A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman Concepts

[wanabfree]

A Criticism & Observation of the Freeman, Trust Law, Commercial Redemption Movements

Don’t get me wrong I am all for supporting and respecting those fight for what they believe in as truth, and justice, but when such people are indoctrinated into just another dogma, and they start honestly believing in it, and even start preaching it, then I am afraid I simply start to pity, and feel sorry for them.

After reading through some of the recent posts on the forum, I still can’t believe that there are people, both old veterans, and newbie’s still walking into court arguing the legal person/all caps name crap, and/or trying to invoke common law jurisdiction etc.

Like many people who got into this movement, I got taken in by the of the freeman methods, and like many people who tried to put it into practise, I got burned and had my properly either stolen or my money taken by force, I failed to appreciate the fact, that I was not dealing with people who were honourable, honest or to be frank could even be considered sane.

I was dealing with psychopaths, commonly referred to as bureaucrats they come in all shapes and sizes, some are worse than others, some are not even approaching being psychopaths, they are just frightened of losing their jobs, and not fitting in with the herd, and in turn you get whats called residual tyranny.

The Stanford and mailgram experiments showed us, just what people are like, when placed in such situations.

The freeman movement in my humble opinion has come full circle in many respects, and been proven to be flawed in practise, and the courts will not listen or play fair, just read the Meads vs. Meads case, like so many other movements that have come before it, the patriot movement of the early 90’s, various other so called libertarian groups, and even the many Gov-shill organised groups that have sprung up have all ultimately faded into propaganda history books.

For as long as people continue to come into this movement and believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit to logical fallacies, in defiance of truth, reason ,and good old common sense, that is why the “movement” has failed, and shall continue to do so, until we break the cycle.

The issue, that any of this has anything to do with contracts has been put to the test, more than once, and proven wrong, and we have documentary evidence to prove so, not to mention common sense, and reason leaves it self evident the entire concept is flawed, the obsession with “legal definitions” has been a great and successful tactic at diverting attention, from the truth, and in many aspects of the freeman concepts “an inconvenient truth”.

There are no magic words or notices, that will make a bureaucrat suddenly develop a conscience or want to behave honourably etc, so long as they can keep up their appearance of authority, and legitimacy they will continue to behave the same way, because they system is designed to operate exactly that way .

We live under a tyranny, it’s way past a time when we could have done anything to stop it, it’s already happened, and we are living it, if you’re going to continue to believe that bureaucrats will behave like adults, or take their oaths or claims to be public servants seriously, your seriously deluded yourself, and you cannot force them either. There are no magic words or pieces of paper, there is no common law, there is no justice under this system, they are just labels given to ideals bureaucrats have no interest in preserving or paying attention to, it would put them out of a job, just the same as the rules and regulations they create would do, and so the reason why they go ignored.

Enough people have been screwed over by using the pseudo-logical freeman, trust law, commercial redemption, patriot concepts, and I think the guru’s and people that promote, and encourage others to use it, should show some backbone admit they were wrong, and move on to something logical, realistic, and practical in the search for exposing our tyrants for what they truly are.

Please feel free to share your comments on my thoughts, but if you’re going to make any claims as to the success of these movements I would like to see some evidence, that proves a so called “win”, and the fact it is repeatable, at least based on an objective standing not a subjective one.

[musashi]

I am not unsympathetic. Any suggestions on how to proceed?

Musashi

[Mog]

I have come to the conclusion that they must be beaten with their own legislation, any act that has not been repealed is current and the law, act of the union, local government act, bill of rights and EU human rights to name a few. Everything they do that is unfair also appears to be unlawful, but more to the point illegal and against their rules, they like to ignore this but I feel we are left with little option but to forcefully argue the point in their courts and when they find against us we must appeal that there was a conflict of interest as everyone was working for the Crown. They must be forced to put us before a jury of our peers and insist that current legislation is the law and means what it says. No legal professional will help so the McKenzie friend may be an option, otherwise we are all going to have to become legal experts although many of you already know enough to wipe the floor with these legal aid muppets who purport to be solicitors.
Just my thoughts on the subject

[Dreadlock]

Define "win".

Dean Clifford recently spent a couple of weeks in jail but all proceedings against him were stayed. It was the Crown's way of not fighting a case they knew they would loose, without
having to admit defeat.

Is that a win? I'd say yes.

I'd have to disagree with Mog. Any act of Parliament is most definitely not law - they are just acts and no man is responsible for the acts of another, regardless as to how many numpties in Parliament are doing the acting. Current legislation is not the law and I don't give a toss what it says. As for juries, give me a break. The average Joe Bloggs doesn't have a clue about the things we talk about on this fourm - there's no way I'd want 12 brainwashed muppets deciding my fate. I'd rather deal with a bunch of corrupt judges who at least know and understand what is going on.

Though occasionally you can beat them at their own game, it is far better to refuse to play the game in the first place.

[wanabfree]

Define "win".

Dean Clifford recently spent a couple of weeks in jail but all proceedings against him were stayed. It was the Crown's way of not fighting a case they knew they would loose, without
having to admit defeat.

Is that a win? I'd say yes.

I'd have to disagree with Mog. Any act of Parliament is most definitely not law - they are just acts and no man is responsible for the acts of another, regardless as to how many numpties in Parliament are doing the acting. Current legislation is not the law and I don't give a toss what it says. As for juries, give me a break. The average Joe Bloggs doesn't have a clue about the things we talk about on this fourm - there's no way I'd want 12 brainwashed muppets deciding my fate. I'd rather deal with a bunch of corrupt judges who at least know and understand what is going on.

Though occasionally you can beat them at their own game, it is far better to refuse to play the game in the first place.

do I really need to define "win" ?, I thought it was self evident at least in layman’s terms what I mean when I ask for evidence of a "win" ?

I wondered if or when somebody would bring up the Dean Clifford show, and jump on the band wagon of “you see he won, they stayed the proceedings”?

for a start he was locked up for more than a couple of weeks, and granted it's been claimed the charges were stayed, this is not unusual, for someone to be put in a cage and made to suffer at the their pleasure, only for the case to be dropped afterwards, they got the result they wanted, without having to go through due process, and that is likely why they decided to avoid a circus, than continue with the prosecution.

This does not prove Dean was right or he won anything, it did not stop them locking him up, or ignoring due process, his alleged constitutional rights? Or anything he had to bark at them during the alleged hearings.

So is that the message being spouted then? You will only be thrown in a cage for a few months, but in the end they may drop the case? so there you go you “a win”, answer me this what exactly did he win ?.

maybe the rest of us, would sooner not get locked up or be stupid enough to put ourselves in that situation to begin with, I mean think about it, did he really have to create such that situation in the first place, because he wanted to prove something ?, what did he expect, by telling a cop to F-off ?. you’re dealing with violent psychopaths, do you think a cop is just going to walk away after being spoken to in such a way ?, of course not, they will either physically attack you, usually with a weapon or torture devise or call for back up so they can do the same thing at no risk to themselves.

So what do you think is going to happen in reality? he turned what was otherwise just a cop acting like a typical bullyboy, and created a situation that escalated into having been thrown in a cage for a few months, if he had played it smart he could have just taken the ticket, gone to court, and beat it that way, and proved he was right.

But he in reality proved nothing more than these people are violent thugs, and nothing he had to say about his “rights” the “constitution” or “trusts” meant jack shit.
It made no difference

I listened to one of the interviews he did, shortly after getting out and I found he was talking complete bull.

Not only did he say he wanted people to stop asking him for proof, because his release from prison, was basically all the evidence he thinks he needs now, but he came across as an egotistical and childish idiot, he was even condoning violence by macho his bragging, and posturing about how he “owned the cop”, and “how lucky he was to have his teeth still intact, among other stupid comments he made.

This is not somebody I want to be associated or labelled along with, when they talk crap like that.

[Prajna]

I'm not suggesting you deck a cop, wannab, but you have already outlined the conundrum: you're up against a lawless and criminal conspiracy, so regardless of the rights and protections that may be nominally yours through process of law you're likely to be met with ignorant violence. Are you suggesting we kow-tow to the bullies?

I like mog's attitude: at some level, perhaps not until you reach the appeal courts, justice must prevail. I have read a copious number of appeal court cases and find that the appeal judges generally do hand down verdicts that you and I would agree with in the circumstances; not always but generally so.

I don't tell cops to fuck off or take a swing at them; instead I simply warn them of my understanding of law, justice and human rights and decline to comply with their idiot orders. That in itself is sufficient to have earned me the loss of my home, actual bodily harm, three days in clink and a number of nights in police cells. But karma catches up with people in the end and we are in the process of launching a series of criminal complaints against the police, Cheshire West and Chester Council, Autolift 24hr Recovery Ltd, the Courts Service and G4s, and the DVLA. We may win or we may lose but in any case we have elevated things to the next level and are not merely arguing semantics of legal definitions of person etc. If we win then we should have everything restored to us and some sizeable compensation for the injuries inflicted upon us. Even if we lose we will have shown that justice is nowhere available in this god-forsaken fascist police state and we consider even that to be worth the sacrifices we have made.

Anyone doing less has already lost, submitted to bullying and forsaken any hope for the future of their children.

Or do you have a better idea?

Namaste

[wanabfree]

I am not saying we should just give in to the bullying, just be smart enough not to go picking a fight for the sake of proving a point, bureaucrats will continue to attack us without going looking for trouble, we engage in non violent non cooperation, Dean Clifford’s circus of events were anything but, you have to realise we are not at a point in the history of this worldwide mass awakening yet were making a martyr of ourselves is going to change anything, we need to be a lot wiser than that, and it’s the reason why the movement has been a failure.

We will bring about the desired effect of changing society for the better, when people in the truth movement can evolve their thinking away from the freeman, commercial redemption, Trust law crap, and expose the system for it really is, and stop believing in the nonsense of us having rights remedies and solutions, we will never win the crowd/mob spouting such tripe.

We offer facts, logic, and truth not our indoctrinated opinions on the subject, we teach people how to think, not what to think, but I am afraid we are still a long way off attitudes in this movement changing soon, it will take many more failures, and ruined lives before people finally truly wake up to the reality of the system, and stop listening and believing in guru's crap then repeating it like broken records, as if by doing so it makes it true, it dosen't.

[Prajna]

Well we didn't pick a fight, we merely exercised the freedoms we're told we enjoy: the right to travel without let or hindrance; the duty to avoid supporting terrorists and criminals; etc. As far as I can see Dean Clifford was just doing the same.

When you say "not to go picking a fight for the sake of proving a point" you seem to be implying that involves paying your taxes and obeying the purported 'authorities'. Sounds like giving in to bullies to me. Neither we nor Dean were picking a fight, so far as I can see, we merely acted in ways that we have every right to do. The fight was instigated by those who want to curtail our freedoms and the first blows were struck by their ignorant lackeys.

Contrary to your opinion, mine is that the movement has been a stunning success, in that it prompted people like me and Dean to stand up to the system. It also armed me with a great number of insights - such as that you are not your name, that the rich elite protect their fortunes via trusts, that we are entrapped by invisible contracts and many other observations which have afforded me with invaluable ammunition in the struggle to wake oppressors up to the nature of their relationship with us and the state. You may think that all these things are invalid or unproven whereas the truth is that many of them have been overruled rather than disproven.

Mead v Mead doesn't show that none of this stuff works, rather it has elicited from the judicial system an exposure of the attitudes we are confronted with. That in itself has done a great deal to help our cause. One of their best judges has wracked his brains in an effort to come up with his best argument why we must bow to their authority and only been able to come up with "because we say so". You may not consider that a victory but that is because you haven't looked deeply enough into the issues to be able to recognise what J.D. Rooke actually revealed. Perhaps you have your eyes on finding a get-out-of-jail-free-card and are just expressing your disappointment that none of the remedies you have dismissed have turned out to be that.

The movement has helped you to get this far, wannab, offer it some gratitude for having at least helped you to recognise and challenge your slavery somewhat, and if you have nothing to offer beyond insisting that 'everyone' has to wake the fuck up before anything will change then you might need to study some more. It's not all bullshit: even if the birth cert bond stuff isn't precisely the way the system works it effectively operates in that way. Even if people are getting their cars nicked and are getting locked up for exercising their rights that doesn't mean we are wrong to take a stand on these issues: we are challenging the unfairness and inhumanity of the system and inspiring others to do the same.

Namaste

[Freeman Stephen]

Theres no getting away from the fact that we do live under tyranny. I think the freeman movement has two lessons worth keeping regardless of the way it goes from here. The first being that when you put the ideas into practice peacefully and with love, you have far greater success than when you do so with great antagonism. Even with peace,and love, there are some people you just cant reach and you should not be expected to turn the other cheek forever on the face of constant aggression.

The other lesson is perhaps one worth teaching always. The idea that we should take the powers that be at their word. To do so provides solid undeniable proof that we do live in tyranny. I think its worthwhile keeping the likes of rob menard in mind because while he claims to be doing the impossible - the idea that it is impossible makes the denial of tyranny impossible. If freedom and self determination and justice and peace were true, rob menard would not even be a footnote.

Where we go from here is too dark for too many people to see. We are on a ship that has been hijacked by pirates and we have changed course toward prison island. Originally, we were the only ones to see the pirates take the bridge and throw the captain and the bridge crew overboard.

We tried to alert the rest of the crew and the other passengers but they laughed. We sent letters to the bridge which were ignored for all to see. We even changed the numbers on our cabin doors saying that the ships new rules did not apply to us but the rule of force has no ears for such things.

Through our efforts we managed to reach out to all the passengers and crew. Some of the crew are well aware of what is going on now and either see profit or will not risk any loss. The passengers are either for us and with us, or for us but too afraid to do anything.

The only way to change the course of this ship is to take the bridge.

[Dreadlock]

This does not prove Dean was right or he won anything, it did not stop them locking him up, or ignoring due process, his alleged constitutional rights? Or anything he had to bark at them during the alleged hearings.

So is that the message being spouted then? You will only be thrown in a cage for a few months, but in the end they may drop the case? so there you go you “a win”, answer me this what exactly did he win ?.

1. Dean spent 26 days in jail not a few months.
2. He chose jail because he refused to apply for bail which the judge told him would almost certainly be granted.
3. Due process was not ignored. He had hearings. Not alleged, but actual hearings.
4. He was facing something like 9+ charges (I forget the exact number) including assaulting a police officer.

Do you honestly expect the Crown to create precedent in case law by allowing something like this to go to a trial they know they are going to loose? They stayed proceedings indefinitely instead and they could not drop the charges because Dean liened all the charges in open court. This is as much a win as you are likely to see any time soon and is very strong evidence that freeman concepts are spot on. If you are waiting for the Crown to throw up their hands and admit defeat you'll be waiting a long time.

If everyone had Dean's courage the system would collapse in no time.

Not only did he say he wanted people to stop asking him for proof, because his release from prison, was basically all the evidence he thinks he needs now, but he came across as an egotistical and childish idiot, he was even condoning violence by macho his bragging, and posturing about how he “owned the cop”, and “how lucky he was to have his teeth still intact, among other stupid comments he made.

Actually he was not condoning violence, he was the one keeping the peace. The policeman assaulted him and threw the only punch. As for bragging, what are you? A saint? If anyone has bragging rights it's Dean Clifford.