Canada - judge bows to sovereign freeman in court

Posts: 1874
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:32 pm

PostSat Jan 22, 2011 8:32 pm » by Newdawnrising


Don't worry about the ladies, cuz they allow me to enjoy my freeman rights, zipppp! Yeah i'm a pervert, but that judge can go f*ck himself. If we all stand up to these pigs in this way, they will understand just how outnumbered they really are. :flop:
I know the voices in my head aren't real, but man, sometimes they have some really good ideas.

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 13293
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:27 am

PostSat Jan 22, 2011 8:38 pm » by Drjones

Part of the latest edition of 'The Conspiracy Show w/ Richard Syrett' available for DL on =

Richard speaks with a leading researcher in the field of the occult and secret societies to discuss how the world really works.

The guest discussed the hidden meanings and symbols in the banking and judicial systems. Richard's guest explained that the nation state is nothing more than a corporation and its citizens are chattell. Our births are registered with central banks as collatteral on loans to government. Finally, the guest identified the origin of this system, in the ancient cult of Saturn worshippers.


Posts: 1874
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:32 pm

PostSat Jan 22, 2011 8:47 pm » by Newdawnrising

The state of PA, recently passed a law that says you can not get arrested, or issued a ticket, for cursing in public, to me that is a good start. Geoge Carlin would be proud. :cheers:
I know the voices in my head aren't real, but man, sometimes they have some really good ideas.

Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:51 am
Location: uk

PostSat Jan 22, 2011 9:05 pm » by Mrmurder1975

on the 10th of january this year my wife was given a 90 day prison sentence for council tax.with no chance of remission as she was prosecuted under civil law and not criminal. its only in this last few days i have found out about common law,freeman on the land etc. if i knew a week or so ago what i know now,i would of gone to the magistrates court for her,with her birth certificate and done exactly this. then maybe she would be home with me and my 3 little ones now. british law is a joke.

Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:51 am
Location: uk

PostSat Jan 22, 2011 9:18 pm » by Mrmurder1975

2020vision wrote:
mrmurder1975 wrote:on the 10th of january this year my wife was given a 90 day prison sentence for council tax.with no chance of remission as she was prosecuted under civil law and not criminal. its only in this last few days i have found out about common law,freeman on the land etc. if i knew a week or so ago what i know now,i would of gone to the magistrates court for her,with her birth certificate and done exactly this. then maybe she would be home with me and my 3 little ones now. british law is a joke.

Sorry to hear that mate :top:

thanks man. its just pisses me off. my ex brother in law,about 5 years ago,got 3 and a half years for molesting his own daughter,he did half his sentence. where as my mrs owes the council some money,but is not entitled to the same remission. all that says to me is you can mess with our kids,but dont mess with our money.

Master Conspirator
Posts: 11827
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:08 am

PostSat Jan 22, 2011 9:34 pm » by Boondox681

two words...
informed and involved.

Posts: 159
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:53 pm

PostSun Jan 23, 2011 1:15 am » by Whiskeytfoxtrot

AH! My favorite topic.

For those of you unfamiliar with the "freeman community" you are really selling yourself short. I live in Ontario, Canada, not far from where this went down. There are HUNDREDS of us just in this area of the Province. But this is not a Canadian movement, there are people embracing common-law and their rights worldwide! This should not be joked about,this stuff is the real deal. And the PTB are finding it harder to oppose these people. MANY courts *ahem, I mean corporations acting as courts (not lawfully) are feeling the sting of men and women coming armed with their full rights, and INFORMED! In fact I have been on the stinging end now for some time. NO licenses, no taxes, no jurisdiction = $$$ for you when idiot servants try to violate your rights!!

Most of the success here comes from ordinary people schooling themselves as to what the "authority" of these courts really are. Finding and proving the limits to their jurisdiction is becoming easier, they have very specific rules to follow and the courts have a code to follow that can be used to our advantage! When you learn who everyone in a court proceeding really is, what rules they play by, then you can use those rules to SQUASH the fucking liars!

It's all admiralty/maritime jurisdiction.... are you a ship? LOL

EXAMPLE: Canada Fedral Courts Act .....legislation that empowers that court......

and I quote from section 21:

21. The Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all appeals that may be brought under subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship Act.

R.S., 1985, c. F-7, s. 21; 2002, c. 8, s. 30.

Navigation and shipping
22. (1) The Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in all cases in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of Canadian maritime law or any other law of Canada relating to any matter coming within the class of subject of navigation and shipping, except to the extent that jurisdiction has been otherwise specially assigned.

Maritime jurisdiction

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), for greater certainty, the Federal Court has jurisdiction with respect to all of the following:
(a) any claim with respect to title, possession or ownership of a ship or any part interest therein or with respect to the proceeds of sale of a ship or any part interest therein;
(b) any question arising between co-owners of a ship with respect to possession, employment or earnings of a ship;
(c) any claim in respect of a mortgage or hypothecation of, or charge on, a ship or any part interest therein or any charge in the nature of bottomry or respondentia for which a ship or part interest therein or cargo was made security;
(d) any claim for damage or for loss of life or personal injury caused by a ship either in collision or otherwise;
(e) any claim for damage sustained by, or for loss of, a ship including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, damage to or loss of the cargo or equipment of, or any property in or on or being loaded on or off, a ship;
(f) any claim arising out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods on a ship under a through bill of lading, or in respect of which a through bill of lading is intended to be issued, for loss or damage to goods occurring at any time or place during transit;
(g) any claim for loss of life or personal injury occurring in connection with the operation of a ship including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any claim for loss of life or personal injury sustained in consequence of any defect in a ship or in her apparel or equipment, or of the wrongful act, neglect or default of the owners, charterers or persons in possession or control of a ship or of the master or crew thereof or of any other person for whose wrongful acts, neglects or defaults the owners, charterers or persons in possession or control of the ship are responsible, being an act, neglect or default in the management of the ship, in the loading, carriage or discharge of goods on, in or from the ship or in the embarkation, carriage or disembarkation of persons on, in or from the ship;
(h) any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in or on a ship including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, loss of or damage to passengers’ baggage or personal effects;
(i) any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in or on a ship or to the use or hire of a ship whether by charter party or otherwise;
(j) any claim for salvage including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, claims for salvage of life, cargo, equipment or other property of, from or by an aircraft to the same extent and in the same manner as if the aircraft were a ship;
(k) any claim for towage in respect of a ship or of an aircraft while the aircraft is water-borne;
(l) any claim for pilotage in respect of a ship or of an aircraft while the aircraft is water-borne;
(m) any claim in respect of goods, materials or services wherever supplied to a ship for the operation or maintenance of the ship, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, claims in respect of stevedoring and lighterage;
(n) any claim arising out of a contract relating to the construction, repair or equipping of a ship;
(o) any claim by a master, officer or member of the crew of a ship for wages, money, property or other remuneration or benefits arising out of his or her employment;
(p) any claim by a master, charterer or agent of a ship or shipowner in respect of disbursements, or by a shipper in respect of advances, made on account of a ship;
(q) any claim in respect of general average contribution;
(r) any claim arising out of or in connection with a contract of marine insurance; and
(s) any claim for dock charges, harbour dues or canal tolls including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, charges for the use of facilities supplied in connection therewith.

Again...... ARE YOU A FUCKING SHIP??? CARGO???? HMMMMM????? :shooting:
Canada is a Common-law nation, with no common law courts. Only admiralty/maritime.
And oh yeah, no queen has any authority here, read Statute of Westminster. Fuck you Lizardbreath II !
"The world is made up of two kinds of people. Those with loaded guns... and those who dig. Now dig!"

Posts: 159
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 11:53 pm

PostSun Jan 23, 2011 1:19 am » by Whiskeytfoxtrot (also addendum to this article)

COURT: Who’s Who and What to Say

My position on going to court has always been: never voluntarily go to court. Live men and women are not meant to be in any place designed solely for the business of fictional entities. When we attend court, we are deemed dead, in fact, they cannot deal with us until we admit to being dead…. a legal fiction ….a trust. Court is for titled persons: judge, prosecutor, defendant, bailiffs, cops, and attorneys. Live men and women are not recognized, so it makes sense to send in a dead person––an attorney––to handle our cases …. except for one thing: they do not know how the system works, due to their indoctrination. If you can find one to do as you say, then you will prevail, but most of them would rather hang onto their BAR cards than behave honourably. The only thing that dead, fictional entities want from us is our life energy, and the only way they can get it is by our agreement. Without us, they cannot function, so, they are desperate to get us into court, to have us pay the debt which they created by charging the trust.

Since common law courts no longer exist, we know that the case never has anything to do with “facts” or live men and women and so, anyone who testifies (talks about the facts of the case) is doomed. ALL courts operate in trust law, based upon ecclesiastical canon law–– ritualism, superstition, satanism, etc.––which manifests as insidious, commercial law and we are in court to take the hit, if they can get us to do so. They use every trick in the book––intimidation, fear, threat, ridicule, rage, and even recesses, in order to change the jurisdiction, when they know they are losing, in order to make us admit that we are the name of the trust. When we do so, we are deemed to be the trustee––the one liable for administering the trust. Ergo, until now, it has been a waste of our time, energy, and emotion to go to a place where it is almost certain that we will be stuck with the liability.

We all know from our indoctrination, programming, and schooling that judges are impartial and have sworn an oath to this effect. This means he must not favour either plaintiff or defendant. But, our experience reveals that he does, indeed, favour the plaintiff, indicating a glaring conflict of interest––that the prosecutor, judge, and clerk (cleric) all work for the state––the owner of the CQV trust. So, as the case is NOT about “justice”, it must be about administering a trust. They all represent the trust owned by the state and, if we are acting as beneficiary, the only two positions left are Trustee and Executor. So, if you detect a judge’s partiality, although I doubt the case will get this far, you might just want to let them know that you know this.

If you consider court as entertainment and if you can stand the evil emanating from its officers, the fear and angst oozing from the walls, and the treacherous atmosphere, then go, knowing that under trust law we cannot be the trustee or the executor of a trust, whilst being beneficiary, as that would be a conflict. The position of beneficiary may lack clout, but the other positions hold liability. Since state employees want to be the beneficiaries of the trust, the only way they can do so is to transfer, to us, the liability which they hold, as trustees and executors, because they also cannot be both the administrators and beneficiary of the trust. So, trusteeship and executorship, i.e.: suretyship, becomes a hot potato and everyone wants to toss it so s/he can be beneficiary of the credit from the trust.

When we were born, a trust, called a Cestui Que Vie Trust (“CQV”) was set-up, for our benefit. Evidence of this is the birth certificate. But what is the value which must be conveyed to the trust, in order to create it? It was our right to property (via Birth into this world), our body (via the Live Birth Record), and our souls (via Baptism). Since the state/province which registered the trust is the owner, it is also the trustee…. the one that administers the trust. Since they, also, wanted to be beneficiary of this trust, they had to come up with ways to get us, as beneficiary, to authorize their charging the trust, allegedly, for our benefit (via our signature on a document: citation, application, etc.), and then, temporarily transfer trusteeship, to us, during the brief time that they want to be the beneficiary of a particular “constructive” trust.

This means that a trust can be established anywhere, anytime, and the parties of the trust are quickly, albeit temporarily, put into place. But, since a beneficiary cannot charge a trust––only a trustee can do so––it is the state that charges the trust, but they do so for their benefit, not ours (albeit occasionally we do reap some benefit from that charge but nowhere near the value which they reap. Think bank loan….. we reap a minute percentage of what they gain from our authorization). So, the only way, under trust law, for them to be able to charge the trust is to get the authorization from the beneficiary––us, and the only way for them to benefit from their charge is to get us to switch roles––from beneficiary to trustee (the one responsible for the accounting), and for them to switch their role––from trustee to beneficiary because no party can be both, at the same time, i.e.: within the same constructive trust. They must somehow trick us into accepting the role of trustee. Why would we do so when the trust is for our benefit? …. and how do they manage to do this?

Well, the best way is to get us into court and trick us into unwittingly doing so. But, if we know what has transpired, prior to our being there, it is easy to know what to say so that this doesn’t happen. The court clerk is the hot shot, even though it appears as if the judge is. The clerk is the trustee for the CQV owned by the state/province and it is s/he who is responsible for appointing the trustee and the executor for a constructive trust––that particular court case. In a “last will and testament” trust, the opposite is the case––the executor appoints the trustee.

So s/he appoints the judge as trustee (the one to administer the trust) and appoints the prosecutor as executor of the trust. The executor is ultimately liable for the charge because it was s/he who brought the case into court (created the constructive trust) on behalf of the state/province which charged the CQV trust. Only an executor/prosecutor can initiate/create a constructive trust and we all know the maxim of law: Whoever creates the controversy holds the liability and whoever holds the liability must provide the remedy. This is why all attorneys are mandated to bring their cheque-books to court because if it all goes wrong for them…. meaning either they fail to transfer their liability onto the alleged defendant, or the alleged defendant does not accept their offer of liability, then someone has to credit the trust account in order to off-set the debt. Since the prosecutor is the one who issues bogus paper and charges the trust, it is the Prosecutor/Executor (“PE”) who is in the hot-seat.

When the Name (of the trust), e.g.: JOHN DOE, is called by the Judge aka Administrator aka Trustee (“JAT”), we can stand and ask, “For and on the record, are you saying that the trust which you are now administrating is the JOHN DOE trust?” This establishes that we know that the Name is a trust, not a live man. What’s the JAT’s first question? “What’s your name?” or “State your name for the record”. We must be very careful not to identify with the name of the trust because doing so makes us the trustee. What does this tell you about the judge? If we know that the judge is the trustee, then we also know that the judge is the Name, but only for this particular, constructive trust. Now, think about all the times that JATs have become so frustrated by our refusal to admit to being the Name that they issue a warrant and then, as soon as the man leaves, he is arrested. How idiotic is that? They must feel foolish for saying, “John Doe is not in court so I’m issuing a warrant for his arrest” and then, the man whom they just admitted is NOT there is arrested because he IS there. Their desperation makes them insane, so they project that insanity onto us and order US to get psychological evaluations for THEIR insanity!!!) This is when we can ask, “By that order, are you suggesting that you do not know what I’m talking about? Are you admitting to your incompetence? Shall we get someone in here who DOES know what I’m talking about?” They must get us to admit to being the name, or they pay, and we must not accept their coercion, or we pay. Because the JAT is the trustee––a precarious position, we might need to say, in that case, “JOHN DOE is, indeed, in the court! With respect, are you not acting as trustee for this case? Is the prosecutor acting as executor?” We must remain polite and respectful, otherwise we just end up sinking to their level.

During their frustration over our not admitting to being a trust name––the trustee and/or executor of the trust, we ought to ask who they are. “Before we go any further, I need to know who YOU are.” Address the clerk of the court––the trustee for the CQV trust owned by the state/province, “Are you the CQV’s trustee who has appointed this judge as administrator and trustee of the constructive trust case #12345? Did you also appoint the prosecutor as executor of this constructive trust?” As I’m acting as beneficiary, I authorize you to handle the accounting and dissolve this constructive trust. I now claim my body so I am collapsing the CQV trust which you have charged, as there is no value in it.” Likely, this will dismiss the case or, even more likely, the PE, as he clings tightly to his cheque-book, will call, “We withdraw the charges”.

We have exposed their fraud of the CQV trust which exists only on presumptions. The CQV has no corpus, no property, ergo, no value. Trusts are created only upon the conveyance of property and can exist only as long as there is value in the trust. But, there is no value in the CQV trust, yet, they continue to charge the trust. That is fraud! The alleged property is we men and women whom they have deemed to be incompetent, dead, abandoned, lost, bankrupts, or minors, but that is an illusion so, if we claim our body, then we collapse the presumption that the trust has value. They are operating in fraud––something we’ve always known, but now we know how they do it. Our having exposed their fraud gives them only three options:

1. They can dissolve the CQV trust––the one for which the clerk of the court is trustee and from which s/he created a constructive trust––the case––for which s/he appointed the judge and prosecutor titles which hold temporary liability––trustee and executor, respectively. But they cannot dissolve the CQV or the entire global system will collapse because they cannot exist without our energy which they obtain via that CQV trust, not to mention that they do not want to do the accounting and disperse the funds to the beneficiary––us. We must challenge and resolve this on our own behalf, as “the system” is not prepared to do so.

2. They can enforce the existing rules of trust law which means, as trustee, they can set-off their debt and leave us alone. Now they know that we are onto their fraud and every time they go into court to administer a trust account, they will not know if we are the one who will send them to jail. The trustee (judge) is the liable party who will go to jail, and the executor (prosecutor) is the one who enforces this. This is why they want us to take on both titles, because then, not only do we go to jail but also, by signing their paper, we become executor and enforce our own sentence. They cannot afford to violate the ecclesiastical canon laws, out of fear of ending their careers, so they are, again, trapped with no place to run.

3. They can dismiss the cases before they even take the risk of our exposing their fraud …. which also makes no sense because then their careers, again, come to a screeching halt.

What’s a court clerk to do!? Pretty soon, none of these thugs will take any cases because the risk is too great. This will be the end of the court system. ‘Bout bloody time, eh?

Knowledge––not procedure––is power.
The means by which we have attempted to assuage our problems, inflicted upon us by the PTW (powers that were) have all been superficial, compared to the origins of all the black magic, superstition, satanic ritualism, trickery, mind-control, and clandestine practices. Their ritual is vastly more important to them than their procedure and competence which is why their behaviour is so insane! So, it behooves us to know where all their ritualism began.

Under commercial law, dating back to the Code of Ur-Nammu––around 2100 BCE––the use of another’s property without permission puts one into dishonor and makes him liable for any debts. So, our using UCC forms, bills of exchange, AFV, or bonds, and altering documents of the Roman System can create penalties, as this is trading and/or using the property of a corporation we do not own …. the birth certificate proves that the “name” is, in fact, the property of the corporation which issued it. We can do all the paper perfectly but, in the end, they say, “Sorry; you’re not one of us.” But, now, we get to inflict fear onto them. When we are forced to court, knowing that the Judge acts as the Trustee and the prosecutor acts as Executor of the CQV Trusts is empowering. It gives us two choices:

1. If we wish to expose the fraud of presumptions, by which the CQV trusts still exist, then the court is the perfect opportunity to have them dissolved or to prove the fraud because the Trustee is sitting on the bench. Dissolving the first CQV, dissolves them all; or,

2. If we are not inclined to use something like the Ecclesiastical Deed Poll to expose the fraud of the CQV Trusts, then, at least, we ought to know that everything the judge says––even if it sounds like a command, order, or sentence––is actually an offer which we can choose to decline (“I do not consent; I do not accept your offer”). This is a fundamental principle of testamentary trusts…… the beneficiary can accept or decline what the trustee offers.

For 15 years, I have watched the alleged solutions in commerce come and go and nothing has worked for enough people on enough occasions to call anything a consistent win. Paying for information is insanity because those who sell information clearly have not prevailed or they wouldn’t need to sell anything, would they? Buying express, private-contract trusts, e.g.: NACRS, is a huge waste of time and money because the entire process is too complicated for anyone with an IQ below 400, they offer minimal assistance, and “no refunds”. I have found no solution in commerce because those who claim to have solutions still insist upon treating symptoms rather than curing the cause… which is the fraudulent CQV trust. Tackling commerce within commerce won’t work; we must tackle commerce from the paramount, ecclesiastical position. Only the Divine and True trusts are higher than a CQV trust.

For a presentment of ANY kind, we ought to send an EDP. Carefully follow instructions at: ... e_1330.htm
If we send an Ecclesiastical Deed Poll (EDP), the highest form of contract, as response, e.g.: to a summons or arrest warrant, then the judge who issues them has to think long and hard: “Am I willing to gamble that the man who walks into my court might call me on my role of trustee and expose the fraud that the CQV Trusts are still in place?

Canons of Positive Law: ... e_0000.htm
Read it three times and it will shift your frequency and change your life.

This knowledge is your power. –– Frank O’Collins
"The world is made up of two kinds of people. Those with loaded guns... and those who dig. Now dig!"


  • Related topics
    Last post