 22 situation.....That is not consent.....
It is not even the shadow of the word consent.....




+ 1.

That fellow who thought he scored a great victory by standing in court and arguing(he did not argue...re-read the post) that he was not a person... WOW. If he fails to appear before the court that he insists he doesn't recognise he will be arrested. Refusing to recognise the jurisdiction of the court did not work for Saddam Hussein( actually thats not true. thats why they could not try him..thats why they had to return him.) and it's not working for Karadzic. Just because you don't recognise the court doesn't mean society will let you escape without penalty. I'd love to be there the day he finds this out( wow , thats just nasty dude).

Also since he's not really a person he can't invoke Art 40 but you can just bet he'll spout up with clause 38 of the Magna Carta: ( yet again you are incorrect. the Magna carta was for the barrons not the peasants and debtors - re read it and you'll see )
"No freeman (see the only freemen at the time were Barons so thats who the Magna Carta was referring to)shall be taken, or imprisoned, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed, nor will we go upon him nor will we send upon him, except by the legal judgement of his peers or by the law of the land."

This group seem to be getting confused about the right of habeus corpus whcih can only be denied by the law of the land. Kamana - law of the land is not mentioned here as the opposite of law of the sea. It simply means the law in force in the country which includes( look up the word includes in numerous law dictionarys you'll get a supprise I'll bet on it.) the Constitution( would that be the constitution of Ireland or the constitution for the land known as Ireland ) and legislation, both of which have a lot more democratic legitimacy than the Magna Carta has.



Once again these people are confusing two issues. A person is a natural person no matter what( really !!! well yet again if you take the time to look up these words in various new and old law dictionarys. Blacks, murdocks, bouviers etc, you'll see the word person refers to a man acting in a role and it is artificial. so you cannot have an artificial natural thing so the words Natural person is a misnomer). Your birth cert does not make you a person ( about time you said something correct) ( the cert is the PERSON ). You have all the rights and responsibilities of a human person upon ( do you mean berth )birth. The birth cert is evidence of your birth. It is not necessary to register your birth cert in order to be a person (obviously).

A company is a legal person (very different) and you have to get a certificate of incorporation in order for the company to legally come into existence. There is no comparable requirement for a natural person.

No legal fiction is created in your name when you register your birth cert.

(btw Art 40 of the Constitution is the modern basis of habeus corpus)

Phew - rant over. Sorry for that just I watched some of those videos and the stupid ( you seem to be a little intollerant of others I am happy to discuss anything you wish calling people stupid is only demonstrating to all that you are incapable of having a peaceful conversation )things those people were saying really got on my nerves ( well that is not the intention of those people , Perhaps you should look into your motives for posting the way you do)

Peace to you.

r14

Conspiracy theory anyone?

I do know quite a bit about the law and I think my interpretation is generally accepted by everyone on this site except you.

And consent to be governed can be withdrawn. Go out and organise a campaign to bring in a new Constitution to govern the country the way you want. Don't think you'll get much support tho.

This freeman stuff is nonsense. If you believe it that is fine but try to back your points up with some legal arguments. If you just want to make strange claims without justifying them there are other forums you can post on that might be more appropriate.

freefromgov

r14 wrote: »

Conspiracy theory anyone?

I do know quite a bit about the law and I think my interpretation is generally accepted by everyone on this site except you. ( I believe you are incorrect I will accept your position if you can provide any proof to back up what you claim I made no claims except the claim which is my belief after much study of the magna Carta ,please re-read my post's)

And consent to be governed can be withdrawn:)( I am glad to see you believe this as I have withdrawn consent to be goverened, by any others. I opperate according to the Law of this land known as Brehon Law, It is good Law for me and I do no harm to any Living Man). Go out and organise a campaign to bring in a new Constitution to govern ( I have no desire to organise any new Constitution as I do not believe one is needed at all )the country the way you want. Don't think you'll get much support tho.

This freeman stuff is nonsense:(( So do you not believe in Freedom???if so then it is a sad day for a man to type such a thing). If you believe it that is fine but try to back your points up with some legal arguments ( I can back up all I have said through my own experiance in dealings with commercial entitys generally they don't wish to engage with me when i ask them some simple questions they don't appear to have answers for ). If you just want to make strange claims without justifying them there are other forums you can post on that might be more appropriate ( I could suggest the same to you, However I am still on topic I believe, and the original thread starter has yet to have any decent responses to any of his/her questions it is ye lot that are failing to answer not I. I have first hand knowledge that the concepts talked about by the likes of Mary elizabeth Croft and winston Shrout are Valid and correct in commerce, and they are lawful. I mean you no harm or disrespect, but sometimes things happen in life that cause one to question so called authority. I along with members of my family witnessed a Garda Lie in the witness stand ! at the time I knew very little of the law so I had to let it go , but my mother in law was so shocked she had to be assisted outside she just could not believe it when she witnessed a garda Lying under oath the judge at the time knew this and disregarded it . ) .

So peace to you and Godbless.

Aprilsunshine

You had a bad experience when a Garda allegedly lied and you blame the legal infrastructure and question the set up of the State - Why?

If you were to be attacked/raped/stolen from etc would you not participate in our society and report it with a view to prosecution of the perpetrator?

Opting out of society (in your own mind at least) surely means you cannot reap the benefits? What is your position on social welfare or public health care provided by the State? If you fall and injure yourself would you send the ambulance away because you do not support or recognise the State that funds it?

By rights you should compensate the state for whatever education you have received so far for free and any medical care.


Your beliefs are not tenable in real life.

freefromgov

Aprilsunshine wrote: »

You had a bad experience when a Garda allegedly lied and you blame the legal infrastructure ( I do not blame anyone or the system in place at the time,I was simply explaining how come I came to question the system in the first place, Then as I asked questions the answers never seemed to add up.) and question the set up of the State - Why? ( I am a very curious type of individual and I decided to find out where all these so called rules and laws that I had not agreed to could be applied to me, and I wished to know how come this came to be.)

If you were to be attacked/raped/stolen from etc would you not participate in our society and report it with a view to prosecution of the perpetrator? ( Well you may not be fully aware of the dual role that the Gardai opperate under, they are Peace officers and policy enforcement agents, the two roles are different and some of them do know this, Most of the population do not seem to know this. Peace officers are not supposed to act untill they witness a breach of the peace, Policy enforcement agents can act anytime they witness the policy of their corporation being breached, (( did you know that the garda siochana are a Company ?? registered on KOMPASS dot com as such.)) So anyway Peace officers opperate using common law, and policy agents Statutes.

Opting out of society ( there is no society at least not one that I am a member of Care to name it? )(in your own mind at least) surely means you cannot reap the benefits? ( When you become aware of the so called Benifits and what they cost in terms of freedoms and the loss of your childrens future, I doubt anyone would want them. For example going to jail is a benifit so is being taxed on your labour) What is your position on social welfare or public health care provided by the State? ( I am not anti- government I am anti corrupt government if a state could provide good health care for old and infirm I would be for it, but they do not seem to in general . Social welfare is not good it is stealing from our children under the present system, because the payments recieved are all borrowed from the ECB ( taxes do not pay for these thing BTW if you dont believe me then look up the National treasury management agency do some math and you'll see this is not possible from the funds recieved) so this is what is driving the economy down further. the whole Nation is and has been opperating under chapter eleven bankruptcy for many years now and it s at the end of the mathemathical curve . It is and always was un-sustainable. The money in circulation because it was borrowed has a debt attatched that can never be repaid. It's impossible ! but then the intention seems to have been ,never ,to repay it. You cannot pay a debt with another debt.)If you fall and injure yourself would you send the ambulance away because you do not support or recognise the State that funds it? ( the only thing of value in this world is the work pepole do.So if injured and they came to my aid no I would not turn them away they were free to begin with and due to a crafty deception they believe they are getting paid when in fact they are recieving debt for their efforts as are you most likely, I can pay them I have learnt how to do this I comprehend the commerce and I can provide them with what they need to have any charge ( even negative ) removed from one side of their bllance sheet to the other in order to settle the account. the State funds things with deeper debt. The so called powers that be when they signed up for the bretton woods agreement seventy or so years ago knew this would happen. So this is the remedy they provided. Its known as acceptence for Value.)

By rights you should compensate the state for whatever education you have received so far for free and any medical care. ( I recieved nothing for free as you say from the state in fact they are in debt to all of us for untold amounts. They borrow on our ability to perform labour in the future and they get to tax your revenue stream, this is what they use as value! thats why taxes always go up and up and up. if you like I can point you to where some of this information is available so you don't have to take my word for it.)



Your beliefs are not tenable in real life.

( well I can see why you believe this and I comprehend why you say so. However the system in place is failing all around you ,cant you see it?? it cannot possibly last .
There is a global awareness of these thing now and millions of people world wide are finding out about this information as I type this. So a change is comming one way or the other. As for me I am a peace loving man, I wish no harm to anyone ,and I will do no harm, I enjoy my life ,I work hard ( it keeps me in shape and I enjoy it ) even though I don't get paid. ......... so we'll see what happens I guess, anyway thankyou for reading my post and I bid you a good day........Peace love and light.....

freefromgov

Aprilsunshine wrote: »

You had a bad experience when a Garda allegedly lied ( oh and btw the Garda did lie under oath. I witnessed this myself, I was not offering heresay! ) and you blame the legal infrastructure and question the set up of the State - Why? (I have looked at your other posts and I have to say I believe you are trying to do good, this is admirable and I wish you well in the future, but this type of thing is going to come before you someday and to protect yourself and others you really should in my opinion do a bit of research on the subject, I would advise keeping an open mind as some of the info will go against the grain for you as you have not been taught a lot of this .....well perhaps not entirely true if you studied contract law then you have the basics but not the true nature of it.)
If any one of my assertions are correct then most if not all of yours will become incorrect...by default.

Victor

kamana wrote: »

thanks for the input lads. Following on from this , is it true what the likes of Rob Menard and Mary Elizabeth Croft say about the person? That a man or woman is not a person but they have a person, much the same way that paperwork creates a company, birth certs create a person?

Ah, so thats why newborns don't get done for exposing their persons.

kamana wrote: »

How can I be registered for something without my consent?

Your parents are doing it on your behalf. They are also legally obliged to do so, on child welfare grounds.

Personal consent is not necessary for everything. In a night club, would you only approach the women (or whatever you fancy) that had stickers saying "I consent to being approached and further consent to offers of drinks, conversation (polite or not-so-polite ), dancing, chips, over-night accommodation and/or romantic activities up to and including carnal knowledge"?

kamana wrote:

Article 40 application.??

Habeas corpus - they kill you and bring your body before the court.

kamana

Victor wrote: »

Ah, so thats why newborns don't get done for exposing their persons.

haha you could imagine the guards waiting in the delivery room, disgusted.
"Not now jimmy, not now...wait till they fill out the paperwork"...:D

Victor

kamana wrote: »

It's the "law-of-the-land".

"Law of the land" is an English-language term that means "law of the country" (or rather jurisdiction as councils and other sub-country entities are entitled to make laws).

freefromgov, I do not consent to you using red text and your lack of paragraphs. Its oppressive to read.

freefromgov wrote: »

I opperate according to the Law of this land known as Brehon Law

Feckin Celtic imperialists.

kamana

Victor wrote: »

Your parents are doing it on your behalf. They are also legally obliged to do so, on child welfare grounds.

I think you can see the problem. The first people that registered their kids in this country (or any country) have unwittingly set in motion a kind of self feeding system. When those kids grow up and have their own kids they find they are legally bound to register them, even though they didn't consent to be registered themselves in the first place. There is something just not right with that.

Someone earlier made the comparison about registering your car or house.
If your car is registered and if you don't pay tax on it, it can be impounded.
If your house is in the way of a new road then you will be slapped with a compulsary purchase order,
If you don't send your kids to school (or if you feed 'em marmite:eek:) then social services will bust in like the A-Team.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
If your house/car/kids are not registered with the state then how can they interfere?

Quaver

kamana wrote: »

I think you can see the problem. The first people that registered their kids in this country (or any country) have unwittingly set in motion a kind of self feeding system. When those kids grow up and have their own kids they find they are legally bound to register them, even though they didn't consent to be registered themselves in the first place. There is something just not right with that.

Someone earlier made the comparison about registering your car or house.
If your car is registered and if you don't pay tax on it, it can be impounded.
If your house is in the way of a new road then you will be slapped with a compulsary purchase order,
If you don't send your kids to school (or if you feed 'em marmite:eek:) then social services will bust in like the A-Team.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
If your house/car/kids are not registered with the state then how can they interfere?

I have no idea where you are going with this. Have a read of the Constitution, the State has to protect and vindicate the rights of all citizens, that's how they "interfere" when your child isn't getting a proper education/upbringing etc.

You are relying on laws that are hundreds of years old - Magna Carta has been more or less totally repealed at this stage.

darragh666

freefromgov wrote: »

I am glad to see you believe this as I have withdrawn consent to be goverened, by any others. I opperate according to the Law of this land known as Brehon Law, It is good Law for me and I do no harm to any Living Man

Im curious as to what you mean by this?

Victor

kamana wrote: »

Someone earlier made the comparison about registering your car or house.
If your car is registered and if you don't pay tax on it, it can be impounded.

If your car isn't registered, it will also be impounded. Also, who says its your car? You property thief. Property is theft.

If your house is in the way of a new road then you will be slapped with a compulsary purchase order,

Again, if the property isn't registered, it just means they have to do different paperwork, it doesn't stop an acquisition.

If you don't send your kids to school (or if you feed 'em marmite:eek:) then social services will bust in like the A-Team.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
If your house/car/kids are not registered with the state then how can they interfere?

Would you prefer this?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Italian-Josef-Fritzl-Father-Who-Locked-Up-Daughter-For-25-Years-And-Raped-Her-Is-Arrested/Article/200903415250605?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15250605_Italian_Josef_Fritzl%3A_Father_Who_Locked_Up_Daughter_For_25_Years_And_Raped_Her_Is_Arrested

Gu3rr1lla

Quaver wrote: »

ownership given up???

Registering a birth is simply registering that you were born and the facts surrounding this. See:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/birth-family-relationships/registrar_birth_marr_death

Why is it then we dont get the original document, instead we get a certificate? And why does it say INVALID on all birth certificates?

Gu3rr1lla

i think this is a good video for newbies by John Harris of www.tpuc.org http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=2608C0769A4D97C0

r14

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

Why is it then we dont get the original document, instead we get a certificate? And why does it say INVALID on all birth certificates?

Where does it say INVALID on the birth cert?

http://www.goballycastle.com/images/Irish%20Birth%20Cert_Healy_Thomas.jpg

Victor

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

Why is it then we dont get the original document, instead we get a certificate?

On a simple basis - "thems the rules". If you took the original, what would they be left with? And should they go rooting through millions of paper birth certs to get the original, when they could just bring it up on a computer or micro-fiche. What if someone loses their original / their house burns down?

And why does it say INVALID on all birth certificates?

Where does it say this? In what context?

Gu3rr1lla

Victor wrote: »

On a simple basis - "thems the rules". If you took the original, what would they be left with? And should they go rooting through millions of paper birth certs to get the original, when they could just bring it up on a computer or micro-fiche. What if someone loses their original / their house burns down?

Where does it say this? In what context?

The fine print, its in the background. Here is an example of one. On this one its in the bottom left. So how is it a serious offence to alter something that isnt even valid in the first place?

http://www.goballycastle.com/images/Irish%20Birth%20Cert_Healy_Thomas.jpg

Victor

That isn't very clear, so i can't comment. Why don't you ask the local registrar and come back to us?

Are you sure "INVALID" is the only text?

r14

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

The fine print, its in the background. Here is an example of one. On this one its in the bottom left. So how is it a serious offence to alter something that isnt even valid in the first place?

Just burn your birth cert and then leave the country. The rest of us are quite happy to live our conspiracy free lives and accept that the state was set up by us to pool our resources in taxes and provide services for the benefit of all. You don't have to share in those resources if you don't want to but if you live in our country you play by the rules of the majority.

If you think it's all a sham go out and campaign. Get the majority to back you and change the system.

If not I think the Arctic is still free from territorial claims, so feel free :cool: (that's you chillin' at the North Pole)

Gu3rr1lla

Victor wrote: »

That isn't very clear, so i can't comment. Why don't you ask the local registrar and come back to us?

Are you sure "INVALID" is the only text?

That's what im going to do thought i'd try here first.

this is the birth cert on close up just incase you missed it

Victor

Oh, I can just about make out what might say "INVALID", but its rather feint and I suspect ther eis more to it and that you aren't being completely honest with us.

Gu3rr1lla wrote: »

That's what im going to do thought i'd try here first.

But on the one you have, what does it say after "invalid"?

Doe sit say "Invalid if torn" or somesuch?