Gardai, Government, Privately owned Corporations. Enslavement

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

yes but common law goes back to the middle ages.

Look there is nothing to debunk with me here. I have no position on it, just find it interesting.

true but why is common law accepted but recent laws not?????

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Why do you assume I havn't ?

i dont assume anything.. have you opted out....
are you employed and currently free from paying tax of any format for example?

TalkieWalkie

robtri wrote: »

so why havent u opted out???

robtri wrote: »

i dont assume anything.. have you opted out....
are you employed and currently free from paying tax of any format for example?

Looks like an assumption to me

I do not pay income tax. A letter comes to my door, I return to sender. Write, No contract, I don't not reconize you or unterstand your intent, no international treaty, no assured value.

No where in the constitution does it state that you should pay income tax.

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Looks like an assumption to me

I do not pay income tax. A letter comes to my door, I return to sender. Write, No contract, I don't not reconize you or unterstand your intent, no international treaty, no assured value.

No where in the constitution does it state that you should pay income tax.

My bad, didnt mean like it to be an assumption, more of aquestion

are u employed or self employed??

TalkieWalkie

robtri wrote: »

My bad, didnt mean like it to be an assumption, more of aquestion

are u employed or self employed??

I am employed by a company. I simply tell them I would like to pay my own tax, also my right.

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I am employed by a company. I simply tell them I would like to pay my own tax, also my right.

i find this extremely harrd to believe... dont suppose you want to scan up a copy of your payslip in hi res ????

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Im not sure about a contract between slaves and masters, i think they were owned but it will be interesting to look into.
What I have found is that you are not obliged to register your child. They say you "must", but it's a play on words, "must" actually means "may".
When you do register your child, you abandon ownership of the child and this is how the government can seize the child under certain conditions.
The government seizes their investment, the "person" and the human child goes with it.

It's rather handy to have though! Schools, Driving Licences etc. right up to you snuff it!

TalkieWalkie

robtri wrote: »

i find this extremely harrd to believe... dont suppose you want to scan up a copy of your payslip in hi res ????

I'll opt out of that also, if you dont mind.

K-9 wrote: »

It's rather handy to have though! Schools, Driving Licences etc. right up to you snuff it!

Once you distinguish the difference between the human and person is enough. The person isn't created to enslave you, it helps. It protects you against government tyranny. I can use the person to open a bank account, video store account because I wish to do business. I can opt out of any request for business I wish (income tax) for example. It is when you are not aware of the strawman that you are enslaved.

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I'll opt out of that also, if you dont mind.

strange that, but no surprise... so u can offer no proof you have opted out..

TalkieWalkie

Look, do some research, there are many people who don't pay income tax. Simply ask them for a bill or invoice or proof of claim to state that you owe them money. They can't, it doesnt exist. It's the same with tv license, they only request that you pay it, they send a notice, it's not a bill.

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Look, do some research, there are many people who don't pay income tax. Simply ask them for a bill or invoice or proof of claim to state that you owe them money. They can't, it doesnt exist. It's the same with tv license, they only request that you pay it, they send a notice, it's not a bill.

firstly u said u opted out and that you informerd your employer, i asked could u provide proof, you siad no..

now you make some excuse that it cant be proofed, as no bill exsists.. strange didnt ask for a bill.. asked to see a hi res copy of your payslip to see if yu are doing what u say u are.. simple proof.


Secondly bills for income tax do exist, if you are self employed and get sudited they issue with a Demand for payment... and the LAW says u have to pay it...

TalkieWalkie

Ok, I go to a shop and ask for a pack of smokes, it is a request for business, I pay tax on them. If I ask for the smokes for free, they will laugh at me and say, show me proof of claim.
If Bob down the road goes out and start repairing the pothole in the road, do you think it's ok for him to tax my children for using that road ? They didn't make a contract with Bob, they are born sovereign, free from debt.

mugs1

robtri wrote: »

Secondly bills for income tax do exist, if you are self employed and get sudited they issue with a Demand for payment... and the LAW says u have to pay it...

As a former contractor, I can confirm that this is a fact, they do send reall bills, that are backed up by real laws.. and they don't just go away if you say you want to opt out.

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I can use the person to open a bank account, video store account because I wish to do business.

How can you do it with money laundering legislation? Hell they look for it now with an online betting account.

Sorry for the questions, genuinely interested.

TalkieWalkie

mugs1 wrote: »

As a former contractor, I can confirm that this is a fact, they do send reall bills, that are backed up by real laws.. and they don't just go away if you say you want to opt out.

You can only recieve a bill if you have entered into a contract, otherwise, it's a notice or a request.

K-9 wrote: »

How can you do it with money laundering legislation? Hell they look for it now with an online betting account.

Sorry for the questions, genuinely interested.

It's fine. From what I gather it goes under the criminal justice act 1994. An act isn't a law it is an Advanced Corporation Tax.
As I stated, I am quite new to this but i'll be happy to look into it, even if you are not

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It's fine. From what I gather it goes under the criminal justice act 1994. An act isn't a law it is an Advanced Corporation Tax.
As I stated, I am quite new to this but i'll be happy to look into it, even if you are not

Just thinking if a bank refuses to accept your terms, which in this day and age they are, you are kind of snookered!

No proper ID, which will entail a birth cert at some stage, no bank A/c!

Having said all that, you can get a false idea pretty easy, even in this day and age. Day of the Jackal could be in 2010!

TalkieWalkie

K-9 wrote: »

Just thinking if a bank refuses to accept your terms, which in this day and age they are, you are kind of snookered!

No proper ID, which will entail a birth cert at some stage, no bank A/c!

Having said all that, you can get a false idea pretty easy, even in this day and age. Day of the Jackal could be in 2010!

I posted this on page 21, it fits here also.

"Once you distinguish the difference between the human and person is enough. The person isn't created to enslave you, it helps. It protects you against government tyranny. I can use the person to open a bank account, video store account because I wish to do business. I can opt out of any request for business I wish (income tax) for example. It is when you are not aware of the strawman that you are enslaved. "

constance tench

mugs1 wrote: »

As a former contractor, I can confirm that this is a fact, they do send reall bills, that are backed up by real laws.. and they don't just go away if you say you want to opt out.

do they title these requests 'bill', 'demand', or 'invoice'?
were they signed?

were they addressed to the legal entity/juristic person?

The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract.
(Contractus legem ex conventione accipiunt)

TalkieWalkie

A sovereign human who goes by the name of David walks into a resteraunt and the manager hands him a bill before he has eaten. David say's "I have not eaten yet, I don't owe you anything". The manager say's "if you are DAVID" (all caps), you owe me money. David has the choice to accept this "fictional Person" "DAVID" or not. I'm guessing not.
I am not "DAVID", I go by the name David, I am me, I am sovereign and debt free, I am not a person, I have a person, No contract

Works the same when the government requests income tax from you, tv license too.

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I posted this on page 21, it fits here also.

"Once you distinguish the difference between the human and person is enough. The person isn't created to enslave you, it helps. It protects you against government tyranny. I can use the person to open a bank account, video store account because I wish to do business. I can opt out of any request for business I wish (income tax) for example. It is when you are not aware of the strawman that you are enslaved. "

But the banks are part of the tyranny? Yes?

They aren't going to let you open an account without id, that is, after all, part of the tyranny.

So, can you open a bank account without a birth cert? Simple question.

TalkieWalkie

K-9 wrote: »

But the banks are part of the tyranny? Yes?

They aren't going to let you open an account without id, that is, after all, part of the tyranny.

So, can you open a bank account without a birth cert? Simple question.

I never suggested, nor would I that one should not get a birth cert. . I did say one had the option to opt out if they wish.
I do however suggest that everyone research this information for themselves.
The banks control the govs (imo) so yes, they are very much a part of tyranny.

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I can use the person to open a bank account, video store account because I wish to do business..

Ah right.

So, how can you use your person to do this?

If you can't, fair enough. I don't think it is right to make claims like that without proof. Some people will fall for this stuff.

TalkieWalkie

K-9 wrote: »

Ah right.

So, how can you use your person to do this?

If you can't, fair enough. I don't think it is right to make claims like that without proof. Some people will fall for this stuff.

The same way you normally open a bank account. Use your passport or whatever. If you open a bank acount, you are contracting willingly to do business.
Your person is a corporation and it has a choice to do business or not.

The issue arrises when you are requested to do business that you want no part of. (eg .tax)

K-9

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

The same way you normally open a bank account. Use your passport or whatever. If you open a bank acount, you are contracting willingly to do business.
Your person is a corporation and it has a choice to do business or not.

The issue arrises when you are requested to do business that you want no part of. (eg .tax)

So you really can't open a bank account under the freeman terms? You have to accept the banks terms?

To get a Passport you need a birth cert.

TalkieWalkie

Ok, i'll try explain one last time then im off to bed.

I didn't suggest one shouldn't get a birthcert. The person (birthcert, strawman), is created for your advantage, it is not to enslave you. Only when you can't distignuish the difference between the two do you become enslaved. It's true that some freemen may choose not to operate in certain ways (judicially), but some do. Words and language are changed over time so as we no longer know what words mean, but they knowq what they mean, this is how you unwillingly contract. eg.

Legaleeeze is the language they use.
It is English but the meanings are changed

must means may
summons means invitation [to a corp law venue to discuss how much money we owe them]
understand = stand under their authority.

Peace out

Freeman = free from tyranny

Not free from birthcert

K-9

So you can't really use it to open a bank account or video store one.

Fair enough.

So, we've ruled that one out?

Really, rather than making outlandish claims, it would be better to outline what you can do.

TalkieWalkie

K-9 wrote: »

So you can't really use it to open a bank account or video store one.

Fair enough.

So, we've ruled that one out?

Really, rather than making outlandish claims, it would be better to outline what you can do.

Remind me what the outlandish claim was ?

Mahatma coat

Look what they're sayin is that you ARE FREE however most of us inadvertently Contract to be Enslaved, I am Living my life by the Freeman ideal & I'm talkin to ya on me broadband connection from the Sofa in the Loungeroom of me house, all of which is legally owned FREEHOLD and adheres to the freeman principles You HAVE to Contract to get stuff, Its about TERMS.

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

An act isn't a law it is an Advanced Corporation Tax.

What rubbish - any other bogus acronyms you'd care to throw out there?. All laws are man-made, and an act (from the latin 'actus') is simply another statute law - with no meaningful distinction from the process and morality of common law. Common law is as much a social contract as all the supposed 'corporate' acts that 'sovereign men' feel they can ignore.

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

understand = stand under their authority.

Heh - aside from complete absence of any legal definition for this bizarre notion, you are aware that common law requires you to recognise the authority of the judge, and be subject to their decisions? This whole 'freeman' lark is so much cake and eating it. That's probably why it seems to attract a particularly selfish and cosseted trustafarian crowd (and the Icke lizard-phobe nutters).

Pot Noodle =

But all Men are created equal so why must we bow down to a Jugde i did not select him or approve of them so why should i abide by him sorry for my grammar

alastair

Pot wrote:

But all Men are created equal so why must we bow down to a Jugde i did not select him or approve of them so why should i abide by him sorry for my grammar

If you claim to adhere to common law, then you also need to adhere to the mechanism for judgement within common law - the judiciary. That's the whole point of adjudication. It's also worth pointing out that common law never claimed that men were equal under the law - rather that legal equality only emerged in later acts of law that 'freemen' claim to ignore.

Pot Noodle =

But who judges the Jugdes

Di0genes

Pot wrote:

But who judges the Jugdes

If you're unsatisfied with the judgement you can appeal to a higher court all the way up to the european court. Jesus.

Pot Noodle =

Di0genes wrote: »

If you're unsatisfied with the judgement you can appeal to a higher court all the way up to the european court. Jesus.

Yes but at a cost

Di0genes

Pot wrote:

Yes but at a cost

So what you want is a accountable transparent legal system that is completely free to use?

Would you also like a unicorn?

Pot Noodle =

Di0genes wrote: »

So what you want is a accountable transparent legal system that is completely free to use?

Would you also like a unicorn?

:rolleyes:

Di0genes

Pot wrote:

:rolleyes:

A verbose and nuanced rebuttal. I salute you Sir.

Seriously this Freeman stuff is about, as a another poster put it, having your cake and eating it. They want all the rights and benefits that come with living in a society but they just want to find a way of avoiding to paid for it.

Pot Noodle =

But can it work here it is working in the States and UK & Canada

Di0genes

Pot wrote:

But can it work here it is working in the States and UK & Canada

No it's not working, the reason it doesn't work is that the entire concept and premise of the Freeman movement is utterly bogus and idiotic.

Pot Noodle =

How do work that one out then looks good to me

mugs1

constance tench wrote: »

do they title these requests 'bill', 'demand', or 'invoice'?
were they signed?)

Im not 100 percent it was a long time ago, I'll try and dig one out but I done a ritual burning of all that stuff a couple years ago!! So probably won't find one,

But from what I can rememder they send you a form to declare what you owe based on your earnings for that time period, you calculate it yourself (self assesment) fill out the declaration and send it away, you don't have to send payment with it but when you send in the declaration you are efectivley admitting lliability and they will come looking for it eventually in the form of a Demand.

Now you can fill in 0 on the form if you wish and they won't say anything or look for anything, but if your registered as a buisness and don't declare any tax liability for the year they will probably get suspicious and audit you.

Thats why alot people do cash jobs, no record of a transaction no prof of liability, no tax paid!!!

constance tench wrote: »

were they addressed to the legal entity/juristic person?)

as a sole trader the name of the buisness was my own name, so you could say they were all addressed to me and the buisness

Di0genes

Pot wrote:

How do work that one out then looks good to me

WHAT. LOOKS. GOOD?

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

Heh - aside from complete absence of any legal definition for this bizarre notion, you are aware that common law requires you to recognise the authority of the judge, and be subject to their decisions? This whole 'freeman' lark is so much cake and eating it. That's probably why it seems to attract a particularly selfish and cosseted trustafarian crowd (and the Icke lizard-phobe nutters).

Hello, no need to burst in here with your attitude, were having a polite debate, no need for insults. You are part right, claiming common law in a court does give a judge jurisdiction. I never suggested anyone should claim common law, nobody here did, you fabricated that one to make your point. I would simply remain sovereign.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

WHAT. LOOKS. GOOD?

Being free and having a choice to enter contracts or not lol

GerardKeating

Pot wrote:

But can it work here it is working in the States and UK & Canada

where is it working in the UK and Canada?

Pot Noodle =

Google Rob Mernard

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Being free and having a choice to enter contracts or not lol

Oh christ motoring law, and tax are not contracts.

GerardKeating

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Looks like an assumption to me

I do not pay income tax. A letter comes to my door, I return to sender. Write, No contract, I don't not reconize you or unterstand your intent, no international treaty, no assured value.

No where in the constitution does it state that you should pay income tax.

How about Article 11, 17 and 20/21/22...

Pot Noodle =

GerardKeating wrote: »

How about Article 11, 17 and 21...

Link please