Hi chippy. Welcome.
chippy wrote:I see some problems with this freeman/ "I'm only under common law" stuff.
I feel I must re-iterate Prajna's point about you appearing to "see all the problems you have been indoctrinated to see and (be) afraid of all the things you have been trained to be afraid of." If you said "I
have seen some problems..." then I would be all ears but your opening admission that you are still, essentially, living in fear kind of gives the lie to the rest of your post.
For example:
1. If the Lisbon Treaty has cancelled out the Magna Carta / Bill of Rights Act, what are you standing on to say that you are not under the normal law?
That's a big "If". Who said the Bill of Rights no longer exists? The barrister acting for the MPs in the expenses case certainly seems to believe that it's still effective. As for what we are standing on: Notices of Understanding and Intent and Claims of Right, mainly, with a few well-worded questions regarding the legitimacy of the authority claimed by those who would seek to govern us. (Oh, and invisible trusts if the NTT crew are on the money, no pun intended.)
For example let's say you're putting your case to someone, whoever it is, police, judge, local authority, whatever, and this one is a bit of a cute fella and thinks to himself "ah a funny so-and-so eh", and then turns round and starts digging very deep into the laws and turns something back on you that you didn't realise was there. Like the bank saying "you now legally don't have a right to the money here because of clause such and such because you're not Mr John Smith any more" and there could be many more like that. I wonder if you've done your homework in this and it's something that I would certainly be concerned about.
I've never heard of anything like this happening. Why would banks start sacking off their customers? That's hardly good business sense. I think I know what you're getting at, though. I would recommend you research the rights of stateless persons and bare sovereignty or bare life. It's certainly not something I'm concerned about, though. "I'll take my chances" to coin a phrase.
When I say "up against top lawyers, top police etc" I'm not just talking top because of Saville Row suits and expensive salaries, it is that but also heads firmly screwed on and locked down with superglue. 1965freeman these guys aren't stupid mate, and also remember I'm not talking about £2.50 of council tax not paid, I'm talking about a more serious issue, could be smoking in a pub, could be using a mobile phone in a car, could be a knife over 3 inches, you name it, could be any of the laws that carry a little bit more clout in terms of penalty.
You think smoking in a pub is a serious issue? Really? Do you know what the penalty for smoking in a pub is? You might get barred. That's it. The landlord's the one who gets it in the neck if it ever gets to the point of litigation. I've heard of a landlord who was fined and imprisoned for allowing his punters to smoke but I've never heard of anyone who's been fined for smoking in a pub. That's how all of this crap (by which I mean "society" and "legality") works. Threaten the key players (the "hubs") and they'll make sure that all the grunts connected to them toe the line. It's the same for the rest of the examples you give. Being unable to do something is not the same as being afraid of the consequences of doing it. You'll realise (soon, hopefully) that no authority exists in the world that can make you do something or stop you doing anything. You can only be threatened, cajoled and coerced into (not) doing it. When you realise this the veil will be lifted and you will be free.
J
All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed.