Merged Freeman on the Land in America/lawful rebellion/sovereign citizens

my ill will

Scholar
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
79
Just wondering if anyone in here has heard about it. I'll try to provide some insight.


Lawful Rebellion is basically a peaceful uprising of men and women in commonwealth nations who deny their consent to be governed, using notices and Claims of Right. In all representative governments, representation requires mutual consent and the government is bound by their own rules. If enough research on the relationship between common law and admiralty law is done, it is visible that we may exist completely free of all statutory obligations, restrictions, and restraints. "Free-man-on-the-Land"

A large section of this movement is dedicated to the commercial "Accepted for Value" remedy. There was a trust created in your person's name when you were registered as a child, and there is an actual bond tracking number on your birth certificate. This bond can be used for the purposes of setting-off debt, and actually aids your country in reducing the national debt. This method has been used by quite a few people, and obviously does not have much mainstream coverage as it has been hidden for a long time. But make no mistake, it is there and it works.

If anyone is interested, here is a video that will help you understand what I'm talking about. http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/articles/john-harris-its-illusion

By the way, I didn't see a "law" section so I posted it here. Feel free to move it!

edit: Yes, I see the recommended films at the bottom. Ignore them. I don't like conspiracy theories either.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen the link as I'm at work and can't watch video, but this seems like an amusing mix of anarchism and tax protester junk.
 
A large section of this movement is dedicated to the commercial "Accepted for Value" remedy. There was a trust created in your person's name when you were registered as a child, and there is an actual bond tracking number on your birth certificate. This bond can be used for the purposes of setting-off debt, and actually aids your country in reducing the national debt. This method has been used by quite a few people, and obviously does not have much mainstream coverage as it has been hidden for a long time. But make no mistake, it is there and it works.

Wow. Do you have any idea what the paragraph above actually means?

Because as far as I can tell, it's legalistic word salad.

As in, the words exist, but have no actual connection to each other. How does printing a number at the bottom of a birth certificate allow "setting-off debt"?

This is simply drivel.
 
I haven't seen the link as I'm at work and can't watch video, but this seems like an amusing mix of anarchism and tax protester junk.


Like I said, a bunch of people who see themselves as Heros in an Ayn Rand Novel.
 
I haven't seen the link as I'm at work and can't watch video, but this seems like an amusing mix of anarchism and tax protester junk.

Not quite. The common law applies to all people, anywhere, everywhere. It's the natural, universally accepted law. You cannot cause harm or loss or breach the peace or commit fraud in your contracts. It covers everything. Theft, murder, perjury, public nuisance, etc. Admiralty law (statutes, codes, regulations) are specifically restricted in their scope and applicability to the members of that society. A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society, given the force of law. A society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine, and act for a common purpose. So, statutes are laws to people who have given their consent to be a part of the society. It's like if you have lived on a piece of land your entire life, and some organization came in, claiming to be the government of the land, and tried to get you to pay taxes and follow their policies. You'd tell them they had no jurisdiction, no authority. Because they don't. It's like saying marijuana is illegal in the United States and trying to enforce that in Amsterdam. Doesn't work. No jurisdiction. And it's not because it's a separate piece of land. The fundamental laws of the land provide that all men are created equal and that governments are instilled among men to protect inalienable rights, and that when government becomes destructive of these rights, it is the right of the people to alter/abolish it. You can declare sovereignty and there is nothing anyone can do about it without a gun to your head. :)

Wow. Do you have any idea what the paragraph above actually means?

Because as far as I can tell, it's legalistic word salad.

As in, the words exist, but have no actual connection to each other. How does printing a number at the bottom of a birth certificate allow "setting-off debt"?

This is simply drivel.

Actually, yes, I do. The number is generally on the back of the birth certificate and it is evidence of a bond created in your name. In America, for example... FDR created a trust in 1933 (and there is also a trust created by the Constitution) of which the people are the beneficiaries. The Secretary of Treasury is the fiduciary of this bond and it directs the funds in it to your local representative. I think it would be your state's Congress member, not entirely sure. In Canada it's your provincial representative in Parliament. You can send notice directing these funds for debt set-off. Several people have done this with their student loans, credit card debts, etc, and it has worked. The debt simply moves to zero.
 
Last edited:
my ill will is making my head spend. In one section he advocates The Venus Project, which advocates the abolition of money and private property, and now he seem to support a de facto Objectivist political movement. Anti Establishmentism is a interesting phenenmenon.
 
The common law applies to all people, anywhere, everywhere.

Except in France.

Or Germany.

Or Japan.

Really, the "common law" only holds in the UK or the former colonies of the UK.

It's the natural, universally accepted law.

Except in France. Or Germany. Or,....

A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society, given the force of law.

Okay, I guess.

At least, not as wrong as

A society is defined as a number of people formed by mutual consent to deliberate, determine, and act for a common purpose.

Because, of course, most "societies" do not have a "common purpose" (what's the purpose of Kidlington, Oxon.? Or France?

And, of course, people do not necessarily "consent" to the formation of a society; most extant societies long predate any of the people who currently make it. Kidlington existed long before I was born and will continue to exist long after I am dead.

It's like if you have lived on a piece of land your entire life, and some organization came in, claiming to be the government of the land, and tried to get you to pay taxes and follow their policies. You'd tell them they had no jurisdiction, no authority.

And I'd be wrong. And the reason I know I'd be wrong is because something like this happened -- the local city decided to expand and annex some of the neighboring unincorporated land. And they had the (state-given) authority to do so. And when the residents sued, the state courts told them to go suck wind.


You can declare sovereignty and there is nothing anyone can do about it

Nor is there any reason that anyone should do anything about it. Your declaration has no legal, moral, or social weight. You can declare yourself sovereign. You can also declare yourself Batman, for all I care.

Of course, if you think that just because you declared yourself Batman -- or sovereign -- you have the ability to wander around at night breaking into buildings in search of criminals to battle, you're in for a sad disappointment. And I suspect that the next delusional declaration you make will be to claim to be the warden.
 
The number is generally on the back of the birth certificate and it is evidence of a bond created in your name. In America, for example... FDR created a trust in 1933 (and there is also a trust created by the Constitution) of which the people are the beneficiaries. The Secretary of Treasury is the fiduciary of this bond and it directs the funds in it to your local representative. I think it would be your state's Congress member, not entirely sure. In Canada it's your provincial representative in Parliament. You can send notice directing these funds for debt set-off. Several people have done this with their student loans, credit card debts, etc, and it has worked. The debt simply moves to zero.

So, the answer is "no, you don't know what that paragraph means."

Thought so.
 
my ill will is making my head spend. In one section he advocates The Venus Project, which advocates the abolition of money and private property, and now he seem to support a de facto Objectivist political movement. Anti Establishmentism is a interesting phenenmenon.

Haha. :)

Well, I wouldn't consider it a de facto objectivist political movement at all. In fact, all courts are de facto. They are UCC courts, not Constitutional. It's not "objectivist" or "political" either. It's actually just men and women enjoying the full scope of freedom, for there is a way to have it.
 
I don't think he was using "common law" in the strict legal sense, he was using it to mean universal human law.

ETA: ok nvm, apparently he was talking about english common law...
 
Last edited:
I don't think he was using "common law" in the strict legal sense, he was using it to mean universal human law.

I don't think he knows what he's using words to mean. And if he's trying to distinguish "statute" from "common law," then he better be using "common law" in the strict legal sense, or he's committing a rather blatant fallacy of amphi-whatever.
 
Last edited:
What in the name of Ed is this on about?

This reads like some nightmare confutation of Rothbard with James Taggart.
 
I don't think he knows what he's using words to mean. And if he's trying to distinguish "statute" from "common law," then he better be using "common law" in the strict legal sense, or he's committing a rather blatant fallacy of amphi-whatever.


Yes, he's using a certain tactic of tax protesters. Words are magic.
 
Except in France.

Or Germany.

Or Japan.

Really, the "common law" only holds in the UK or the former colonies of the UK.

The common law holds in all common law jurisdictions. I probably shouldn't have said everyone, everywhere. US, UK, Canada, NZ, Holland, etc...


Okay, I guess.

At least, not as wrong as



Because, of course, most "societies" do not have a "common purpose" (what's the purpose of Kidlington, Oxon.? Or France?

And, of course, people do not necessarily "consent" to the formation of a society; most extant societies long predate any of the people who currently make it. Kidlington existed long before I was born and will continue to exist long after I am dead.

Actually those definitions are from Black's law dictionary which is accepted in Supreme Court cases.





Nor is there any reason that anyone should do anything about it. Your declaration has no legal, moral, or social weight. You can declare yourself sovereign. You can also declare yourself Batman, for all I care.

Yes, it does have legal weight, and it has been proven. Ever heard of a Claim of Right? Or estoppel by acquiescence? Default judgement?

Of course, if you think that just because you declared yourself Batman -- or sovereign -- you have the ability to wander around at night breaking into buildings in search of criminals to battle, you're in for a sad disappointment. And I suspect that the next delusional declaration you make will be to claim to be the warden.

Well generally Free-men-on-the-Land declare their peaceful intentions and follow them, and if they don't, they get ****ed like the rest of us. It doesn't give you any new powers, just allows you to enjoy your inalienable rights.
 
Last edited:
Not quite. The common law applies to all people, anywhere, everywhere. It's the natural, universally accepted law. You cannot cause harm or loss or breach the peace or commit fraud in your contracts. It covers everything. Theft, murder, perjury, public nuisance, etc.

Never heard of it. Who made and enforces it?
 
And no, common law doesn't "cover everything". If it did, there would be no need for appeals court.
 
And no, common law doesn't "cover everything". If it did, there would be no need for appeals court.

Per the definition of crime, yes it does. The courts do not uphold common law because they are operating under commercial law.
 
All law is derived from the principles of common law. It is enforced by the people appointed to enforce the law!

The laws of a country are made by parlament, enforced by police, and jugded by the courts.

You seem to claim some underlying universal principle for lawmaking. You will have to make it very vague and abstract to make it fit all the different laws on this planet.
 
The laws of a country are made by parlament, enforced by police, and jugded by the courts.

You seem to claim some underlying universal principle for lawmaking. You will have to make it very vague and abstract to make it fit all the different laws on this planet.

Their foundations are in common law. The basics. Everything else is corporate policy.
 
Their foundations are in common law.

Except in France. Or Germany. Or Japan.

Wait, we've been over this, haven't we?

We established that you don't know what "common law" means, and you're still posting drivel on it?
 
Actually, yes, I do. The number is generally on the back of the birth certificate and it is evidence of a bond created in your name. In America, for example... FDR created a trust in 1933 (and there is also a trust created by the Constitution) of which the people are the beneficiaries. The Secretary of Treasury is the fiduciary of this bond and it directs the funds in it to your local representative. I think it would be your state's Congress member, not entirely sure. In Canada it's your provincial representative in Parliament. You can send notice directing these funds for debt set-off. Several people have done this with their student loans, credit card debts, etc, and it has worked. The debt simply moves to zero.

I am having a hard time understanding your position. I realized that my confusion seems to the the result of this particular paragraph. Would you explain it in simpler terms? Also please cover the following questions:

Is the federal government purchasing or selling a bond at one's birth?

What is the value of this bond?

What happens to the bond and its value when one dies?

What do you mean by "directing these funds for debt set-off"?

Have the people who have "moved debt to zero" shown you tangible evidence that they have eliminated their debt?

If not, why do you believe this fantastic story? If they have, then may we see the evidence, too?

If one is striving to be a "freeman" and not be part of this formalized society, then isn't it rather counterproductive to acknowledge the authority of the government by using these bonds to "move [one's] debt to zero"?
 
I am having a hard time understanding your position. I realized that my confusion seems to the the result of this particular paragraph. Would you explain it in simpler terms? Also please cover the following questions:

Is the federal government purchasing or selling a bond at one's birth?

It creates a bond in your name. Well, not your name, but your legal person's. You see, when your birth was registered, a legal entity was created, called your strawman. It is your name in all-caps. The governments are all corporations, listed on the market AS CORPORATIONS. Their policy is corporate. This is why they require the people to have driver's licenses, SSN for nearly everything... because these identify you as employees of their corporation, meaning you must follow their regulations or you are punished. All of the courts and agencies follow the UCC, not the constitution. There is a grand deception that they are actually a government. They are a for profit corporation and all citizens are employees that must follow their rules. The BC registration is a contract. For a valid contract to exist, there must be consent, and equal consideration on both sides. The consideration the United States provides to the citizen are the benefits of citizenship. The consideration the person provides is their pledge to the US statutes, and their future tax money. The bond is related to the national debt. Money is no longer backed by physical substance, it is all debt. It is created based on someone's promise to pay (their signature). Money is created in people's future labor. If you direct someone to transfer this "money" all they are doing, basically, is reducing numbers from the national debt.

What is the value of this bond?

You know how there is an exemption of something around $685,000 when you die? Well it is said today the bonds are assigned a value of around $1-2million.

What happens to the bond and its value when one dies?

Not too sure, actually. It either disappears, or the funds go back to being transferred by the representative.

What do you mean by "directing these funds for debt set-off"?

The trustee over your bond in the United States is the Secretary of Treasury. He is directing the funds to your local representative. If you tell him to set-off a debt, he is using a distribution from the trust to move the debt to zero.

Have the people who have "moved debt to zero" shown you tangible evidence that they have eliminated their debt?

If not, why do you believe this fantastic story? If they have, then may we see the evidence, too?

Haven't personally seen any bank statements, nope. But I do know real people who have Accepted for Value instruments that are issued and transferred for value. They got calls from collection agencies and simply asked what happened to their payment, evidencing the notices they sent to the financial agency with their acceptance. Told them they were a third party, and to get out of their business. Those people never heard from the agencies again and they stated that their debts showed as zero. I've heard of many people doing this and read many success stories, and the evidence that it works is written in the law itself. Just requires some research.

If one is striving to be a "freeman" and not be part of this formalized society, then isn't it rather counterproductive to acknowledge the authority of the government by using these bonds to "move [one's] debt to zero"?

Well when being a free man, you can still use a legal entity to operate in commerce. How are you supposed to exist if you can't operate in commerce, when the entire system is commerce? A human being cannot exist in commerce because it is a fiction, a human being is a real, physical entity. So you use a legal person, a corporation, if you will. And by setting off debts, you are doing your country a favor by reducing the national debt.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you live in a parallel world.
In my world all this could not have been kept a secret.
 
I'm still holding out hope that this thread is a joke.

Every "clarification" is more twisted and cloudy than the original statement...I’m actually slightly concerned for my ill will’s well being having read all this.
 
I misread the thread title. I thought it said "Freemasons."

Anyone here ever get a tour of the George Washington National Masonic Memorial in Alexandria, Virginia? I've done it, twice (when you live in the DC area long enough, you start running out of White Houses and Lincoln Memorials to take out-of-town guests to...). The tour guides are full of all sorts of mystical babbledygook. Kinda like the OP here.

Anyway, never mind.
 
I'm still holding out hope that this thread is a joke.

Every "clarification" is more twisted and cloudy than the original statement...I’m actually slightly concerned for my ill will’s well being having read all this.

Sorry if that's what I'm conveying. It's hard for me to explain a lot of this in simpler terms. Perhaps this will help you understand?

The United States is bankrupt and has been since 1933. The government has no gold or silver as required by the Constitution. The only asset left is the people. So how does the U.S. finance its daily operations?

Solution, collateralize the people for credit. How? By registering them in international commerce, and selling bonds on them. The people become the surety on the bonds, or the "pledge". The asset bonded (surety) is the labor of the people which is payable as some undetermined future date. Thus, the people become the "utility" for the "transmission" of energy. Result, a very sophisticated form of peonage or slavery and the Constitution does not apply because the government, on all levels, is thrown into international commerce, the law merchant, now known as the Uniform Commercial Code. [See Public Law 88-244 in which the U.S. Subscribed to private international law. See definition of "goods" under the Uniform Commercial Code; Section 2-105(1) and 9-105(1) in which animals, i.e. humans and their unborn offspring, become "goods" sellable in commerce!

When a baby is born in the United States, a birth certificate is registered with the Bureau of Vital Statistics in the State of birth. The key word here is "registered" as registered in international commerce. The baby becomes the surety, whose energy is due at some future date. When the birth certificate is registered in the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Department of Treasury issues a bond on the birth certificate ($1,000,000) and the bond is sold at some securities exchange and perhaps bought by the Federal Reserve Bank, which then uses it as collateral in order to issue Federal Reserve Notes or some other form of "debt obligation" (see 18 USC §411). The bond is then held in trust for the Federal Reserve at the Depository Trust Corp. At 55 Water Street, in New York City, about two blocks down the street from the Fed. It is a high rise office building and the sign out front reads "The Tower of Power".

When the birth certificate is registered, a separate legal entity is created, like a mirror image of the flesh and blood human. This separate entity, or alter ego (THE ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME) is the "straw man". (See Black's Law 6th edition dictionary). And it is the "accommodation party" of the Uniform commercial Code §3-415. The "name" is credit. (See Back's 6th "accommodation party"). Therefore the right (or the use) has been separated from the title (or deed). The "straw man" holds the title (he belongs to the government's client who bought the title) and the real live you, flesh and blood man or women has only naked possession with the limited "right" to use the thing (like your body or your alleged possessions and land). Maybe that's why our civil rights suits get dismissed out of court on Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motions. This deals with "failure to state a title upon which relief can be granted". A claim is another word for "title". So we have "failed to state upon which relief can be granted". We do not own the "title", even to our own bodies anymore. Isn't that encouraging! How free are you now?

When the straw man violates some rule or statue (for instance a traffic ticket), the flesh and blood, the real you has to appear at the arraignment and admit the straw man's name (credit) and the "energy" surety is due and payable (fine) by the flesh and blood man who is in use of the straw man. This, I'm sure, is why it is so important to "voluntarily give" your name to the magistrate (court). The defendant is the straw man. The real you, the flesh and blood man is the "offender". An "offender" is on the offensive team until he screws up and goes on the defensive team with the defendant (straw man) and looses as the real man.

So if this scenario is correct, how does one get back the bond that has been sold on the birth certificate. And then how does one get in control of his body and his property?

TITLE = RIGHT = REMEDY = RELIEF can only be granted after perfecting the "security interest" in the "goods" (The collateral = pignus = the straw man

DEFINITIONS & MEANINGS

Stramineus homo /straminiyas howmow/. L. Lat. A man of straw, one of no substance, put Forward as bail surety.

Stratocracy /stseokraisiy/. A military government; government by military chiefs of an army.

Straw man or party. A "front", a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser, or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed.

At birth your parents and the doctor become the pledger of the birth certificate title to the baby Johnny. The State become the recipient of this pledge for the future energy output of "Johnny". The state converts the "title security document" into a bond which is sold on the open market place to finance government. The bond holder is the secured party to receive the future energy output of Johnny. Johnny is the mere naked holder and possessor of the body with no title. His duty is to the secured party.

The definition of the straw man now becomes apparent. The straw man is nom de guerre artificial entity put forth that is owned by the secured party who bought into the bond placed on the market by the Treasury of the United States. The straw man is not yours. It is the front man for the secured party holder of the bond. Whatever the straw man signs, he does so to place title to property in the hands of the UNITED STATES and the bond owner. The straw man does not place title to the property into Johnny's hands. That is because Johnny does not have title to the straw man. The straw man belongs to the UNITED STATES and the bond owner.

In order to get one's liberty and independence back, one must first secure the title and ownership of the straw man back. Once one controls the straw man, then one controls the rights of the property that the straw man acquires.

The key to ownership is registration. In a military government, registered property is recognized By the "public" side. If the property is registered on the public side of the government, then the property is public. If the property is registered on the private side, then the property is private with no public interest.

The military government (democracy) has three appointed leaders. The governor, the Secretary Of State, and the Secretary of Treasury. The Secretary of State holds the registration for the Democracy corporation. The public side of the registration is the "corporate filings" at the state And county levels. The private side of the filings are the "Uniform Commercial Code filings" of the creditors to transactions. This registration by the private creditor is the highest priority of recognition by the military State (democracy). If one is not registered, then one is believed to be "foreign" with no rights, private or public, except what is granted by the military law form As a privilege.

For one to regain title to his body, the Birth Certificate must be secured and attached and recorded in the private UCC-1 filings with the Secretary of State in the democracy. Once the living soul has redeemed his Birth Certificate and filed notice of the redemption by a UCC-1 filing with the Secretary of State, then the living soul has the right of property ownership in himself through his straw man who now belongs to the living soul. Furthermore, the bond created and sold in the market place for the straw man now becomes the property of the living soul. The living soul now has the capacity to own real property by allodium and to own private chattel property by the process of the passover, redemption, chargeback, and discharge of public debt.

What's in a name? Very simple. A name is CREDIT. For any unauthorized person to use your Name or the straw man's name (when they do not own the title to the straw man) is to violate the laws of "slander of credit". Once you have redeemed the straw man and own him, then any further commercial process done by any person (like an attorney, a judge, or law enforcement office without your consent) is slander of credit against your straw man. This is a federal criminal securities violation that means prison for them.

Until you redeem your straw man and register his title to you, the living soul, then your straw man becomes the source of the credit for the UNITED STATES to the public affairs of the nation through the "pledge" or gift of your property) your body and energy) to them for their use.
 
Last edited:
As for the declaring sovereignty

Originally, the Constitution limited the jurisdiction of the federal government by making citizens of the state in which they were born or resided. According to the Constitution, the federal government could only have jurisdiction on a person if they lived in Washington DC or a US territory.

The Federalists who took control of our government after the Civil War, instituted the 14th Amendment to "protect" the former slaves. This amendment allowed the former slaves to come under the Jurisdiction of the Federal Government in order that the Federal Government could protect their Constitutional rights. Many blacks were being abused by people and the local or state governments would not come to their aid. The 14th Amendment may have freed the slaves from oppression of their neighbors, but it gave them and us a new master, the Federal Government. The 14th Amendment makes us citizens of the United States AND of the several states. This allows the Federal Government to have jurisdiction over us that it never had before the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment also states (the last section) that the debt of the Federal government cannot even be questioned.

Most people have received their United States citizenship when they received their Social Security Card. With the Social Security Card came income taxes. I am not going to go into how we have been put under Statutory (Admiralty) Law; I will simply state that we are under it. We all know this because we need a license (permission to break the law) or permit to do things. A free citizen doesn't require a license or a permit. Why would a free person require permission from the government to get married, drive a car, start a business, to add onto his/her home or improve his/her property?

Please show me in the US Constitution or your state constitution where a government has the right to demand such obedience? If anyone is arrogant enough to try to use the US Constitution to show such things, please align your argument with the 10th Amendment. How did we get in such a mess, but more importantly, how do we get out of such a mess?

The Congress in session during the time the 14th Amendment was declared law provided people with a way to get out from under these provisions. It is called an apostille. An apostille allows you to deny or renounce your United States citizenship and receive diplomatic immunity. For total freedom, you also must file a UCC-1 lien against your strawman and a denial of corporate existence against the incorporated local and state governments.
 
Last edited:
My ill will, is there a nonsense on the internet that you don't believe in?

I am still boggled the he is advocating A Far Left Economic program like The Venus Plan in other threads.and the Ultra Libertarian view in this thread and does not see the contradiction.
 
The Congress in session during the time the 14th Amendment was declared law provided people with a way to get out from under these provisions. It is called an apostille. An apostille allows you to deny or renounce your United States citizenship and receive diplomatic immunity. For total freedom, you also must file a UCC-1 lien against your strawman and a denial of corporate existence against the incorporated local and state governments.



I have two words for you: Wesley Snipes.
 
The common law holds in all common law jurisdictions. I probably shouldn't have said everyone, everywhere. US, UK, Canada, NZ, Holland, etc...

Common law doesn't apply across the UK. Scotland has it's own legal system.
 
Post #31:

:eye-poppi :jaw-dropp

Is your location an Amsterdam coffee shop? Just curious. I listened to comparable stories there.
 

Back
Top Bottom