So what's it all about?

 

If you've read the rest of the information presented on FMOTL.com you should have the idea that it can all be summed up in one word 'commerce'. Statute 'law' is all about commerce. And contracts. And tricking you into contracts, such that Statutes can be used against you. And to hide/disguise the fact that The Law, the Real Law, Common Law, can protect you.

 

If you check this link, you will see that a UK citizen is worth (to the Government) about 34 million (+) in financial terms (January, 2009). If you murder someone then Common Law will be used to try you. If found guilty the sentence imposed will be commensurate NOT with the fact that you took another person's life (because 'there's no sentiment in business') - but that you have robbed the Government of 34 million. This is because while the trial will be based on Common Law (you caused harm to another human being), the sentence, the punishment, will reflect the commercial aspects.

 

Now, there is a hidden problem with Statues. One that very few people realise. If you check, you will find that the Government generally tack on the possibility of a prison sentence for Statute violation. But the courts rarely use it, in practice.

 

Now the reason why the possibility of a prison sentence is tacked on to the violation is the psychological effect it has. "I could go to prison for that" is great psychology.

 

The reason why this option is - if at possible - avoided is commercial. It costs money to keep people in prison. It costs money to build them, to staff them, to furnish them, to heat them to light them, etc.

 

In 1993, during the Poll Tax days, the cost was 2,500 per inmate, per week.

 

Now you know why, having spent 19 billion to implement it, just a few thousand of us brought it to its knees by going to prison ... and saying we'll continue to go as long as the Poll Tax is on the Statute Books.

 

Small numbers can move mountains, if they know what they are doing.

 

Don't ever be afraid to point out, to all and sundry, that there is a serious cost, per inmate, to keeping people in prison. And the 'taxpayer' always has to pick up the tab.

 

(By the way, 65% of the prison population are there 'on remand'. In other words charged, but not had their day in court)

 

The majority of people think that their taxes go to fund 'something to do with the name of the tax'. For example that 'Road Tax' funds the roads, and 'Council Tax' funds local infrastructure.

 

They think that fines (e.g. Parking Fines, Speeding Fines, etc) go to the Government.

 

This is not true. Not in the sense that these monies 'stay' with the Government.

 

If you recall from the 'Long Arm' article, the UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. All taxes and fines collected are used to pay off the INTEREST on previous International Monetary Fund/World Bank borrowings. (Note: The interest only ... the original loans can never be paid off. Far too much has been borrowed in the past)

 

That's why there are so many Statutes. The Government spends its time working out ways to tax you, by fining you for - what can only be considered to be - some of the most paltry things possible. The idea is to tax you as much as practically possible - without you realising that it is just another tax.

 

For example, it is now a Statute violation to hold an 'unlicenced' concert in a Church Hall. OK. What harm, injury or loss does an 'unlicenced' concert cause, in a Church Hall? A very temporary small amount of noise, maybe? Considered to be 'a breach of the peace', maybe? Well, if we are talking out 'breaches of the peace', what about Police Sirens? Or even Church Bells? Or Jetliners?

 

The idea is utter rubbish of course. Purely designed to collect money. It is an imprisonable 'offence', but you can be sure that they will fine the organisers, not send them to prison. Fining them collects money - to pay off the IMF INTEREST demands - imprisoning the organisers spends money.

 

Does this explain why all Governments do the same - or very similar - things once in office? When they never repeal all the legislation passed by any previous Government? The Poll Tax was THE, LAST, ONE BIG, EXCEPTION ... but then, it was so outlandish ... it went totally beyond the pale. The Poll Tax was too big a step for the creeping Totalitarian Tiptoe. They learned from that to keep the steps a lot smaller.

 

'Ang on! 'Ang on! 'Ang on! Could that be why rapists and paedophiles - people the public would love to see put away for a long, long time - quite often get a sentence that amounts to a 'slap on the wrist'? Although these lowlife have absolutely ruined another human's life, they haven't - generally - robbed the Government of 34 million +! And it costs money to keep them in prison! 

And could this explain why a 'life sentence' doesn't mean life (more often than not), and why parole is so easily on offer?

 

Steal a loaf of bread because your children are hungry, and the next thing you know there are calls for the introduction of Sharia Law!

 

Follow the money.

 

Once a Government gets into office - irrespective of any 'policy' and all Manifesto Pledges - they are faced with finding methods to pay back the IMF INTEREST. Whatever party you vote for, they will face the same problem. And there is only one way to solve the problem (as far as they are concerned) ... and that's to tax you, somehow, in such a way that you'll only bitch about it to your next door neighbour. (Or in on-line 'Commenting', under on-line so-called 'news' articles).

 

In other words, in such a way that you'll always blame 'the other lot'.

 

 

Further reading and research

 

There are two main schools of thought about all this. The first 'school' says 'stymie/stalemate everything, don't let them even get you into court'. The second says 'all courts are commercial, and by learning the ropes, you can have a lot of fun, and even make some money'.

 

The first method comes down to 'Freeman-on-the-land'. The second is known as 'Commercial Redemption'. It may be possible to enjoy a mixture of the two, but that is unclear (at least to me) at this time.

 

Both methods require the basic understanding of the situation, as explained as explained in the 'Long Arm' article.

 

However once the idea of the legal fiction PERSON is understood, and how it is used by the Judiciary, what you do about it splits into each method.

 

I'll try to describe these methods in basic terms, taking them in reverse order.

 

 

Commercial Redemption

 

Major proponents of the Commercial Redemption Method are Mary Croft and Winston Shrout. (There may be others)

 

Neither of these two people have - in my humble opinion - a clue how to explain anything. (Maybe you can say the same for me, I don't know). But what I do know is that reading Mary's book is very hard going. Similarly watching Winston's seminars is very painful. Due to a number of factors:

 

1) They don't know how to present. Much of the information is presented in reverse. In other words the roof is described before the foundations. (In one seminar the phrase 'wet signature' was used many times before someone had the commonsense to ask 'just what that meant'. It means handwritten, not rubber-stamped, photocopied, etc). 

 

2) The accent (e.g. a laid-back Serthern Draaaaawl) is hard to decipher (in Winston's case)

 

3) It is all about the united States or Canada. Obviously there are United Kingdom equivalents, but what are they? ("So near, yet so far"?)

 

However, in all cases, stern warnings are always given (by these proponents): "Don't do anything at all until you know exactly what you are doing".

 

Basically what these people are saying is that you can take control of your legal fiction PERSON. (Actually absolute control) And, if you take control of it, you can utilise it in your favour - by learning the game, and playing the game.

 

Now Mary's book is free (see link above). And good for her. But all Winston's stuff costs money. So one wonders if he is so good at fleecing the courts with his Commercial Redemption, and (as he says) he enjoys it so much, then why is it not possible to do his brethren a big favour and explain it without attempting to make a fast buck? (Hmmmm)

 

Take that, plus the stern warnings, and the time one would spend 'knowing exactly what one was doing' and, in my case at least, I think I pass.

 

Do I really want to spend time going down to courtrooms and watching what goes on, just to learn the ropes? And then go out and deliberately violate Statutes to test my knowledge (some you win, some you lose, but you gain experience). Is that what you want to do with your life? Well, I've got 'better' things to do, so I think I'll pass.

 

And I'll add something else. Personally speaking, as human being with a soul, I utterly reject the idea that I am associated with an 'fiction'. This is simply playing the utterly corrupt New World Order Commerce 'game'. And I, personally, will have no part of it if I can possibly help it. 

 

Yes. I pass.

 

(But good luck if you decide to go down that route)

 

 

Freeman-on-the-land

 

Fundamentally this consists of 'having as little as possible' to do with any of the corrupt New World Order 'game'. Generally by posing unanswerable questions back to robots. This creates a wall between the Freeman and the robot, causing a stalemate. This will create confusion within the robot. I'd rather confuse a robot than extract money from him.

 

It also satisfies my sensibilities. The robots are, in point of fact, engaged in treason. They just don't realise it. 

 

Personally speaking I would rather educate these robots back into non-treasonable human beings. Back to stark reality. I don't see how stark reality can be achieved by playing within the surreal of Commerce Law. I can't see how allowing the robots their 'surreality', and going along with it, will ever teach them anything. 

 

But that's just my twopen'rth. (I guess I was born to rebel)

 

 

 

Veronica: of the Chapman family

January, 2009