1000th Member Joins Freedom Rebels
Posted on 24 March 2010 by admin
Congratulations and thanks to Dazza for becoming the 1000th member on FreedomRebels.co.uk.
When we started this in December we didn’t think for one minute that it would become the largest Freeman Social Network within 16 short weeks. This shows just how much sentiment there is out there for change!
Of course we could not have done it without all of you who regularly visit, comment, share and give us your knowledge, experiences and fellowship which you readily share with the community.
Also, I personally would like to thank you and congratulate you all for the way in which you “police” yourselves. We are probably one of the few sites where you can bring your Grandma safe in the knowledge that there is no swearing or abuse going on here.
Its a lovely positive community of like minded individuals and we know that because its grown organically that YOU our members are the ones who have built it that way – our hats off to you all.
At this time I would like to give special mention to some of our Counsel Members who give their time and expertise freely day in and day out on this site.
Stand up and be applauded …
- Nutty Norm
- John The Bat
- Captain Scarlett
- Rhapsody Angel
- Hawklord
- JFK
- PigDog
- Muchly Jip
And many many others ….
Once again Thank You from our hearts
Tags | Freedom Rebels, freeman on the land, ray st.clair, raymond St.Clair, social networking
I had been looking for positive proof of the validity of the freeman challenge to jurisdiction in court and you have provided this to me by the recent video. I have been a student of this for some time. My “person” has been convicted of an income tax offence and I’m currently in the 1st appeal court having made my submissions stating who I am. Is there a means whereby I can force the judge to acknowledge me as a man rather than a “person” at this stage?
Hello – I think you are in the USA are you not, I don’t really know how the Common law operates there (even though I lived in California once). Ray
Hello – nice video.
On/for record – they canot do it because de jure court is about contract and concract is live thing changing every moment. Then it does not make sense.
De facto need on/for record because it establishe facts.
peace&love
Kaz, I would say that the most important thing Ray did, was force them to stand on their oaths. Even if you submit to jurisdiction, all justice’s have to be bonded to their oath. If you’re in the states it’s gotta be the c’tion. Tell urself e’time you walk into court… no oath? no judge! same as here. Were you offered trial by jury? if not, you’re innocent until proven, habeus corpus. throw in the greatest statement ever made by a judge. Ex Parte Milligan:
“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times [p*121] and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.”
Then get Black’s Law 8th. Definition under civil. get judge to swear on oath and full unltd comm liability. that it refers to you.
Kaz, I served an Affidavit on a District Judge(civil/county court) yesterday and that was one of the main points… here’s a bit:
“• The Respondent was in full knowledge that the Affiant was in court on 29th of January 2010, but the 3rd party (respondent in the proceedings) was not.
• The Affiant had to repeatedly request that the Respondent use the Affiants’ name and not to refer to Affiant as the 3rd party who was not in the court.
• The Respondent stated on the “Order” issued on the 29th, “upon hearing Darren Bishop In Person”. The Respondent is mistaken, as court transcripts will show.
• In – Under or based on the law of
Person – Civil law. An entity such as a corporation or partnership that is governed by private law. (Blacks Law 8th).
• The Affiant asked the Respondent to identify the 3rd party that the “Order” applied to. The Respondent identified the Affiant as the “Person” named as the respondent on the “Order”. I stated clearly that ‘I am not a “Person” I am a human being’.
• The Affiant did not submit to any authority of the court but was being held in unlawful detention and was under protest and duress at ALL times. Court has no jurisdiction.
• Any party that alleges a liability against the Affiant is obligated to produce an Affidavit of Liability to demonstrate such liability. I am not surety.
• A natural entity cannot exist in a “Legal” or “Civil” court until that entity is offered, and, in full disclosure and knowledge, has expressly accepted that right to exist. I have no legal rights or duties. Nor, do I require any to exist. MAXIM: Legality is not reality.
I suggest your best approach would be to reject the authority of the United States of America and declare it an illegal occupying power on Native American lands.
Perhaps the United Nations could help you?
Thats an interesting concept that I hadn’t thought of.