Magistrates Court Rips Up The Common Law

[pitano1]

just found this,seems i am right to doubt the integrity
of the alchemists/spell makers.

‘Human Being’, also known as “Human”, is a term deliberately created in the 16th Century to update the naming of perpetual slaves to the Lords of the Land from the 13th Century term “Serf”. Human is derived from two Latin words humi meaning “land, soil, country, on the ground” and anus meaning “rectum, (marriage/pledge) ring, old”. Hence the word Human literally means “married/bound to the land/earth” and Human Being legally means “land creature” also known as chattel – the idea mankind are cattle upon the “land” of the ‘owner’.

[Dreadlock]

Hi Pitano.

I certainly agree with you about the dodgyness of the word human. I found the following but have not verified or falsified the truth of it yet:

"The prefix "hu" (according to an earlier version of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) means, "like unto, but not quite the same"."

Hence human means: like a man, but not quite the same.

As for the word "person", it is not the same as the word "persona". There are subtle differences. A "person" may be a fiction or not, only the context in which it is used lets us know which. The use of the words "natural" and "artificial" are one way of supplying context. "Person" also implies that the man in question is part of a society, hence a hermit may not be a "person" but would still be a man. Being a man includes the right to determine for yourself whether or not you are part of a society and therefore also a "person". A man only becomes bound by the rules of a society if he so chooses and may at any time choose not to be so bound.

"Persona" pertains to characters or capacities of which one man (or natural person) may have many. For example I may be all of the following in varying circumstances, "father, son, prince, employee" etc. These would be my persona giving me different rights and responsibilities, duties and privileges. All of them are fictions, as are all persona. It would be incorrect to talk of a "natural persona", in the context of real versus fictional, as that would be a contradiction. It would be correct to talk of a "natural person" which could be a man or woman, boy or girl. "Persona" does not imply membership of a society, so a hermit could have many persona, be a man and not be a person.

Persona can be useful. Sometimes we choose to use them for the benefits and privileges that come with them, such as using a title such as "Mr" or "Prince". Use of title implies voluntary acceptance of a persona. Sometimes persona are granted to us by nature itself. If you are male and sire a child, you are a father whether you want to be or not and if you are alive or have lived, then you have no choice but to be, or have been, a son or daughter. In this context it would make sense to talk of a "natural" versus a "non natural" persona e.g. "father" v "prince"

Damn dude, you're making me think!

[pitano1]

hi dreadlock.

as far as the person `natural or otherwise`,most would find it impossible to
live without it.

so yes it is not always to our detriment to use it.

`but it is part of` or belongs to the control system..`the crown`/legalese.
this also applies to any title.

sooo.`if persons are not found in the real world,where are they to be found.?

dont know if you have read this.?

http://www.freedomfiles.org/extortion.pdf
if you have not it will really make you see the depth of
the deception.

pitano1

[Dreadlock]

Thanks for the link. For now I have just read the first two paragraphs of page 1 concerning "persons". I will read the whole document but it will take some time.

I think we agree that the word "human" is dodgy to say the least and that an artificial person is prima facie not anything like a man. The debate is about the relationship between a "natural person" and a man. The author says

The idea of there being a natural or artificial Persons being the same as a man created male or female by God is a fraud, for a Natural Person is a person, thus a fiction with some fictional attributes.

Going by the definition to be found in Black's, I don't think it can be said that a natural person is a fiction. A natural person must exist in the real world in order to be natural - any other interpretation is nonsensical. A natural person is no more or less than a man who has agreed to be bound by the rules and regulations of a society - it is the society which is fictional, not the natural person. It is necessary for a man, in society, to become a natural person for no man can do as he pleases without causing conflict with others. To do so would be to adopt the Luciferian doctrine of the likes of Aleister Crowley:

Do what thy wilt shall be the whole of the law

Clearly a recipe for disaster.

Now I am not denying the deception that has been perpetrated on the common man, by tricking them into using title without knowing what it means and forcing them into a society from the day they were born by deceiving their parents. And I absolutely abhor the unending statutes which make a mockery of the society in which we live and are there only to control the masses whilst protecting and increasing the wealth and power of the elite. But the problem, in my opinion, is not so much the system as it is the ignorance of the general public as to its workings. If the people were educated, the things which are wrong with the system, the monopoly on money production for example, would be forced to change and what would happen to magistrates courts if everyone knew the consequences of using title?

[pitano1]

hi dreadlock.

we have drifted way off topic.`sorry eilleen`.

as you mentioned society in your last post,i will open a thread
in general chat with that heading.

regarding the fact that `natural person`is found in `blacks law`.

if one uses ochams razor the only conclusion we come to is that
the whole book is artificial `made by man`for the betterment of
the elite.
the creator did not make the law `any`

regarding society.
hope to see you in general chat.

[Donfra]

Thanks again, Mog, for this prompt reply.

You sound as if you are further down the line than I am and I'd love to talk to you on Skype or by telephone to get the details of how you proceeded with getting a court date. Do you have a little time to spend telling me your story? I'd be very grateful. You can PM me if you wish and let me know.

In respect of getting them to pay for replies, I'd always presumed that the wording in Veronica's templates was strictly correct and so you can legitimately charge for your replies. It's just that I haven't a clue about how to go about collecting it. Is it not right then? Are the charges just to agg them up?

In respect of evidence, I exhausted all V's templates on the police and two courts, so I'd say there is plenty, if not an abundance of it. Not once did any of them ever address the questions and matters raised. They just ignored them and moved on.

You also speak of Veronica's latest video. I don't know where to find that. Any chance you (or anyone else) could let me have a link to it please?

Thanks very much for your interest, opinions and support. It really helps.

Cheers again.

Hi.

I have some degree of experience in this field, PM me and we can discuss.
Peace.

Levi

[Spannaman]

Hi, sorry to butt in, did I miss something? What was the outcome?

[cassandra]

Hi, sorry to butt in, did I miss something? What was the outcome?

The very start of this post says it all - "confused and seeking help". The battle cry of the freeman.

No, you missed nothing. The outcome was the usual futtering out of the freeman approach which went nowhere slowly. There are any number of such on this and other sites but worry not - you aint missed nothing there either.
Following templates is a stupid thing to do and the first post or two of this user shows it perfectly well - went in half trained with half knowledge and began something he/she did not understand and had absolutely no hope of finishing satisfactorily. As usual, greed makes people stupid and stupid people do stupid things.
While you fiddle with your half-assed freeman processes which do not work despite that idiot Dreadlock's continued propaganda and pure theory, untried by him and proven false by others - including me - you only take yourself deeper into debt while we are being sunk in the organised migration of primitive peoples flooding your country and whose intention is to utterly destroy your precious common law and replace it with dark age superstitions, oppression and violence. Idiots that you are.

After half a dozen years studying law, dealing with police, councils and bailiffs, making numerous court appearances in every jurisdiction from the magistrates to the Royal Courts of Justice and getting two injunctions against me; after having worked with the likes of Guy Taylor, John Hurst, Brian Gerrish, Roger Hayes, Musashi, Mike Sapper, Rob Bollox and helping organise the judge arrest in Birkenhead as well as working with Holly Greig and some others, I can state quite categorically that there is no remedy in court for us. They all now agree - except John Hurst (who is up again today in a council tax hearing) and who still thinks he can win something there. Good luck John!
Cassandra.

[pitano1]

hi. cassandra.
is this an allegation..... that idiot Dreadlock's continued propaganda and pure theory, untried by him.?

kind regards.
pitano1.
ps.
its a known fact....you catch more bee`s with honey...hmmm.

[cassandra]

hi. cassandra.
is this an allegation..... that idiot Dreadlock's continued propaganda and pure theory, untried by him.?

kind regards.
pitano1.
ps.
its a known fact....you catch more bee`s with honey...hmmm.

If you want to catch bees then honey is a good enticement. If, that is, you want to catch bees. It is, however, not the only way even if bees are what you are after. I am not. I said I brought a sword and I meant it. I'm not here to make friends. I'm here to wake you to the clear and present dangers you are blinded to by small copper coins held too close to your eyes.

A flat statement of fact that a man is an idiot is hardly an allegation. An allegation needs to be tested and proven. it is a statement of fact demonstrably proven and supported by his own continued argument in proposing untested theory as a definite fact when others have proven it many times to be false. By his own confession he has never been out there and tested his own ideas and argues against those of us who have and who have suffered as a result. All he has is theory which he has never once tested and it flies in the face of all our experience. That's idiotic. Has it not been said on this very site that to repeat the same thing over and over again and again and expect a different result is a sign of madness? At the very least it is a sign that the man is unwilling to learn from experience and that indicates either low intelligence or a deliberate programme to damage others. Those who delight in the suffering of others are not unknown to us. He may be one of them or he may just be an idiot. It may just indicate a damaged mind. That he continues to pump his untried-by-him-but-proven-false-by-others-theories out to new arrivals as fact is a deliberate act of violence to them. If he is not a government agent misleading and misdirecting people then he bloody well ought to be. He should be getting paid for the damage he does.
Ask yourself where V is. Ask yourself where the great Mary croft is, or the equally great Rob Menard. Where are they, these icons of the freeman? Have they secured their freedom? Have they finally found the template of templates and sorted it all out? I think not. Ask yourself where any of them are. I mean to say, they've had these freeman processes for a number of years, even wrote books on it, so why have they not gained theirs and our freedom? Bloody obvious, is it not? Where are all the old original freeman from this site? Where's Baldbeardydude, and Huntingross and Holy Vehm and Musashi and Treeman and so many others who've learned and moved on? They did all the original research and study. Where are they and what are they doing?
Cassandra.