Back to Square 1, defining and defending yourself
You have to understand the situation. You have to understand it intimately. You have to be it. Every fibre in your body and soul. If you do that, I believe you can take on the world.
And there is only one way. And that is to think clearly.
Clarity of thought is impossible whenever 'religious overtones' are introduced into the equation. Any 'religious overtones', of any kind. As soon as 'faith' enters the equation, 'dogma' rears its head. In that case one is playing someone else's game.
The only way to win is to operate solely by one's own rules.
There is nothing to stop one having personal religious beliefs. That is a personal choice, and each is free to make it, but it must be kept out of the initial equation, otherwise the equation will become subjective, and then won't work in all situations, conditions and contexts.
It's the only way. Nothing else will work in all contexts. Therefore, there will always be a context in which you can be defeated.
You think you can rely on 'God', and 'Jesus'? How many billions, throughout history, thought the same thing - only to find out it actually didn't help them in the slightest, because they still died horrible, excruciatingly painful, deaths? It might have helped them spiritually, in order to overcome the pain, but not in any real, practical, terms. (At least none you would ever be able to use in order to convince me, that's for sure). Dead is dead. So they inspired millions? Dead is still dead.
You can, of course, look at it this way: Leave 'God' out, for practical purposes, and then - once practice has been established - insert 'God' back in. For your own satisfaction and peace of mind. That would be fine by me, if that's your choice, because at least you would be thinking clearly in order to establish the initial 'practice'. And that would engender 'good practice'. 'Practice your faith' on top of that, by all means.
For the above reasons you will find that everything I write leaves 'God' out of the equations. This result is equations that only involve living, breathing, human beings with a living soul or spirit, pitched against forces, which may quite possibly derive from Satanism, but are - in practical terms - simply there to be confronted and defeated.
So can we make a start?
What is supreme on Planet Earth? What has not only life but demonstrable, unfettered, imagination? A cat? A dog? A monkey? No - you know the answer to this question.
'Homo sapiens' is Latin, and means 'wise human'.
Human! Use your wisdom! What is supreme on Planet Earth? The living, breathing, homo sapiens with its living soul. Surely this is the only entity that is demonstrably supreme for all practical purposes?
So, let's formulate this as our initial 'Understanding':
Whereas it is my understanding that there is nothing in practical terms more supreme than a living, breathing, imaginative human being blessed with a living soul, and
Are we getting somewhere? How about ...
Whereas it is my understanding that it is impossible to distinguish one soul from any other, and therefore all souls must at all times and in all situations be considered equal in all respects in any fair, just and reasonable situation, and
... as the next step in our 'understanding'?
Are you catching my drift? Do you see my point? No scope for any argument or objection to the contrary can remain. Otherwise there will be a context in which these understandings fail.
So, we can continue ...
Whereas it is my understanding that anything and everything must derive from the aforesaid axioms, and
... can't we?
Then continuing ...
Whereas it is my understanding that any numerical grouping of such souls can be referred to as 'people', and
Whereas it is my understanding that a society is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-minded souls since it is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and
... starts to work towards the goal we want to achieve.
Whereas it is my understanding a statute is defined as a legislated rule of a society, and
Whereas it is my understanding a legislated rule of a society can be given the force of law to act upon, or lawfully bind, all members of that society, and
Whereas it is my understanding if a living soul chooses by free will not to be a member of any society then statutes created by said society do not bind that soul to said statute law, and
Whereas it is my understanding a living soul who chooses by free will not to be a member of any society can be referred to as a Freeman-on-the-land, and
Whereas it is my understanding a Freeman-on-the-land remains entirely and solely under Common Law jurisdiction, and
Whereas I ___________ am a Freeman-on-the-land, and
... so on.
All the rest is 'bells & whistles'. (Some being necessary, depending on one's view). For example it might be possible to 'salt to religious taste' as:
Whereas it is my understanding that my Nation is founded on the principles of the supremacy of God and the rule of law, and
Whereas it is my understanding that the Number Two position in that hierarchy is not claimed by anyone, and
Whereas it is my understanding that the Governments of this Nation seem to rely on deception in order to gain the power to govern, and
Whereas I am desirous of living my life as a 'Child of God', and
Whereas it is my understanding that the only power able to claim authority over a 'Child of God' is God, and
Whereas it is my understanding that neither the Government, nor its agents nor its representatives are God, or above God, and
Whereas it is my understanding that by legally claiming the Number Two position in said hierarchy I occupy a position above all Governments and their agents and employees and representatives, and
... but I doubt it. Me? Personally speaking I wouldn't risk watering it down like that. It is actually dripping with fallacies. To my mind too many loopholes remain open to challenge. Being an atheist, I could challenge the whole thing.
Such 'understandings' would only stand up to scrutiny if God were alive (hiding in Argentina?) and could be asked to provide proof s/he were the entity to the satisfaction of the requirements in law. And then those assertions would stand some chance of being verified. Until that becomes a possibility it is pointless making such assertions because they demonstrably nothing more than 'faith'. 'Faith' is not the same as 'understanding'. (That's why they are different words).
Whereas it is my faith ..., and
... will get nowhere if another person has a different 'faith'.
If you think creating a Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right is the hard bit, then think again. You've only just begun, to quote a '60s song by The Carpenters.
No-one said it would be easy (to quote yet another '60s melody).
A journey of 1,000 miles starts with the first step - to quote another truism. A Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right is only the first, small, step.
This is because 'The System' will attempt to override or ignore it at every turn.
In order to enforce it - and it can be enforced, that much we know for sure - you will have to side-step all the bricks, 'rockets', 'hand grenades' and 'mortar shells' thrown your way.
One thing you/we all have in our favour is 'numbers'. Perhaps that, and the ability to think clearly, are our two best assets.
Consequently the more people doing this, and reporting back 'success' and/or 'failure', the more we will all - eventually - succeed.
Here we have to remember two things:
(a) The Scientific Method, which says that every experience/experiment 'tells you something', and the understanding that 'the trick' is to determine what that 'something' is, and how best to use it, and
(b) To treat success and failure the same. In other words don't get excited about success, or depressed by failure - simply stay completely calm and pass the information around for the benefit of all
These are wise words, I can assure you. ('Experimental failure'? It tells you how NOT to do it. Whatever you tried was wrong. Think of some other way)
It is certain that you will end up in situations where you have knowledge of the truth and the other party has no knowledge whatsoever, for example when dealing with a policeman.
In other cases you will be dealing with those who have the knowledge but will not tell you and, indeed, will attempt to pull every 'fast-one in the book', against you - in order to trap/trick you into submission. For example in so-called Courts of Law, which are - in reality - merely Courts of Commerce.
These have to be dealt with carefully, because they are big and ugly. And by their ingrained nature assume everything goes their way - which is patently untrue of course.
It is essential, therefore, to remain calm and polite at all times, and use questions. Use questions in response to questions. You will, of course, be told by the officer "I ask the questions ... you provide the answers!".
One of the first things to say (before he does, if possible) is "Officer, have you observed me breaching the peace or causing harm, injury or loss?". If they answer "No", or "Well no, not as such" then you can respond "They why have to stopped me?"
They will respond "We clocked you at 85 in a 70 limit" (or 'whatever').
You can respond "But that is perfectly lawful under Common Law". ("'Lawful", not "legal")
You are likely to get "Ooow, I don't know about that. All I know is I'm going to book you".
"How can you book me for something that is perfectly lawful?", is likely to result in "I don't know what you're are talking about ... are you trying to be 'funny' ... what's your name?" (As you know, they will probably know your name from the Registration Number).
"Officer, in no way whatsoever am I trying to be 'funny' as you put it. I'm simply discussing the law. The law of the land. Did you not swear to uphold the law of the land when you entered into service as a policeman?"
"Of course I did, what's that got to do with it?" (etc)
"I think officer, with the greatest respect, your Oath of Service has everything to do with it because - if you check - and you surely can - you will discover that you have no right to book me under the law of the land. The law of the land does not preclude travelling at 85 mph The law of the land only precludes me from causing harm, injury or loss to someone else, and you've already admitted that was not the case".
You'll get "Oh! So you are trying to be 'funny' then. We'll see about that!". And so on. You can respond:
"Officer, for your own protection, I suggest you make a note of everything I have said. I'll repeat it for you if you wish. You can discover the position on the website FMOTL.com. I suggest that you write that down at the absolute minimum ... you have the Internet, don't you?"
Obviously if you have an established Claim of Right you can point out that they can be charged and could end up having to pay serious financial penalties. And so it behoves them to find out the situation before they detain someone with an established Claim of Right. (Bearing in mind one's visible appearance gives no clue whatsoever, how would they know in advance that they were running into a brick wall?).
First and foremost if you breached Common Law, then nothing very much below will help you. You have the right to a defence but - if you did something indefensible - then the best thing to do is 'cop a plea'. The following only applies if you are accused of violating a Statute. (Which is, of course, most of the time)
This is where it gets very nasty. If you attempted to dismiss the original summons as outlined in the 'Long Arm' article, then you are only likely to find yourself in court if you were arrested. Some of the above arguments may ward that off, but it is unlikely because the police, to all intents and purposes, are simply robots. "Doing my job". Jobsworths. Of course, they are not "Doing their job" at all. Nothing like it. (As fully explained in that article)
Every trick will be played on you. Since one Kangaroo Hearing is different to any other Kangaroo Hearing it is really impossible to give many examples. But there are many things you can try. I include those which - in various circumstances - have led to varying degrees of success.
The most important thing is to be alert, and never to forget that you are surrounded by sharks. Yes, even those who may smile at you. (Never forget "Good cop - bad cop")
These are so many situations. Some examples are given below.
Just remember the basics.
In a court de jure, a Court of Justice, you could obtain justice under Common Law. In such a court each member of the Jury has a soul to which you can appeal, and therefore you could defend your actions if you considered that you had the right to do them. Explaining the situation, and the position you were in, to a Jury would be your best bet.
But you won't be in a court de jure unless there is a Jury. In the absence of a Jury you will be in a court de facto. A Count of Commerce. A court that has no soul. You are a living soul and cannot obtain justice from such a court, so don't kid yourself. The best thing you could ever achieve is "Case withdrawn!" or "Case dismissed!", generally on technical grounds. So you have to go for the technical grounds, because that is your only hope.
Contempt of Court
Whatever you try to do you are likely to be threatened with Contempt of Court. There is even the story of someone who had said nothing at all and was threatened as "I told you to remain silent! If you persist you will be in Contempt of Court". That indicates how desperate the sharks can get.
The appropriate response to such a threat is "Would that be Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt?". The result will be a long pause. (A Bench may even retire to consider). Do not say anything at all until an answer is given.
If, eventually, the answer is "Criminal", then the appropriate response is "Who makes the CLAIM, what is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?".
Then wait again, saying nothing else. There is no answer to that one. The Recorder on the Bench, or the Judge, might make the CLAIM, but the remainder of the question is fundamentally unanswerable.
They may say (in the United Kingdom, for example) "The Crown", or "The Ministry of Justice", or whatever. This is rant. The response is "You know only a HUMAN can make a CLAIM, so where is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?"
If, on the other hand, the answer is "Civil", then the appropriate response is "Where is the CONTRACT between myself and yourselves? I do not agree to any CONTRACT. I would not agree to any CONTRACT between myself and yourselves for many reasons, not least of which you have not provided FULL DISCLOSURE, you have not offered any CONSIDERATION, and have shown no intent to provide a LAWFUL SIGNATURE as a party to one"
('Consideration' in this context, means 'something of value', for example an amount of money, or an object of value)
At this point you have them acting CRIMINALLY outside any lawful jurisdiction, and outside of IMMUNITY in their own courtroom. It is only lawful for HUMANS to make a contract, so a 'court' has no power to do that, because a 'court' is not a human being. Sure, an 'officer' could sign on behalf of the 'court', but they would NEVER do that because they know the ramifications of the LIABILITY that would entail. There will NEVER be 'Full Disclosure' (quite the opposite!) and they have nothing of value to offer.
When you say "I don't agree to the terms of the contract" the Bench will know they do not have a contract with you, and if you have committed no crime they have no authority to arrest you or even be conducting the hearing - they are OUT of their lawful jurisdiction and OUT of their IMMUNITY
The result will be a long bout of silence from the Bench or any Judge.
Harassment on making your points
One of the tricks is to silence you as much as possible, such that you are suppressed from obtaining dismissals on technical grounds.
This can be combatted by the statement "I am going to make an OFFER OF PROOF" or "I am going to OFFER INTO EVIDENCE". This would allow you to state any relevant facts for the Court Record.
Finally there is "Rush to judgment", as in "Are you trying to RUSH ME TO JUDGMENT?"
These have all been shown to work extremely well.
More explanations are in the book Sui Juris (meaning 'in my own jurisdiction')
Really only applicable once you've 'found your feet'.
First of all: How do you know your name? Your parents told you. And, of course, you believed that. No doubt they showed you a Birth Certificate ... but how do you - actually - know that is you? How do you know that the Certificate you think is yours is not that of a twin? Or a previously birthed person who died?
Yes, of course it is unlikely. But 'likely' is not the point. There is no such thing as 'hard' or 'soft' evidence. There is only evidence ... or not.
How can you swear on oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when you are relying on HEARSAY.
And no established court de jure allows hearsay evidence.
Knowledge of your name is hearsay. Knowledge of your date of birth is hearsay. Yes, you were around at the time you left the womb, but you really couldn't state, for certainty, precisely what date that was.
Then the next thing is that if you were to ask the following question "Is it true that only those with a licence are able to practice law?", the answer would always be "Yes!". To which you could respond "But I do not have a licence, does this mean I cannot defend myself in a court of law?".
If you wanted to tie the court in knots, this would be a good tack. Of course they would pretty soon roll out the "Contempt of Court" business.
It is a risky business. One is up against robots and sharks.
What alternative do we have?
The only one I can see is to 'sit back and take it'.
There will be 'casualties'.
There have already been 'casualties'.
However there are people out there trying their best for you and I.
Do we let them down?
Personally I think the absolute minimum we can do - at the very least - is to provide support.
Oh! And by the way! Need I remind you? Most (if not all) of us have forefathers and ancestors who gave their lives so that we would remain free of all but the absolute most essential restrictions. All we have to do is to pick up where they left off. With that behind us, is it right to hand despotism and thorough corruption (Thatcher-Major-BLiar-Brown-Cameron-Clinton-Bush-Obama style i.e. Bilderberger style) to our children & grandchildren - who will have the face the full force of it?
Remember: The job of any Government is to (a) Ward off invaders (i.e. ATTACK them, not COLLUDE with them, however subtle ... yes I'm talking 'EU' & 'NAU', etc), and (b) PROTECT our freedoms, not ERODE them.
And that's their job, in total. Nothing else.
It is certainly not their right to DECEIVE us from cradle to grave.
What's it all about?
Veronica: of the Chapman family