In regards to strawman

Need help and support? Post here and we will do our best.

In regards to strawman

Postby earthcraig » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:43 pm

I have been awake from my slumber for about 1 year now, and this is my 1st post.

I have a question for experienced freemen?

I understand the fact that the government has created this "legal fiction" for us and I have also researched the history behind it. I also believe that the stawman is a corporation that the government can control on its behalf.

Now from my experience and from the many documentaries I have watched I noticed that many freemen claim to not to be that "legal fiction" when in court and they never seem to win, apart from a very few. I also know all the tricks on how the courts create joinder and other tactics they use.

I don't know if this has been tried before or if it is even possible? and please bare with me on this,
but my idea was to claim the strawman as my own by registering the name as a business
i.e "JOHN SMITH DUNCAN" that way I would be claiming all rights reserved and taking back control of that said strawman.

It would mean that no company could take me to court unless there was a signed contract between both companies. It would also show to the court that you have taken back your name " once dead but now alive".

If this worked and was true imagine replying to a court summons with a fee schedule for you business!, and also a police "officer" could not arrest a business surely that would be impossible. And don't even start me on a Tax return :thinks:

I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say and If anyone has any advice on this subject please let me know...

Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:58 pm

Re: In regards to strawman

Postby Dreadlock » Tue Oct 04, 2016 9:39 pm

I own a dog called JOHN SMITH DUNCAN. It is my dog.
You buy a dog and call it JOHN SMITH DUNCAN.

Is my dog no longer my dog because you gave your dog the same name as my dog?
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: In regards to strawman

Postby earthcraig » Fri Oct 07, 2016 7:43 pm

That's actually quite funny because I'm picking a puppy up tomorrow, no shit. But I wont be calling it JOHN SMITH DUNCAN... Anyway,
it would of been a better analogy if you used a child instead of a dog. ( I'm taking about the courts owning you as a PERSON )

just seen a video on youtube "claiming fictitious name" this was a similar idea to what I was thinking of.

Has anyone tried this using the British legal system?
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:58 pm

Re: In regards to strawman

Postby Dreadlock » Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:46 pm

The analogy is fine. What point do you think I was making?
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: In regards to strawman

Postby squark » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:56 pm

"Has anyone tried this using the British legal system?"

Dreadlock has not, he's never been to court, and yet comes on like an expert.
There is nothing of any value in the freeman movement. Lots of lovely ideas, lots of stupid ideas. All of it is crap. Why else has Veronica abandoned her own forum? These freeman views are not supported by facts. Look at dreaklocks claims of evidence I am an state agent, there is none. I'm starting to think freeman is a construct of the legal industry to raise revenues. If the law says it, I'm sorry, but it will be forced on you by the courts. I'm speaking from experience, expensive, depressing experience. Get out before it costs you I say. Enjoy the best life you can by avoiding the legal system completely. They are shit people who will take everything they can from you.
And the Lord spake unto his people, he said "Get Off MY Bloody Land!"
And the people gave unto the Lord, freely they gave him The Finger
Posts: 326
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 5:41 pm
Location: Stoke on Trent

Re: In regards to strawman

Postby Dreadlock » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:46 pm

The point I was making craig is this.

You cannot claim ownership over someone elses property simply by giving your property the same name as theirs.

Even if you were able to create a corporation with the same name as the strawman (which is a vessel not a corporation) you would own the corporation, but the Crown would still own the vessel. You would still be using the Crown's vessel and would still be liable for doing so. Your corporation would be an entirely different entity to the vessel despite the names being the same. The NAME is NOT the ENTITY. You are not a name, nor are you "earthcraig". You are a man using the name "earthcraig".

JOHN SMITH DUNCAN is your dog.

We have two different dog's with the same name. The NAME is NOT the DOGS - they are two separate entities. You own your dog - you do not own MY dog.

Thus, hopefully, you can see that your idea would fail.
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: In regards to strawman

Postby cassandra » Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:03 pm

Very nicely put there, dreadlock.
The map is not the territory.
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 2:54 pm

Return to Help Wanted

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests