Notice of Intent- council tax summons

[cassandra]

The first order of business at every new sitting of parliament is to vote in income tax. A new contract/agreement to pay is entered into by your representative. Everything else happens as an operation of law. Failure to pay without showing good cause is a breach of contract which will go up for review and enforcement in a civil court by an administrator - which is why he needs no oath. You need to get out of the contract or show good cause. Lawful rebellion is good cause.
Lawfulrebellion.info shows several successes in lawful rebellion's lawful and legal tax-refusing processes with all processes fully detailed and all successes fully documented.
Cassandra.

[nimblereaper]

The first order of business at every new sitting of parliament is to vote in income tax. A new contract/agreement to pay is entered into by your representative. Everything else happens as an operation of law. Failure to pay without showing good cause is a breach of contract which will go up for review and enforcement in a civil court by an administrator - which is why he needs no oath. You need to get out of the contract or show good cause. Lawful rebellion is good cause.
Lawfulrebellion.info shows several successes in lawful rebellion's lawful and legal tax-refusing processes with all processes fully detailed and all successes fully documented.
Cassandra.

Thanks, can you explain why you need no Oath in court for council tax? I thought when you go in court to change to their statute jurisdiction it requires consent by making oath.

Another question: I have heard a few things about making oath to the crown and oath to office, what's the difference ? As in, what is "office"?

[cassandra]

Read the post - I said the judge needs no oath - because he is not a judge, in the civil he is an administrator. People think he's a judge because sometimes he sits in the criminal court as well as a civil court but that's because Lord Mansfield merged the two systems n 1754. His powers are different in each. In the criminal he is acting "in personam" of the sovereign - the ultimate lawgiver. In the civil he is merely a man adjudicating between two disputants who've consented to his authority to judge.

I don't know where you got the idea that you go into court to change their jurisdiction. That sentence makes no sense to me. Civil is civil and criminal is criminal. You get taken to one and voluntarily access the other. Refuse the one and you become outlaw. Refuse the other and you risk a default judgement.
,
We make oath OF office TO the crown. Office simply means FUNCTION or POSITION within a system. No responsibility of office without authority to order and no authority to order without accountability for its abuse.
Cassandra.

[nimblereaper]

Read the post - I said the judge needs no oath - because he is not a judge, in the civil he is an administrator. People think he's a judge because sometimes he sits in the criminal court as well as a civil court but that's because Lord Mansfield merged the two systems n 1754. His powers are different in each. In the criminal he is acting "in personam" of the sovereign - the ultimate lawgiver. In the civil he is merely a man adjudicating between two disputants who've consented to his authority to judge.

I don't know where you got the idea that you go into court to change their jurisdiction. That sentence makes no sense to me. Civil is civil and criminal is criminal. You get taken to one and voluntarily access the other. Refuse the one and you become outlaw. Refuse the other and you risk a default judgement.
,
We make oath OF office TO the crown. Office simply means FUNCTION or POSITION within a system. No responsibility of office without authority to order and no authority to order without accountability for its abuse.
Cassandra.

Ok I see, so when you go to Civil court you can actually refuse to stand under the administrator's authority by refusing to take that oath? I have seen people recorded in court questioning this person's authority asking if they're under oath, i assume this is to determine if they know that they have no power over you since it's a civil court? So basically in a civil case this "judge" has no power unless you allow them it right? But in criminal court it's different because you have broken the constitutional law?

Thanks for the explanation of office.

Slightly off topic, but people mention quite a lot that your name in block capitals is the legal version of it, but also companies write to you without capitalising all the letters, so is this where the title Mr,Mrs etc makes that law? I am just asking because people have said that words like PERSON are written in capitals to indicate it's a legal term, but do you have to write this stuff in capitals for it to mean the legal definition? (like PERSON = Legal personality (fiction) and person = the individual, or does it depend on the context?)

Cheers

[cassandra]

Read the post - I said the judge needs no oath - because he is not a judge, in the civil he is an administrator. People think he's a judge because sometimes he sits in the criminal court as well as a civil court but that's because Lord Mansfield merged the two systems n 1754. His powers are different in each. In the criminal he is acting "in personam" of the sovereign - the ultimate lawgiver. In the civil he is merely a man adjudicating between two disputants who've consented to his authority to judge.

I don't know where you got the idea that you go into court to change their jurisdiction. That sentence makes no sense to me. Civil is civil and criminal is criminal. You get taken to one and voluntarily access the other. Refuse the one and you become outlaw. Refuse the other and you risk a default judgement.
,
We make oath OF office TO the crown. Office simply means FUNCTION or POSITION within a system. No responsibility of office without authority to order and no authority to order without accountability for its abuse.
Cassandra.

Ok I see, so when you go to Civil court you can actually refuse to stand under the administrator's authority by refusing to take that oath? I have seen people recorded in court questioning this person's authority asking if they're under oath, i assume this is to determine if they know that they have no power over you since it's a civil court? So basically in a civil case this "judge" has no power unless you allow them it right? But in criminal court it's different because you have broken the constitutional law?

Thanks for the explanation of office.

Slightly off topic, but people mention quite a lot that your name in block capitals is the legal version of it, but also companies write to you without capitalising all the letters, so is this where the title Mr,Mrs etc makes that law? I am just asking because people have said that words like PERSON are written in capitals to indicate it's a legal term, but do you have to write this stuff in capitals for it to mean the legal definition? (like PERSON = Legal personality (fiction) and person = the individual, or does it depend on the context?)

Cheers

In the old days people questioned the judge on his oath because they didn't then understand the situation. The judge takes his oath when he becomes a judge and he is always on oath when sitting in criminal or common law courts. If he's there then he's on his oath. The old videos are misleading because people were operating on insufficient information and understanding. The civil judge needs no oath. Either you go and defend or you stay away and risk default judgement. If our consent controlled things to the extent the freeman thinks, or would like to believe, then nothing would ever get done, would it? The country would be lawless in very short order. No dispute could ever be settled and no debt ever repaid. Hence the maxim: there must be an end to litigation. Besides, the law in Britain is that if you are here then you owe loyalty to the sovereign and he, in turn owes a consequent loyalty to you and is responsible for protecting you with his law. A two way deal. Deny that law while you live here and you are 'outlaw' and any man's hand may be raised against you with impunity. You may be killed, no questions asked, and every man has an obligation to do just that. Every man has the duty to uphold the common law and every man has the power of a constable to make an arrest and, if necessary, kill a criminal. It's the basis for bounty hunters to operate.

The name in block capitals goes back to old Roman civil law and the loss of civil rights – capitus diminutia minima - a minimum loss of rights - and so on. Capitus diminutia maxima meant a maximum loss of rights (life) and was used on tombstones.

The allcaps name means a dead thing – a corporation, a fiction, and as a fiction can only deal with another fiction we all need a PERSON, a strawman, to do business. Before that there was only the common law. The strawman protects the real man. You can live a life without a strawman but the moment you sign up with a company for its services they will create a strawman for you. It protects you. In common law the man is attacked – in equity its the strawman. He is your friend in that sense as equity took away the brutality of common law in matters of commerce. Any communication re business between you and a company will automatically be a strawman relationship no matter you print, write, in allcaps, lower case, red ink, blue ink, use the four corners rule or witter on about jurisdiction and the real man and so on.
The fiction of the PERSON was invented for the king by the church in the 13th century to allow him to act in commerce without prejudicing his role as king. (When a man went into the church he died to the world – became a PERSON). The archbishop of Canterbury controls the Notaries through the Master of the Faculty of Notaries, who are the legal bridge between the PERSON and the real man.
It's nothing to do with the Law Society or the Ministry of Justice or the home Office. It's a totally different jurisdiction and is all about corporate business – not law. Magna Carta upholds the ancient laws and customs of the merchants. You could look into what that actually means in terms of law and jurisdictions. The modern political and legal set-up has made us all merchants and subject to that law. The Bills of Exchange Act, The UN Commerce Clause, The Currency and Banknotes Act and the common law of England regarding negotiating bills. There are a nunber of ways we are taken into commerce and its laws.
Titles, like Mr., are in the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction. They do not create anything but express something - a condition of being, a class, a quality, one's place in a hierarchy or society.

In International law, an unclaimed land, ungoverned land etc, comes under admiralty jurisdiction. America started off in unclaimed territory – no government - with corporate colonies like the Virginia Tobacco company, and in Canada, the Hudson Bay company, and so on. If you plant crops then you're colonising.
Cassandra.

[nimblereaper]

Read the post - I said the judge needs no oath - because he is not a judge, in the civil he is an administrator. People think he's a judge because sometimes he sits in the criminal court as well as a civil court but that's because Lord Mansfield merged the two systems n 1754. His powers are different in each. In the criminal he is acting "in personam" of the sovereign - the ultimate lawgiver. In the civil he is merely a man adjudicating between two disputants who've consented to his authority to judge.

I don't know where you got the idea that you go into court to change their jurisdiction. That sentence makes no sense to me. Civil is civil and criminal is criminal. You get taken to one and voluntarily access the other. Refuse the one and you become outlaw. Refuse the other and you risk a default judgement.
,
We make oath OF office TO the crown. Office simply means FUNCTION or POSITION within a system. No responsibility of office without authority to order and no authority to order without accountability for its abuse.
Cassandra.

Ok I see, so when you go to Civil court you can actually refuse to stand under the administrator's authority by refusing to take that oath? I have seen people recorded in court questioning this person's authority asking if they're under oath, i assume this is to determine if they know that they have no power over you since it's a civil court? So basically in a civil case this "judge" has no power unless you allow them it right? But in criminal court it's different because you have broken the constitutional law?

Thanks for the explanation of office.

Slightly off topic, but people mention quite a lot that your name in block capitals is the legal version of it, but also companies write to you without capitalising all the letters, so is this where the title Mr,Mrs etc makes that law? I am just asking because people have said that words like PERSON are written in capitals to indicate it's a legal term, but do you have to write this stuff in capitals for it to mean the legal definition? (like PERSON = Legal personality (fiction) and person = the individual, or does it depend on the context?)

Cheers

In the old days people questioned the judge on his oath because they didn't then understand the situation. The judge takes his oath when he becomes a judge and he is always on oath when sitting in criminal or common law courts. If he's there then he's on his oath. The old videos are misleading because people were operating on insufficient information and understanding. The civil judge needs no oath. Either you go and defend or you stay away and risk default judgement. If our consent controlled things to the extent the freeman thinks, or would like to believe, then nothing would ever get done, would it? The country would be lawless in very short order. No dispute could ever be settled and no debt ever repaid. Hence the maxim: there must be an end to litigation. Besides, the law in Britain is that if you are here then you owe loyalty to the sovereign and he, in turn owes a consequent loyalty to you and is responsible for protecting you with his law. A two way deal. Deny that law while you live here and you are 'outlaw' and any man's hand may be raised against you with impunity. You may be killed, no questions asked, and every man has an obligation to do just that. Every man has the duty to uphold the common law and every man has the power of a constable to make an arrest and, if necessary, kill a criminal. It's the basis for bounty hunters to operate.

The name in block capitals goes back to old Roman civil law and the loss of civil rights – capitus diminutia minima - a minimum loss of rights - and so on. Capitus diminutia maxima meant a maximum loss of rights (life) and was used on tombstones.

The allcaps name means a dead thing – a corporation, a fiction, and as a fiction can only deal with another fiction we all need a PERSON, a strawman, to do business. Before that there was only the common law. The strawman protects the real man. You can live a life without a strawman but the moment you sign up with a company for its services they will create a strawman for you. It protects you. In common law the man is attacked – in equity its the strawman. He is your friend in that sense as equity took away the brutality of common law in matters of commerce. Any communication re business between you and a company will automatically be a strawman relationship no matter you print, write, in allcaps, lower case, red ink, blue ink, use the four corners rule or witter on about jurisdiction and the real man and so on.
The fiction of the PERSON was invented for the king by the church in the 13th century to allow him to act in commerce without prejudicing his role as king. (When a man went into the church he died to the world – became a PERSON). The archbishop of Canterbury controls the Notaries through the Master of the Faculty of Notaries, who are the legal bridge between the PERSON and the real man.
It's nothing to do with the Law Society or the Ministry of Justice or the home Office. It's a totally different jurisdiction and is all about corporate business – not law. Magna Carta upholds the ancient laws and customs of the merchants. You could look into what that actually means in terms of law and jurisdictions. The modern political and legal set-up has made us all merchants and subject to that law. The Bills of Exchange Act, The UN Commerce Clause, The Currency and Banknotes Act and the common law of England regarding negotiating bills. There are a nunber of ways we are taken into commerce and its laws.
Titles, like Mr., are in the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction. They do not create anything but express something - a condition of being, a class, a quality, one's place in a hierarchy or society.

In International law, an unclaimed land, ungoverned land etc, comes under admiralty jurisdiction. America started off in unclaimed territory – no government - with corporate colonies like the Virginia Tobacco company, and in Canada, the Hudson Bay company, and so on. If you plant crops then you're colonising.
Cassandra.

Ok that makes perfect sense.

The legal person/strawman/fiction then is a real thing that freeman talk about, but from what i can tell they're actually pushing their luck. It seems to me we are kinda trapped by statute, but in one way it's a good thing as you say it protects us from just being murdered willy nilly, but on the other hand these corporate money grabbers are also using it to their advantage which i think is my big issue with it, not that I want to turn my back on society entirely.

So I am going to keep learning this stuff, and use it for my own legal protection as and when i need it. I think I understand the debt collection thing now (not that I don't pay my debts, i believe if you borrow you should pay it back) but it's the way they go about it that pisses me off, bullying people into consenting to contract with them is wrong! no matter how it's said it's morally wrong and this is where i will use knowledge to fight back - although i will pay my debt under proper agreement and not because i was bullied to agree you know?

It's all swings and roundabouts and i think once you have enough knowledge you can use the information to benefit you rather than using it to cause chaos and disrupt the running of things. But on the other hand why should be bow down to corporations that think they can do whatever they like rather than down proper channels?

[nimblereaper]

Read the post - I said the judge needs no oath - because he is not a judge, in the civil he is an administrator. People think he's a judge because sometimes he sits in the criminal court as well as a civil court but that's because Lord Mansfield merged the two systems n 1754. His powers are different in each. In the criminal he is acting "in personam" of the sovereign - the ultimate lawgiver. In the civil he is merely a man adjudicating between two disputants who've consented to his authority to judge.

I don't know where you got the idea that you go into court to change their jurisdiction. That sentence makes no sense to me. Civil is civil and criminal is criminal. You get taken to one and voluntarily access the other. Refuse the one and you become outlaw. Refuse the other and you risk a default judgement.
,
We make oath OF office TO the crown. Office simply means FUNCTION or POSITION within a system. No responsibility of office without authority to order and no authority to order without accountability for its abuse.
Cassandra.

Ok I see, so when you go to Civil court you can actually refuse to stand under the administrator's authority by refusing to take that oath? I have seen people recorded in court questioning this person's authority asking if they're under oath, i assume this is to determine if they know that they have no power over you since it's a civil court? So basically in a civil case this "judge" has no power unless you allow them it right? But in criminal court it's different because you have broken the constitutional law?

Thanks for the explanation of office.

Slightly off topic, but people mention quite a lot that your name in block capitals is the legal version of it, but also companies write to you without capitalising all the letters, so is this where the title Mr,Mrs etc makes that law? I am just asking because people have said that words like PERSON are written in capitals to indicate it's a legal term, but do you have to write this stuff in capitals for it to mean the legal definition? (like PERSON = Legal personality (fiction) and person = the individual, or does it depend on the context?)

Cheers

In the old days people questioned the judge on his oath because they didn't then understand the situation. The judge takes his oath when he becomes a judge and he is always on oath when sitting in criminal or common law courts. If he's there then he's on his oath. The old videos are misleading because people were operating on insufficient information and understanding. The civil judge needs no oath. Either you go and defend or you stay away and risk default judgement. If our consent controlled things to the extent the freeman thinks, or would like to believe, then nothing would ever get done, would it? The country would be lawless in very short order. No dispute could ever be settled and no debt ever repaid. Hence the maxim: there must be an end to litigation. Besides, the law in Britain is that if you are here then you owe loyalty to the sovereign and he, in turn owes a consequent loyalty to you and is responsible for protecting you with his law. A two way deal. Deny that law while you live here and you are 'outlaw' and any man's hand may be raised against you with impunity. You may be killed, no questions asked, and every man has an obligation to do just that. Every man has the duty to uphold the common law and every man has the power of a constable to make an arrest and, if necessary, kill a criminal. It's the basis for bounty hunters to operate.

The name in block capitals goes back to old Roman civil law and the loss of civil rights – capitus diminutia minima - a minimum loss of rights - and so on. Capitus diminutia maxima meant a maximum loss of rights (life) and was used on tombstones.

The allcaps name means a dead thing – a corporation, a fiction, and as a fiction can only deal with another fiction we all need a PERSON, a strawman, to do business. Before that there was only the common law. The strawman protects the real man. You can live a life without a strawman but the moment you sign up with a company for its services they will create a strawman for you. It protects you. In common law the man is attacked – in equity its the strawman. He is your friend in that sense as equity took away the brutality of common law in matters of commerce. Any communication re business between you and a company will automatically be a strawman relationship no matter you print, write, in allcaps, lower case, red ink, blue ink, use the four corners rule or witter on about jurisdiction and the real man and so on.
The fiction of the PERSON was invented for the king by the church in the 13th century to allow him to act in commerce without prejudicing his role as king. (When a man went into the church he died to the world – became a PERSON). The archbishop of Canterbury controls the Notaries through the Master of the Faculty of Notaries, who are the legal bridge between the PERSON and the real man.
It's nothing to do with the Law Society or the Ministry of Justice or the home Office. It's a totally different jurisdiction and is all about corporate business – not law. Magna Carta upholds the ancient laws and customs of the merchants. You could look into what that actually means in terms of law and jurisdictions. The modern political and legal set-up has made us all merchants and subject to that law. The Bills of Exchange Act, The UN Commerce Clause, The Currency and Banknotes Act and the common law of England regarding negotiating bills. There are a nunber of ways we are taken into commerce and its laws.
Titles, like Mr., are in the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction. They do not create anything but express something - a condition of being, a class, a quality, one's place in a hierarchy or society.

In International law, an unclaimed land, ungoverned land etc, comes under admiralty jurisdiction. America started off in unclaimed territory – no government - with corporate colonies like the Virginia Tobacco company, and in Canada, the Hudson Bay company, and so on. If you plant crops then you're colonising.
Cassandra.

Sorry just to ask again, i have seen videos of people in civil court refusing to swear oath/affirm - so the court then just throw it out, but then other things i read say you can go to prison for it, so how does that work then? They are then basically forcing you to agree to their terms of business since it's a civil court, which as far as i am aware is unlawful because no man is supposed to be forced into anything under the magna carte. So if i went to civil court and refused to affirm and i went by my family name rather than the name of my straw man then i'm not breaking any law am i? So how can someone who hasn't broken the law go to prison? After all it's a civil court, and as you said that person is not a judge in this jurisdiction so it can't be contempt either since that person has no power over you until you make that oath/affirm.

right?

[cassandra]

Read the post - I said the judge needs no oath - because he is not a judge, in the civil he is an administrator. People think he's a judge because sometimes he sits in the criminal court as well as a civil court but that's because Lord Mansfield merged the two systems n 1754. His powers are different in each. In the criminal he is acting "in personam" of the sovereign - the ultimate lawgiver. In the civil he is merely a man adjudicating between two disputants who've consented to his authority to judge.

I don't know where you got the idea that you go into court to change their jurisdiction. That sentence makes no sense to me. Civil is civil and criminal is criminal. You get taken to one and voluntarily access the other. Refuse the one and you become outlaw. Refuse the other and you risk a default judgement.
,
We make oath OF office TO the crown. Office simply means FUNCTION or POSITION within a system. No responsibility of office without authority to order and no authority to order without accountability for its abuse.
Cassandra.

Ok I see, so when you go to Civil court you can actually refuse to stand under the administrator's authority by refusing to take that oath? I have seen people recorded in court questioning this person's authority asking if they're under oath, i assume this is to determine if they know that they have no power over you since it's a civil court? So basically in a civil case this "judge" has no power unless you allow them it right? But in criminal court it's different because you have broken the constitutional law?


Thanks for the explanation of office.

Slightly off topic, but people mention quite a lot that your name in block capitals is the legal version of it, but also companies write to you without capitalising all the letters, so is this where the title Mr,Mrs etc makes that law? I am just asking because people have said that words like PERSON are written in capitals to indicate it's a legal term, but do you have to write this stuff in capitals for it to mean the legal definition? (like PERSON = Legal personality (fiction) and person = the individual, or does it depend on the context?)

Cheers

In the old days people questioned the judge on his oath because they didn't then understand the situation. The judge takes his oath when he becomes a judge and he is always on oath when sitting in criminal or common law courts. If he's there then he's on his oath. The old videos are misleading because people were operating on insufficient information and understanding. The civil judge needs no oath. Either you go and defend or you stay away and risk default judgement. If our consent controlled things to the extent the freeman thinks, or would like to believe, then nothing would ever get done, would it? The country would be lawless in very short order. No dispute could ever be settled and no debt ever repaid. Hence the maxim: there must be an end to litigation. Besides, the law in Britain is that if you are here then you owe loyalty to the sovereign and he, in turn owes a consequent loyalty to you and is responsible for protecting you with his law. A two way deal. Deny that law while you live here and you are 'outlaw' and any man's hand may be raised against you with impunity. You may be killed, no questions asked, and every man has an obligation to do just that. Every man has the duty to uphold the common law and every man has the power of a constable to make an arrest and, if necessary, kill a criminal. It's the basis for bounty hunters to operate.

The name in block capitals goes back to old Roman civil law and the loss of civil rights – capitus diminutia minima - a minimum loss of rights - and so on. Capitus diminutia maxima meant a maximum loss of rights (life) and was used on tombstones.

The allcaps name means a dead thing – a corporation, a fiction, and as a fiction can only deal with another fiction we all need a PERSON, a strawman, to do business. Before that there was only the common law. The strawman protects the real man. You can live a life without a strawman but the moment you sign up with a company for its services they will create a strawman for you. It protects you. In common law the man is attacked – in equity its the strawman. He is your friend in that sense as equity took away the brutality of common law in matters of commerce. Any communication re business between you and a company will automatically be a strawman relationship no matter you print, write, in allcaps, lower case, red ink, blue ink, use the four corners rule or witter on about jurisdiction and the real man and so on.
The fiction of the PERSON was invented for the king by the church in the 13th century to allow him to act in commerce without prejudicing his role as king. (When a man went into the church he died to the world – became a PERSON). The archbishop of Canterbury controls the Notaries through the Master of the Faculty of Notaries, who are the legal bridge between the PERSON and the real man.
It's nothing to do with the Law Society or the Ministry of Justice or the home Office. It's a totally different jurisdiction and is all about corporate business – not law. Magna Carta upholds the ancient laws and customs of the merchants. You could look into what that actually means in terms of law and jurisdictions. The modern political and legal set-up has made us all merchants and subject to that law. The Bills of Exchange Act, The UN Commerce Clause, The Currency and Banknotes Act and the common law of England regarding negotiating bills. There are a nunber of ways we are taken into commerce and its laws.
Titles, like Mr., are in the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction. They do not create anything but express something - a condition of being, a class, a quality, one's place in a hierarchy or society.

In International law, an unclaimed land, ungoverned land etc, comes under admiralty jurisdiction. America started off in unclaimed territory – no government - with corporate colonies like the Virginia Tobacco company, and in Canada, the Hudson Bay company, and so on. If you plant crops then you're colonising.
Cassandra.

Sorry just to ask again, i have seen videos of people in civil court refusing to swear oath/affirm - so the court then just throw it out, but then other things i read say you can go to prison for it, so how does that work then? They are then basically forcing you to agree to their terms of business since it's a civil court, which as far as i am aware is unlawful because no man is supposed to be forced into anything under the magna carte. So if i went to civil court and refused to affirm and i went by my family name rather than the name of my straw man then i'm not breaking any law am i? So how can someone who hasn't broken the law go to prison? After all it's a civil court, and as you said that person is not a judge in this jurisdiction so it can't be contempt either since that person has no power over you until you make that oath/affirm.

right?

I think you are missing the point here - the judge is not under oath in the civil. You don't have togo to civil court but they might find against you and you will be liable. If you access the civil courts yourself then your paperwork must be sworn and signed. That's your oath. That the document is true, complete, correct and not meant to mislead. Without swearing to it you will not get a case started. Swearing makes you accountable and liable. Oath breaking is perjury - a common law offence.

Contempt of court puts you in jail in the common law jurisdiction. This protects the courts, which we need, from disruption, disobedience etc.

In the civil there is a contempt of court option for judgement debtors for not obeying the order of the court after a civil trial has occurred. It is found in The Debtors Act, 1835, section 5. You may be imprisoned for up to 6 weeks for not obeying the order of the court to pay the bill to a judgement creditor and it does not reduce the amount owed. In jail you are a civil prisoner and different prison rules apply.

Try to leave the freeman confusion behind you - it is filled with error, confusion, wrong thinking and wishful thinking. If you base your questions on freeman so-called knowledge or ideas you will become lost in endless self-contradictory and ever decreasing circles. The only freeman who ever did the research and gained the legal knowledge now found in this site have all left for other things. All the good minds have gone. The only ones left on here are the new intake who've yet to learn anything but think they see an opportunity to gain; those who just want to take take take; to be given without the effort of study, and those like Dreadlock who keep pushing a theory known not to work for anyone and something they admit they have never put into practice. The reward is in the journey, not the possession of a thing. To be in possession of a thing is to have one thing. To make the journey is to find experience and understanding. Those who made the journey have passed onwards. Those who merely want to be given are still here, still waiting, and are bound for disappointment at the last. They are diverted from reality. The freeman is a waking moment, no more, and we must move on from it as the wiser heads have done. Freeman is a heady mix of legal fact, pseudo commercial legal arguments and a vision of plenty just for the taking. Reading Mary Croft's book tells you nothing. Reading Menard tells you nothing. Reading Veronica tells you nothing. They talk of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and never tell you how to get there but appear every so often with the new fix because the last one did not work. Nothing is ever fixed by the freeman and nor will it ever be.
Cassandra.

[nimblereaper]

Read the post - I said the judge needs no oath - because he is not a judge, in the civil he is an administrator. People think he's a judge because sometimes he sits in the criminal court as well as a civil court but that's because Lord Mansfield merged the two systems n 1754. His powers are different in each. In the criminal he is acting "in personam" of the sovereign - the ultimate lawgiver. In the civil he is merely a man adjudicating between two disputants who've consented to his authority to judge.

I don't know where you got the idea that you go into court to change their jurisdiction. That sentence makes no sense to me. Civil is civil and criminal is criminal. You get taken to one and voluntarily access the other. Refuse the one and you become outlaw. Refuse the other and you risk a default judgement.
,
We make oath OF office TO the crown. Office simply means FUNCTION or POSITION within a system. No responsibility of office without authority to order and no authority to order without accountability for its abuse.
Cassandra.

Ok I see, so when you go to Civil court you can actually refuse to stand under the administrator's authority by refusing to take that oath? I have seen people recorded in court questioning this person's authority asking if they're under oath, i assume this is to determine if they know that they have no power over you since it's a civil court? So basically in a civil case this "judge" has no power unless you allow them it right? But in criminal court it's different because you have broken the constitutional law?


Thanks for the explanation of office.

Slightly off topic, but people mention quite a lot that your name in block capitals is the legal version of it, but also companies write to you without capitalising all the letters, so is this where the title Mr,Mrs etc makes that law? I am just asking because people have said that words like PERSON are written in capitals to indicate it's a legal term, but do you have to write this stuff in capitals for it to mean the legal definition? (like PERSON = Legal personality (fiction) and person = the individual, or does it depend on the context?)

Cheers

In the old days people questioned the judge on his oath because they didn't then understand the situation. The judge takes his oath when he becomes a judge and he is always on oath when sitting in criminal or common law courts. If he's there then he's on his oath. The old videos are misleading because people were operating on insufficient information and understanding. The civil judge needs no oath. Either you go and defend or you stay away and risk default judgement. If our consent controlled things to the extent the freeman thinks, or would like to believe, then nothing would ever get done, would it? The country would be lawless in very short order. No dispute could ever be settled and no debt ever repaid. Hence the maxim: there must be an end to litigation. Besides, the law in Britain is that if you are here then you owe loyalty to the sovereign and he, in turn owes a consequent loyalty to you and is responsible for protecting you with his law. A two way deal. Deny that law while you live here and you are 'outlaw' and any man's hand may be raised against you with impunity. You may be killed, no questions asked, and every man has an obligation to do just that. Every man has the duty to uphold the common law and every man has the power of a constable to make an arrest and, if necessary, kill a criminal. It's the basis for bounty hunters to operate.

The name in block capitals goes back to old Roman civil law and the loss of civil rights – capitus diminutia minima - a minimum loss of rights - and so on. Capitus diminutia maxima meant a maximum loss of rights (life) and was used on tombstones.

The allcaps name means a dead thing – a corporation, a fiction, and as a fiction can only deal with another fiction we all need a PERSON, a strawman, to do business. Before that there was only the common law. The strawman protects the real man. You can live a life without a strawman but the moment you sign up with a company for its services they will create a strawman for you. It protects you. In common law the man is attacked – in equity its the strawman. He is your friend in that sense as equity took away the brutality of common law in matters of commerce. Any communication re business between you and a company will automatically be a strawman relationship no matter you print, write, in allcaps, lower case, red ink, blue ink, use the four corners rule or witter on about jurisdiction and the real man and so on.
The fiction of the PERSON was invented for the king by the church in the 13th century to allow him to act in commerce without prejudicing his role as king. (When a man went into the church he died to the world – became a PERSON). The archbishop of Canterbury controls the Notaries through the Master of the Faculty of Notaries, who are the legal bridge between the PERSON and the real man.
It's nothing to do with the Law Society or the Ministry of Justice or the home Office. It's a totally different jurisdiction and is all about corporate business – not law. Magna Carta upholds the ancient laws and customs of the merchants. You could look into what that actually means in terms of law and jurisdictions. The modern political and legal set-up has made us all merchants and subject to that law. The Bills of Exchange Act, The UN Commerce Clause, The Currency and Banknotes Act and the common law of England regarding negotiating bills. There are a nunber of ways we are taken into commerce and its laws.
Titles, like Mr., are in the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction. They do not create anything but express something - a condition of being, a class, a quality, one's place in a hierarchy or society.

In International law, an unclaimed land, ungoverned land etc, comes under admiralty jurisdiction. America started off in unclaimed territory – no government - with corporate colonies like the Virginia Tobacco company, and in Canada, the Hudson Bay company, and so on. If you plant crops then you're colonising.
Cassandra.

Sorry just to ask again, i have seen videos of people in civil court refusing to swear oath/affirm - so the court then just throw it out, but then other things i read say you can go to prison for it, so how does that work then? They are then basically forcing you to agree to their terms of business since it's a civil court, which as far as i am aware is unlawful because no man is supposed to be forced into anything under the magna carte. So if i went to civil court and refused to affirm and i went by my family name rather than the name of my straw man then i'm not breaking any law am i? So how can someone who hasn't broken the law go to prison? After all it's a civil court, and as you said that person is not a judge in this jurisdiction so it can't be contempt either since that person has no power over you until you make that oath/affirm.

right?

I think you are missing the point here - the judge is not under oath in the civil. You don't have togo to civil court but they might find against you and you will be liable. If you access the civil courts yourself then your paperwork must be sworn and signed. That's your oath. That the document is true, complete, correct and not meant to mislead. Without swearing to it you will not get a case started. Swearing makes you accountable and liable. Oath breaking is perjury - a common law offence.

Contempt of court puts you in jail in the common law jurisdiction. This protects the courts, which we need, from disruption, disobedience etc.

In the civil there is a contempt of court option for judgement debtors for not obeying the order of the court after a civil trial has occurred. It is found in The Debtors Act, 1835, section 5. You may be imprisoned for up to 6 weeks for not obeying the order of the court to pay the bill to a judgement creditor and it does not reduce the amount owed. In jail you are a civil prisoner and different prison rules apply.

Try to leave the freeman confusion behind you - it is filled with error, confusion, wrong thinking and wishful thinking. If you base your questions on freeman so-called knowledge or ideas you will become lost in endless self-contradictory and ever decreasing circles. The only freeman who ever did the research and gained the legal knowledge now found in this site have all left for other things. All the good minds have gone. The only ones left on here are the new intake who've yet to learn anything but think they see an opportunity to gain; those who just want to take take take; to be given without the effort of study, and those like Dreadlock who keep pushing a theory known not to work for anyone and something they admit they have never put into practice. The reward is in the journey, not the possession of a thing. To be in possession of a thing is to have one thing. To make the journey is to find experience and understanding. Those who made the journey have passed onwards. Those who merely want to be given are still here, still waiting, and are bound for disappointment at the last. They are diverted from reality. The freeman is a waking moment, no more, and we must move on from it as the wiser heads have done. Freeman is a heady mix of legal fact, pseudo commercial legal arguments and a vision of plenty just for the taking. Reading Mary Croft's book tells you nothing. Reading Menard tells you nothing. Reading Veronica tells you nothing. They talk of a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and never tell you how to get there but appear every so often with the new fix because the last one did not work. Nothing is ever fixed by the freeman and nor will it ever be.
Cassandra.

I am trying to get passed the confusion, obviously the freeman ideas are based on truth and law from the actual texts, even if they're all a bit confused and messy and not executed successfully, i think i get the basics of the whole thing though and after learning and learning it would be good knowledge to have for your own defence.

I do understand why freeman to what they do, but some of the stories! Some of them take it too far and even endanger people in the process.

"In the civil there is a contempt of court option for judgement debtors for not obeying the order of the court after a civil trial has occurred. I" - Ok so this is when a trail has been heard and the debtor doesn't pay? So as stated above if they refuse to take oath to the civil court (corporation - and it is the courts are all registered on companies house) you're then not entering a contract to do this business because they now finish the trial as not heard? So if it's not been heard, and you have turned up then what? You could just keep going back and refusing the oath/affirm and never had it heard lol :) - how can they hear it in your absence when they have to give notice and you keep turning up? I can see the endless circles here :D

What i was talking about with changing jurisdiction is probably my confusion, on a coupe of videos of recordings in the civil court people tell them they claim common law jurisdiction and not civil, and to what i understood they would have to swear the oath or them to claim responsibility for the legal person for the court to gain civil jurisdiction and without it they can't act upon the man/woman?

[cassandra]

This will be my last response to this topic. No matter what I say you keep going back to the same freeman nonsense about taking or not taking oaths. It's as if you haven't read a thing I've said. This oath nonsense. And the nonsense of choosing which jurisdiction you want to be in. What nonsense! You can't leave it behind and, like so many freeman, think it of such great importance and power. You are stuck in the freeman ever decreasing circle. End of story. And you seem unable to break from it. If you're using me to validate the nonsense you've picked up you'll be wasting your time. Drop the freeman rubbish and study law. You picked up some bad habits you need to unlearn before you will be able to learn. Unpicking bad habits piecemeal won't work. Get rid of them all. Start again. Study law, not the freeman caricature of it. You will only be unhappy.
Cassandra.