Your Birth Certificate Is A Receipt For Transfer Of Ownership To The Government.

[R K]

just where do you get from MAN is the supreme beast on top of the food chain, born into the World free ( some would say with god given rights), then some other groups of men IMPOSE a system of laws on him, and say that the argument is crackpot.

I noticed a few years ago the number of fences going up everywhere...schools, parks, supermarkets..everything....Its not as if the schools didnt have fences, but fences were upgraded, not to keep people in, but to keep people OUT...or rather, have them take the proper routes.

i began to realise that the land is OURS....the fences are a force imposed on US to show US that another of US has superior rights to a peice of land.

Sure we all need a bit of privacy, but public parks?....why fence them all round....

We all seem to accept this fencing and laws that fence us....but that is really all in the mind....Laws are not real until a man comes along and enforces it upon you.

And if you feel the law is unjust.....then really, what natural right does the law have that you dont?

No it isn't yours it's the Queen's.

We're all simply farm animals.

She delegates the day to day running to a coterie of landowners - the Lords, Clergy, NT and so on to ensure your labour is optimised and her rents are maximised.

It's that simple.

[LC1]

Apart from the fact that its total nonsense?

Articulate point, well made

[Harry Sacks]

We live under a system of control, there's no arguing that. However, most of the people alive in the west today have had a better life than their predecessors, in terms of health, employment conditions, welfare, etc. They have also never experienced real hardship, war, famine, plague and the like. I think if they had we would live in a far better society than the one we do now.

I wonder if FMOTL subscribers think life would be so much better on their terms. Personally, I think human beings are still very much motivated by base animal desires, despite our technical advances.

[happy_renting]

I'm quite frankly amazed that wikipedia doesn't have a page on this FMOTL "pseudolaw" stuff.

Pseudoscientists and crackpots are well recognised in popular culture. My lawyer friends all piss themselves laughing at this FMOTL crap, but it just doesn't seem to have become recognised as crackpottery in the same way as cranks, quack and crackpots.

There is a Wiki page about it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

The best bit is this:

In a criminal case in 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington noted:

Defendant [Kenneth Wayne Leaming] is apparently a member of a group loosely styled “sovereign citizens.” The Court has deduced this from a number of Defendant’s peculiar habits. First, like Mr. Leaming, sovereign citizens are fascinated by capitalization. They appear to believe that capitalizing names has some sort of legal effect. For example, Defendant writes that “the REGISTERED FACTS appearing in the above Paragraph evidence the uncontroverted and uncontrovertible FACTS that the SLAVERY SYSTEMS operated in the names UNITED STATES, United States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and United States of America . . . are terminated nunc pro tunc by public policy, U.C.C. 1-103 . . . .” (Def.’s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 2.) He appears to believe that by capitalizing “United States,” he is referring to a different entity than the federal government. For better or for worse, it’s the same country.

Second, sovereign citizens, like Mr. Leaming, love grandiose legalese. “COMES NOW, Kenneth Wayne, born free to the family Leaming, [date of birth redacted], constituent to The People of the State of Washington constituted 1878 and admitted to the union 22 February 1889 by Act of Congress, a Man, “State of Body” competent to be a witness and having First Hand Knowledge of The FACTS . . . .” (Def.’s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 1.)

Third, Defendant evinces, like all sovereign citizens, a belief that the federal government is not real and that he does not have to follow the law. Thus, Defendant argues that as a result of the “REGISTERED FACTS,” the “states of body, persons, actors and other parties perpetuating the above captioned transaction(s) [i.e., the Court and prosecutors] are engaged . . . in acts of TREASON, and if unknowingly as victims of TREASON and FRAUD . . . .” (Def.’s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 2.)

The Court therefore feels some measure of responsibility to inform Defendant that all the fancy legal-sounding things he has read on the internet are make-believe......

[Harry Sacks]

That would be the guy who got his car impounded?

For starters, does he think the roads build themselves?

[happy_renting]

I think the best way to explain things to 'Sovereign Men' is this (perhaps in CAPITAL LETTERS so even they will realise it is true):

When they ask by what authority force of law is used against them, they should realise that the force IS the authority.

[StuG III]

Articulate point, well made

Well his advice is quite obviously not legally sound and I fail to see how lying to people is moral or ethical in any case, never mind when said lies encourage people to break the law and get into a lot of unnecessary trouble.

In fact its quite the polar opposite of "sound legal, moral or ethical"

[DavidSWP]

For starters, does he think the roads build themselves?

Well they certainly aren't built using road tax or fuel duties. It goes into one big pot and could just as likely be used for war mongering. We should receive an itemised receipt for what we are spending our money on - think about it.

[long time lurking]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYJzXkcJgEU&NR=1&feature=fvwp

I just happened upon this while watching renegade economist vids.

Very interesting talk on the power structure in this country. The speaker explains how we are all employees of a corporation. Our government, police force, social services, even the courts are registered trading entities, PLCs or limited companies. I found it very chilling and thought it should be shared.

Sort of directly related to the above http://www.tpuc.org/interesting-freedom-of-information-questions-and-the-answers-from-torbay-council/ and this also relates to a number of children who were not borne/registered in the UK and have been abused murdered by their parents ,the social service always say ``lessons`` have/will be learnt but the fact off the matter is they have no jurisdiction over them

[Traktion]

FMOTL seem to think that playing with the states words will change the result. It won't. They make all the rules and have all the guns. The is nothing even or fair about it.

States are just farms for tax livestock.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Traktion

[wonderpup]

For starters, does he think the roads build themselves?

You might be thinking of Starbucks here- they like all that infrastructure stuff-it helps them sell their disgusting coffee- but they would not dream of actually paying for any of it- taxes- they clearly think- are for little people.

[long time lurking]

FMOTL seem to think that playing with the states words will change the result. It won't. They make all the rules and have all the guns. The is nothing even or fair about it.

States are just farms for tax livestock.

Aey that is the kick in the balls

[happy_renting]

Sort of directly related to the above http://www.tpuc.org/interesting-freedom-of-information-questions-and-the-answers-from-torbay-council/ and this also relates to a number of children who were not borne/registered in the UK and have been abused murdered by their parents ,the social service always say ``lessons`` have/will be learnt but the fact off the matter is they have no jurisdiction over them

If the abuse occured in the UK, then UK social services will have jurisdiction, and the abusers will be subject to UK law..

[DavidSWP]

FMOTL seem to think that playing with the states words will change the result. It won't. They make all the rules and have all the guns. The is nothing even or fair about it.

States are just farms for tax livestock.

Got it in one. The FMOTL position is valid in my opinion but it will simply be ignored, laughed at, ridiculed and it will land anyone who follows it in destitution or prison.

The whole system is sown up pretty tight and you will only get away with such arguments if you are rich or influential.

[long time lurking]

If the abuse occured in the UK, then UK social services will have jurisdiction, and the abusers will be subject to UK law..

Yes after the actual/proven fact but they have no right to remove a child which they suspect/know is being abused but they have not got the evidence to support it in a court of LAW (social services dose not require any permission from a court to remove a child from it`s parents if it is register to the state)

How many gypsy kids get removed from their families ? they play the non register game and it`s something they keep very close to thier chests

[sleepwello'nights]

Yes after the actual/proven fact but they have no right to remove a child which they suspect/know is being abused but they have not got the evidence to support it in a court of LAW (social services dose not require any permission from a court to remove a child from it`s parents if it is register to the state)

How many gypsy kids get removed from their families ? they play the non register game and it`s something they keep very close to thier chests

Mainly down to Gypsies prepared to use force against the police. Not forgetting their human rights of course.

[long time lurking]

Mainly down to Gypsies prepared to use force against the police. Not forgetting their human rights of course.

That is true in the case of gypsies in most situations but the social service /stae registration side concerning their children is common and I would suspect it comes under human rights aswell

[happy_renting]

Yes after the actual/proven fact but they have no right to remove a child which they suspect/know is being abused but they have not got the evidence to support it in a court of LAW (social services dose not require any permission from a court to remove a child from it`s parents if it is register to the state)

How many gypsy kids get removed from their families ? they play the non register game and it`s something they keep very close to thier chests

I think that the letter from Torbay Council, 'admitting' they have no authority, is in itself misleading.

In particular, the existence/non-existence of a birth certificate has no bearing on what the council is legally allowed to do. The absence of a certificate may present some practical obstacle, such as creating confusion about relationships between a child and an adult, or who they are, but that is all. It is just throwing chaff, it is not a legal argument.

The Council may still be correct in saying that they have no power to take a child into care - they may need to resort to the Courts to do that (I don't know), but the bit about a birth certificate is a red herring.

[Parkwell]

I have a lot of sympathy for the Freeman movements basic principles that a person should be able to opt in/out of governance. But they are focusing their attentions on all the wrong stuff, trying to prove they are somehow smarter then the govt by knowing their laws better than they do. Whereas they would be better off actively creating an alternate system and finding ways to integrate it and influence things. As long as all they are doing is unsuccessfully trying to avoid paying council tax and car insurance they will continue to be ridiculed and smacked down by those with the power.

And as usual on these matters Traktion nailed it.

[long time lurking]

I think that the letter from Torbay Council, 'admitting' they have no authority, is in itself misleading.

In particular, the existence/non-existence of a birth certificate has no bearing on what the council is legally allowed to do. The absence of a certificate may present some practical obstacle, such as creating confusion about relationships between a child and an adult, or who they are, but that is all. It is just throwing chaff, it is not a legal argument.

The Council may still be correct in saying that they have no power to take a child into care - they may need to resort to the Courts to do that (I don't know), but the bit about a birth certificate is a red herring.

The birth certificate is the part that allows social services to remove a child with only suspicion ( nothing to do with confusion about relationship) without it they need the courts and for that they need proof and to obtain the proof they would required is very hard in a lot of cases and is normally only possible after the fact ( so yes it is only a obstacle)

There are many cases where serious harm/death have come to children in these circumstances ,but if they were registered they would have been removed well before it got to that point as there would be no need for the delay of the courts

[StuG III]

I have a lot of sympathy for the Freeman movements basic principles that a person should be able to opt in/out of governance.

Fine. As long as they expect no protection from the law.... oh but wait! they do! they want to live with all the benefits of a lawful and civilised society but they dont want to pay for any of it. Freeman on the land? Freeloader on the land more like it.

[happy_renting]

I have a lot of sympathy for the Freeman movements basic principles that a person should be able to opt in/out of governance. But they are focusing their attentions on all the wrong stuff, trying to prove they are somehow smarter then the govt by knowing their laws better than they do. Whereas they would be better off actively creating an alternate system and finding ways to integrate it and influence things. As long as all they are doing is unsuccessfully trying to avoid paying council tax and car insurance they will continue to be ridiculed and smacked down by those with the power.

And as usual on these matters Traktion nailed it.

An alternate system, if it did not adopt existing laws, would have to invent it's own rules.

In anything but the simplest system with a minimum of people, there would be different views. For them to work together, rules would have to be agreed. The more people, the more differences would arise. Unenforced/ uneforceable rules would inevitably break down.

The only way rules can be enforceable is ultimately via the sanction of force. That sanction would make them de facto laws in their own system.

And before you know it, they will have created a society with it's own laws, where transgressors of their laws would be punished.

In other words, the very thing that they supposedly are trying to reject.

The only 'freeman' is a hermit living on an alloidal island. Introduce a second person, and you will inevitably reach a situation where one attempts to impose their will upon the other.

That is why Marx's claim that man is born free, and Rousseau's Social Contract, etc., are myths. There is no 'free birth'. There is no 'contract'. The force of law is just that, force. There is no choice, except the trivial one, comply or be punished. In plain language, law enforcement is coercion.

Freedom of choice is an illusion, variously a coping mechanism for those subject to the law, or a convenient myth for those who enforce the law, as encouraging compliance often takes less effort than enforcement.

This isn't a moral or ethical argument, simply an amoral statement of how things are.

This is why, in practice, the FMOTL is a myth, a fantastic delusion. And totally unworkable.

[StuG III]

There is no choice, except the trivial one, comply or be punished. In plain language, law enforcement is coercion.

Or foxtrot oscar and go live in a cave somewhere.

Amazingly though, all these fmootletrs choose to keep living in ordered, civilised societies and enjoy the benefits they bring while whining about having to pay their way.

Freeloaders on the land.

[skrillex]

Or foxtrot oscar and go live in a cave somewhere.

Amazingly though, all these fmootletrs choose to keep living in ordered, civilised societies and enjoy the benefits they bring while whining about having to pay their way.

Freeloaders on the land.

Most ordered and civilised Western societies haven't been paying their way for the last 30 years so I don't understand your ire about them being freeloaders.

[Biggus]

Whether or not you believe it is a pile of conspiracy pseudoscience common law does actually exist.