Dean Clifford

The nature, history and formation of Trusts.

Re: Dean Clifford

Postby wanabfree » Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:40 am

If you listen to what Dean Clifford has to say in the video's he does make a very important point, he says that "this is all speculation we cannot know for sure what the government is doing and if any of this is right" or words to that effect.

this is the most sensible and honest viewpoint any of us can take on this subject, we just don't know for sure what we are doing is correct, but it's all based on presumption, which is fine because so do the legislators,bureaucrats,judges etc.

Until it's rebutted it stands on what ever opinion (mostly arbitrary) they choose to stand under.

However another approach is simply to ask for the facts that any of these assumptions are based on and their little world falls apart also.

The fact that a name is capitalised is just assumed by some legislative mind you have lost all rights, "so what" that's just an opinion.

and as for losing rights as a citizen, is not factually correct either, you can't possibly be a citizen in the first place because, as has been stated in the supreme courts all over the world for the last 200 years a citizen has no rights i.e. protection, it's even been said in the Japanese courts "the state" will not protect you.

If anyone is going to bring up certain legal definitions of words you must define every word in a given sentence, because by only concentrating on one particular word another conflicting word may make the entire claim nonsense.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Dean Clifford

Postby FreemanG » Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:21 pm

Absolutely wanabfree,

It's all presumed until we tell them what we believe is true, and let them rebut it.

What I am finding interesting is his approach to getting things on the record, which seems to be a
bug bear for a lot of people challenging their 'lenders'. They seem to have no problem getting the default,
but getting it into the hands of a judge is another matter.

Is there a way to stop the case against you at the court before the court date, by presenting the notice of default
showing proof of agreement between the parties. Why would it ever get to court if you have this doc? (i'm sure
dean says as much somewhere, but my brain is fizzing a bit now)

Has anyone done this - had a case dismissed before the court date on the strength of notice of default??

G
FreemanG
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: Dean Clifford

Postby wanabfree » Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:43 pm

I cant' speak for myself I haven’t really given this a go just yet, I do know that according to a radio interview Dean had done only a few short weeks ago he did say he was now following this up through the high court to get a claim rubber stamped through the queens bench.

Were going to have to wait a short while longer to see if this is going to be successful.

Another good source to learn more on this is through the “white rabbit education” facebook site, find out when the next workshop is being offered, well worth a look to find out more and there are a few claimed recent successes using this stuff.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Dean Clifford

Postby knightron » Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:16 am

I don't know about you guys, But I certainly don't trust or sign my name or Like anything on Facebook or twitter..we have seen in the last few weeks that "Social network" sites are a prime target for security services to Jump in and start taking names and addresses so they can come calling .. I don't mind going to Jail if I have to in the course of my lawful rebellion, But i won't make it that easy ..I will just keep my head down till its time not to keep my head down, then and only then hit em where it hurts..In their pockets..If they are going to lock me up it will cost em, if they come with Violance then violance will be used in defence..No I won't be able to will em all, but I can take at least one or two with me to hospital... :ouch: :ouch:

We find our Nation in a shameful state, But on the plus side we are seeing people waking up and questioning everything..Which in my Humble opinion can only be a good thing..
:shake: :hug:
ʎɐqǝ uo pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ʎnq ı ǝɯıʇ ʇsɐן ǝɥʇ sı sıɥʇ
User avatar
knightron
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:51 pm

Re: Dean Clifford

Postby Freeman Stephen » Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:12 am

i think dean cliford comes from the anti tax movement and so when he talks about the information being complicated when presented by others hes talking about filling out ucc's and the like. this would account for him saying hes been doing this for fifteen years in some interview when hes a relatively new name on our scopes. whats driving his publicity?
User avatar
Freeman Stephen
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Dean Clifford

Postby wanabfree » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:41 pm

I would say that a lot of what Dean is showing does make a lot more sense than the likes of Winston shroud etc, there is a lot of false or very dubious info out there also.

I don't think any of this stuff regarding trusts would work in the lower courts (County & Magistrates); they probably won't have a clue about trust law.

This is more likely going to work in the high courts, Queen’s Bench and, supreme courts.

here is an interesting interview on the no state project, were a chap claims he tried this approach in court only to have the judge totally ignore refuse and throw a tantrum when asked to act as trustee.

Whichever way you choose to see how this works, I think the reality is regardless of trust law it's all still based on violence.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_iyekzrqTY


However I do have evidence that public servants are in fact considered trustee’s, so what the chap in court was doing wasn’t completely wrong, he got railroaded no doubt, we just need to work out were and how he went wrong to be treated the way he did on the day.

What Marc Stevens has to say also, needs to be taken into consideration; he had given an accurate account of what was really going on in that court room.

It’s your choice on which methods to try, in my opinion Dean Clifford and Marc Stevens are both right in showing how courts work, just like Dean pointed out when a judge starts throwing their toys out of the pram you have likely hit the nail on the head and they don’t like being the nail, ie exposed.
Last edited by wanabfree on Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Dean Clifford

Postby Dipsy » Sat Aug 27, 2011 5:14 pm

The reason people get railroaded in magistrates court is the court has no ears and no public record. Like a military court martial you are presumed to be a rule breaker which carries a fine or prison. You MUST have a contract in place before you go to court so you have already won on paper. Anything you do must be a public record. Your first contract should be with the crown and the police let them know who and what you are removing any presumptions about your lawful status as a man of highest authority and the administrator of all affairs both public and private. Even Rob Mernard said this many many years ago as the best example of freeman living he has claim of rights and fee schedules in place before he steps one foot near any court. Now all presumption about you being a slave is gone and everyone you interface with knows who and what you are!

If you do not follow this through correctly and go into court guns blazing with no standing you are just being a naughty child and will be punished for contempt of court. There are several people already locked up on this forum for ignoring this vital information.
Dipsy
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: Dean Clifford

Postby wanabfree » Sat Aug 27, 2011 6:05 pm

Dipsy wrote:The reason people get railroaded in magistrates court is the court has no ears and no public record. Like a military court martial you are presumed to be a rule breaker which carries a fine or prison. You MUST have a contract in place before you go to court so you have already won on paper. Anything you do must be a public record. Your first contract should be with the crown and the police let them know who and what you are removing any presumptions about your lawful status as a man of highest authority and the administrator of all affairs both public and private. Even Rob Mernard said this many many years ago as the best example of freeman living he has claim of rights and fee schedules in place before he steps one foot near any court. Now all presumption about you being a slave is gone and everyone you interface with knows who and what you are!

If you do not follow this through correctly and go into court guns blazing with no standing you are just being a naughty child and will be punished for contempt of court. There are several people already locked up on this forum for ignoring this vital information.



You say a contract must be in place, but let’s take a leaf out of Dean’s teachings, it's presumed there is a contract, and question is though which one assumes so.

Unless you make your standing clear before entering court, there is no point arguing it's all about contract, as you must be aware even if there was one it's done so under fraud and therefore invalid.

in most instances your being pulled into court on some form of civil wrong, which is in fact in legal land a "Tort", if they won't admit this has anything to do with contracts or trust ,this is the only other claim that can be presented.

Anything under criminal is a "Tort" period

Anything under civil is Contract or Tort, that's it, it's either one or the other.

If they are going to argue presumptions that's fine just get empirical and ask for the facts either way they never have a valid claim or will offer remedy to our benefit.
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

Re: Dean Clifford

Postby Dipsy » Sat Aug 27, 2011 6:21 pm

You can not argue or reason you have no standing without a contract. They presume to have a contract under the colour of law. These colour flimsy fraud contracts maybe all they have but you have nothing! Not until you exercise your power of contract and form your own LAW.

They will follow through with this until such time YOU rebut this with your own contract. Arguing with the police at the side of the road or in court is no defence. All the most successful FREEMAN have contracts in place starting with DON'T TOUCH ME or here is my fee schedule. Now with £100k per offence in your fee schedule you now have something to fight back.
Dipsy
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:58 pm

Re: Dean Clifford

Postby wanabfree » Sat Aug 27, 2011 6:58 pm

Dipsy wrote:You can not argue or reason you have no standing without a contract. They presume to have a contract under the colour of law. These colour flimsy fraud contracts maybe all they have but you have nothing! Not until you exercise your power of contract and form your own LAW.

They will follow through with this until such time YOU rebut this with your own contract. Arguing with the police at the side of the road or in court is no defence. All the most successful FREEMAN have contracts in place starting with DON'T TOUCH ME or here is my fee schedule. Now with £100k per offence in your fee schedule you now have something to fight back.


But this is the problem we face, the two are completely contradictory in legal land, a contract is not a contract when imposed by force or coercion, if you study deeper into statutes it’s what they are not saying that’s sometimes more important, the issue they try to side step and not mention is the nature and cause of any claim or allegation being made.

Like I said a civil wrong is defined legally as a “Tort”.

The definition of a tort is “Tort… A wrong independent of contract…A breach of legal duty which the “Law” (factually a legal opinion), as distinguished from a mere contract, has imposed an injury or wrong committed either with or without force (violence), to the person or property of another.

Ballentines p.1284 (brackets mine).


Technically a statute is a contract I would agree, but any claim made less than one can also be in their opinion (legislators) independent of a contract, the contract is presumed to be simply your consent to accept a statute as if it were actually “Law”, but remember you’re assumed to already be governed regardless of that consent.

Bottom line is, it’s all complete bollox
wanabfree
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to Trusts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest