Added: 2 years ago
From: RainstormGB
Views: 109,762
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (572)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Freeman.....yet you ask for permission to drive away. Freeman.....yet your friend doesn't offer to drive the car for you. Freeman...........'is your car parked legally'...what? Freeman.......why MOT your car if you are only required to do under the road traffic act?

    In short.......Freeman...nonsense­!!

  • If he is a 'freeman' and does not consent, WHY did he even pull over?

  • @RetSquid Understand your point, but then he would get stopped, roughed up, frown in a cell n probably get convicted n a short sentence in prison, get what your saying though

  • @ThomasFrantik

    But if he was a 'free-man' and his claims are correct, he would win millions of dollars in lawsuits against the state.

  • sounds good different story when arrest warrants comes.......u dont see much of that on u tube.

  • These are not ideas or suggestions I am making but actual facts, because after leaving the Police I studied Equity and contract law and now work within 'Commercial systems' where this stuff works for the big corporate companies. I was never going to beat the system....but I can definitely play the system to my advantage. Freemen may be ridiculous to you but with the correct procedures in place it will be them that play the system whilst you are merely subservient to the system and will struggle.

  • cont'd. However, for freemen to understand this they have to seek remedy in a court via a bond. The bond would act as their 'insurance' which could be set at any limit. It is the same 'bond' as all legal entities have in case they are sued. It is all a commercial game. You do not see this because you choose to repeat things you 'think' you know and clearly have no idea of whatsoever. How do you think vodafone get to write off 6 billion of UK tax liability along with many others.

  • @foxeogames. Your knowledge of 'Law' and presumption is absolutely breathtaking in its ignorance. Quite simply this country entered into bankruptcy in 1931 (section 277 re: Hansard) and therefore created a 'fiat currency' (although paper money was in use before this). Therefore, any commerce, especially debt cannot be enforced. Hence the non payment of FPN's. Therefore, everything to do with 'enforcement' is unlawful against a individual, because, a individual cannot operate within commerce.

  • My 'ol man was a senior copper in London and even he is appalled with the attitude of the Police today ! In his day a copper was respected for his fairness and humour out on the street but today he says they look like paramilitary forces about to invade a small nation. Of course there are bad people out there who need the attention of the police but, increasingly, all we see is malfeasance in public office.

  • I joined the Met Police after leaving the Marines. I lasted a year in the job as I was fed up of wasting time with ordinary decent people who make genuine mistakes everyday. Yet, when people needed us in a emergency, apparently, we were usually too busy ! You only have to watch some police camera action prog to realise just how wrong the Police are in 90% of stops. Yes, legislation provides a excuse for anything, however, lawfully it is all full of holes and usually panders to the copper's ego.

  • More pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo by the freemen / sovereign citizen movements. Bringing in just enough half-truths to make it seem plausible to the layman without any law background.

    You do not get to "consent" to being detained by law enforcement. You cannot exempt yourself from the law. There's all sorts of bullshit these groups pull to try to convince themselves and others they can be exempt.

    You can follow the entire Sovereign Citizen manifesto -- it changes NOTHING AT ALL.

  • @FoxeoGames That is because most of them don't really know what they're talking about. As you say they know many half-truths. No you cannot exempt yourself from common law. The written law statutory functions differently assuming the 'NAME' which is a presumption, they are fooled into thinking that names and words are the problem, but actually jurisdiction is the problem, but it doesn't help that nowadays most police do not even know the law. Even when practiced correctly you'd still

  • @FoxeoGames have to deal with ignorant police which is a pain. So it is better to deal with their crap and later on work with paper exchanging letters when done properly you can rebut all their presumptions. When people are charged the presumption is used and they assume you are the trustee even in arrest situations. We are not really or we are not supposed to be under statutory jurisdiction, but most are registered with the STATE and have birth certificates on top of their

  • @FoxeoGames Damn youtube character limits. This information is intentionally kept in the dark and there is too much disinfo out there because if we all really figured it out govt would lose a lot of their excess tyrannical power. That's why they always try to tell us we're powerless when in fact without us they are nothing they need us, but if we all figured this out we'd no longer be of much use as slaves. This works on paper and usually not in this situation because most police are

  • @FoxeoGames actually ignorant of the law these days, but my opinion 9 out of 10 judges knows about this kind of thing and are just being told to keep their mouths shut. Also live birth records and birth certificates are not the same most have both we only really need the live birth record. Any govt agency etc will tell you birth certificates are NOT valid identification. They are not live birth records which they would have us believe these two are one and the same.

  • @TopAce777 What you're saying is remarkably similar to the same pseudo-legal mumbo-jumbo of the SC and Freemen. It's a semantics game that includes a lot of use of the words "corporate" and "commercial." They talk about "statute" as if it is not a law, playing word-games and semantics games. A "statute" is a law made by a legislative body, in the simplest terms. Wikipedia can be their friend here. Wiki-search for "statute."

  • @TopAce777 Additionally, the idea that you (or "your name") is made into some commercial entity (corporation) by birth certificates or whatnot is absurd. It's more semantics games. We can play verbal gymnastics all day.

    Then begins the laughable business of "Affidavits of Truth" or writing their name in red, or hyphenating names or de-capitalizing names. It's all absolute absurdity.

    We are *NOT* a democracy; we elect representatives who represent us and make laws on our behalf.

  • @TopAce777 Thus, these laws made by our representatives on our behalf carry with them the full authority of the people. While we may feel a disconnect between us the people and our elected officials, they are indeed lawfully elected representatives who have full constitutional authority (and jurisdiction) to legislate laws into effect that bind everyone in the jurisdiction, whether it be federal, state, county, or city. There is absolutely NO opting-out; no process exempts us from the law.

  • Comment removed

  • Such a stupid video

  • "I haven't consented".

    Yes you have, you consented when the statute to which you are referring was passed through the House of Commons by your democratically elected representative (your M.P.) at the time, regardless of whether you personally voted for him/her or not or were even alive at the time.

    The idea of an individual having to consent before being prosecuted is madness. If that was the case, we'd have paedophiles running loose, as they would chose not to be arrested for statutory rape.

  • @wierdwesterner It's common law. In that case "we'd have paedophiles running loose, as they would chose not to be arrested for statutory rape" That is a real crime under common law.

  • @TopAce777 Not if the child consented to the sexual act, let's say for money as an example. This is where the statute comes into effect. The law in the UK deems that any individual under the age of 16 does not have the proper judgment to be able to consent to sexual activity in a responsible manner. FYI, any law passed into legislature through the House of Commons is "common law"(including statute) and all crimes are real. We can debate all day which crimes we think are "real" or not.

  • @wierdwesterner Common law is very simple. No one knows ALL the "law", but we do know the "rules". A five year old understands the "rules" for example do not commit murder, thieve or harm others etc. The so called "laws" Statutory jurisdiction is something in which corrupt governments use to collect revenue from you because you parked somewhere on a Wednesday and therefore have to pay an unjust fine for some so called "crime".

  • @wierdwesterner There are a lot of 'freemen' on youtube who do not know how to correctly apply this knowledge. The 'NAME' they use most of the time in capital letters is a non existent persona. Some people call it a strawman, but that is not entirely correct what it really is, is a presumption of law. For example a Judge is usually the administrator of a 'COURT', but a court is a entity that the judge moves around for example those 'NAMES' of ours are tools that we use in these

  • @wierdwesterner kinds of affairs. I don't know if I'm making any sense here, but you are really the administrator of that name. Usually in court situations roles are assumed unless you make them clear if not the judge usually assumes the position of the administrator/executor and the government of 'STATE' assumes the position of the beneficiary and this is who most people get unjustly messed with because they assume you are the trustee which is not really the case or shouldn't be

  • @wierdwesterner My point being you can usually rebut their presumptions and cease to be surety for the name which we use to operate. The same way a judge administers a "COURT".

  • @TopAce777 Do judges get parking notices if they park illegally and are legally obliged to pay them? Yes. I see loads of videos where these "freemen" argue the law with the police, but none where they have been to court and have successfully had their notice overturned, why do you think that is? Statutory law is exactly that, statutory. If you want to opt out of society, fine by the rest of us, but don't think you can break the law that everybody else lives by and get away with it.

  • @wierdwesterner Who's the injured party? The State? The police do not even "obey" the law on or off duty as a matter of fact they do whatever the hell they want these days when no one is overseeing them.

  • @wierdwesterner I don't see them receiving any "parking notices" notices either. What they look for is more ways to collect revenue for the state they are not about 'serving and protecting the people anymore'. Not saying they are all that way, but for the most part any thug with a 9mm can what they do these days.

  • @wierdwesterner

    I've just become aware of these free man/freedom to travel oddballs, they are insane. Playing games with semantics , etc, and not making any sense in the process. All these jerks are doing is opening themselves up for a fuckload of fines and weekends in jail.

  • I wish someone would do a "freeman vs dog warden"

    The most annoying thing in my day-to-day life is all the signs warning me to keep my dog on a leash in parks, beaches etc.

    My dog is smarter & better behaved than most teenagers :) I really think I'd let them take me to prison, rather than pay a fine for giving her some freedom.

    Luckily, I've never been approached by any officials, but I do get hateful stares from other dog owners. Strange world nowadays..

    Sorry for off topic

  • That was staged!

  • lol how many times did he say "he hasnt arrested you youre not under arrest!" i think we got it

  • No, an MOT is only good for the day it is done. A valid document is a legal requirement but you can still be lifted for having an unroadworthy car (even with a valid certificate) However, no MOT= invalid insurance and no MOT means DVLA can sieze your car. No insurance or invalid insurance means the Police can sieze your car. As for taking legal advice off a bloke with a camera who wants to bum a smoke off you... Would you really?

  • so anyone got a link to dealing with the summons?

  • @RainstormGB So what happend in the end as this was over 3yrs ago?

  • are you citizen? then you agree to accept the laws. the end.

  • @vespers119 accepting the laws does not mean your breaking the laws. the beginning.

  • @vespers119

    lol, yeah ok mate.

  • couldnt get a fag off u

  • @Anomaly1111-in australia and england a 'fag' is a cigerette.

  • @tinkerbell1129mew yes.... i live in england..

  • did you get a producer or not i need a follow up of the events that unfolded after this clip what you wrote on the summons and all the details please

  • great vid freeedddooommmmm peace

  • They call cigarettes a "fag". LOL!

  • Love it, fighting the man, then going home for dinner :)

  • Dear free people of the world, in Australia we have given up on the bankster owned political parties and brown shirt cops, get the message out, cops, judges, et al they are PUBLIC SERVANTS and must do their job properly, not protect banksters and corrupt govt, simple really...

  • @mysticphoebos Welcome to the NWO

  • What a pathetic country you have. In the USA this shit doesnt work. Dont accept the summons, get yanked out of the car and put in jail. Show your freeman crap and get laughed at. Go to court with your freeman crap and get convicted. God bless the USofA.

  • @MickScarborough Thats because you are in a much worse state than we are. Your Constitution, with its freedom and rights are being eroded as we speak; such as the Patriot Act.

  • @MickScarborough You can talk eh? In the U.S. if you dont comply the copper shoots you. Your'e in worse shit than we are. AND we've seen what happens in America if your'e black. You can keep your nasty eagle with all its brags and cuss.

  • Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed., 2009 - Driving

    driving, n. The act of directing the course of something, such as an automobile or a herd of animals.

    Why do people listen to such inane arguments from people who provide nothing to back their arguments up?

  • What a total knob. He doesn't consent to the statute. Wormwood Scrubs needs your company for a year or two.

  • Typical EuroFreetard

  • Did you know that you dont actually have to pull over for an unmarked police car?

  • @sparcky488 I bet you found this nugget in the book that tells you 'a police officer can't arrest you if he isn't wearing his hat'... Sheesh.

  • We need a follow up to this to see how he got on with his summons please

  • I like when he gets a fag off him. (I'm American.)

  • what part of dorset is this?

  • Am I the only one who figures that this whole freeman argument can be undermined by the simple definition of 'the governed' as a collective rather than you individually? You can't pick and choose which laws to follow, that's called anarchy.

  • @ewanmclean

    Hence the "Anarchist" collective..

  • @ewanmclean If u look at ur birth certificate it has a crown copyright seal on it....... copyright asin the crown own ur name. As soon as u consent that that is YOUR name then ur owned! wise up u foolish 'PERSON'

  • @ewanmclean

    He is complying with the "LAW".

  • CHEEKY BASTARD,CAN I BLAG A FAG OFF YOU,,TUT TUT..

  • POWER IS KNOWING COMMON LAW AND YOUR RIGHTS! join up with the British constitution group and protect yourself against the tyranny

  • Not one of these Freemen has ever won a genuine case at court. Says it all really.

  • @whowhere2k well there ya go...another Nazi supporter

  • @321billygoat lol, whatever.

  • @whowhere2k

    I stood beside my friend last year in court. He claimed commonlaw jurisdiction and represented the legal fiction of his capitalized name....as evidenced by the 'birth certificate' he offered. No licence, insurance or registration and obstruction of police were the charges. After much intimidation and 3 adjournments, they withdrew the charges. Newmarket ontario canada...so there whowhere!

  • @brainerd55 And yet you cannot verify this by linking to any actual case records. We just have to take your word for it that it happened.

  • @MidnightWins2 I hesitate in revealing this here, but I have that information. There was a Freeman on the Land Conference called for Newmarket days later and Rob Menard flew out here to have my friend give a talk. This was a precedent setting case for Ontario. I am not an impartial observer, but was surprised as anyone that this stuff is absolutely true and real.

  • @brainerd55 Can you post the details of this case, then? If it was a precedent-setting ruling, then it should be public record.

  • @MidnightWins2 I have written down the case # somewhere and my friend is not available for me right now. After the last appearance we made a 'victory video' which we posted on youtube and was pulled...twice. There were some negative 'co-incidences' he suffered shortly thereafter and my laptop was stolen in a home theft in my good neighbourhood where this never happens. We both decided to 'lay low' for a while. I will contact him and ask him to respond here himself. He has a copy.

  • Respond to this video... It's not possible to 'link' to anything. The transcripts must be paid for...and I'm not sure if there are any since they withdrew the charges.

  • @brainerd55 In Canada.....doesn't mean anything in the UK. And it all it means is that your idiot friend is driving around without insurance or a licence causing a danger to anyone who crosses his path. I'd love for a freeman idiot to crash into my car and try and explain to me about how he doesn't need insurance because he doesn't consent to statute. He might find it difficult without any teeth though.

  • @whowhere2k He doesn't drive like an idiot and either do I. I can't speak for him, but being a man of integrity and honour, if I crashed into you and caused damage, I offer whatever financial compensation to you to make good on my part in the 'accident'. If this were disputed we could/would proceed to civil court. But that's not the end of it. No amount of money can make up for emotional or physical pain/damage. I would try my utmost to give comfort and human consideration.

  • @brainerd55 Furthermore, if you were to smash my teeth in, I would sue your ass throughly. Violent 'men' like you are why third party military type peace officers are required everywhere. My first concern...even above my own welfare in an accident...would be your comfort and safety. Your attitude has led to a culture where the 'insurance holder' is irresponsible, shrugs his shoulders and 'monetizes' human suffering. You're not a real man.

  • @brainerd55 So what you're saying is, that if you accidentally crashed into me, totally destroying my car you'd be able to afford the £10,000 it would cost to get me a replacement? There wouldn't be any dispute, if you crashed into me you'd be paying, your human consideration would be worth absolutely jack shit to me. What if I decided to sue you for injury? You'd be able to afford the tens of thousands of pounds required? Didn't think so.

  • @brainerd55 we pay insurance to cover the massive costs involved in repairing or replacing property. And you'd sue my ass? Really? You want to fix the damage you've caused with compassion and you think you can take the high ground? Lol, you "Freemen" are living on a totally different planet to the rest of us, a planet where you think you can do whatever the fuck you like.

  • @whowhere2k Yes, I live on a different planet. Numbers, shiny metal and 'bashing teeth' are important to you. Watch how your reality becomes more and more meaningless. Suing you for intentional harm is the only remedy available at present besides jail for belligerent violent people. I hope you grow up and find true value inside, not in 'property'.

  • @brainerd55 I find value in a lot of things actually. But I live in the real world, I need a car, I saved and bought a nice one. I have insured it, ensured it is safe to drive through regular servicing and testing and drive carefully. I don't want to be hit by someone else, I ESPECIALLY don't want to be hit by some uninsured dickhead, a dickhead who totals my car and is then unable to pay to repair the damage all because they belive in some higher moral purpose. The whole thing is bollocks.

  • oi freeman the Road Traffic Act is LAW. you have broken the law and does not need your consent to give you a ticket.

  • "Can I have a fag of you?"

    Nice one!

  • I love these Freeman guys.....I do not consent therefor I am immune from the laws....LMAO....it has not one a single case in the US or UK.

    Love how an inability to interpret the word "Employ" means you can drive without a license.....good luck with that.....hasnt worked in about 1000 cases yet but MAYBE NEXT TIME!!

  • @MrDaveb67 You've tried it about one thousand times? Well, that is dedication.

  • @MrDaveb67, Your ignorance is laid bare.

  • @superluminalthought Prove me wrong wanker....this arguement has not been accpeted by any court at any time. Cite a case to prove me wrong

  • i dont get it, how dose this work?

  • @msterlala it doesn't

  • The consent of the governed does NOT mean the consent of

    individuals, it means the collective majority consent. If you don't

    respect the laws we make, then we'll have men with guns put you the fuck in jail or even shoot you to stop you. You clowns pretending to be amateur lawyers is obnoxious and looks immature.

  • @rstevewarmorycom So if that collective majority is the herd and heading down the chute to the slaughter pen, but you knew better, would you collectively follow the herd to your death? That's what you're saying, man. The "amateur" lawyers know the laws better than the "professional" lawyers because their lives are at stake. Professional is getting paid to do it. Who do you think lawyers really work for? Clue time! It's not you.

  • @chop98 If you see anyone "slaughtered" get back to me.

    Saying all lawyers are members of the same vast conspiracy

    and only non-lawyers know anything is simplistic childish

    reasoning. Lawyers are all quite different people and so are

    non-lawyers. What they know varies in both groups. The

    lawyers work for anyone who pays them. Go to court and

    watch it at work. If you think the "freemen" clowns have

    ANY actual law on their side, then what you need is a decent

    education in plain old civics.

  • @rstevewarmorycom And what you need is to have your brain washed out. The lawyers work for the court and only the court under oath. That's why they're members of the Inter'l BAR Association. Natural Law is a good choice for court. Here where I live, you have a choice in which court you want to be heard under. Otherwise, they're gonna pick you apart with their substantive procedures. Good luck in staying blind and conceited. The "slaughter" was a figure of speech, dimwit.

  • @chop98 Yes, and what do you think the BAR association does?

    Do you suppose it is a secret organization that requires all their

    members to change their beliefs and inclinations? No, it's minutes

    are public and no such adherence is required. You're nothing but

    a raving mindless little paranoid who needs more education, IF you

    could stop running your mouth long enough to listen!!

  • @rstevewarmorycom Yes you stupid moron. It's public. Lawyers/attorneys take oaths to the BAR which back up the Middle Temple Inn in the City of London. You've got no clue how much these liars and cheats do to you to keep your dumb ass in check and steal your money. Go get educated in real life. It is apparently passing you by with all that crack you're smoking.

  • @chop98 I've seen cops and attorneys get sworn in as officers

    of the court and nothing weird about the City of London was said.

    You've got some paranoid delusion going on in your brain.

    Get help!

  • @rstevewarmorycom You've no clue. You haven't even began to look it up. At least get your fingers going on the keyboard to look it up. You will not do this though. You're perfectly alright with what is going on around you.

  • @chop98 You have not avoided sounding like a paranoid moron,

    which suggests that you ARE a paranoid moron. If you really have

    anything to explain except that you're just a delusional crank, then

    you should begin or give it up. And kindly start with what the rest

    of us believe is going on, else no one will believe you when you

    start in with inexplicable drivel.

  • @rstevewarmorycom Nevermind. You're a shill account. Have a day.

  • It's sad what not having a job does to these people

  • can i not consent if im pissed drunk while driving and injecting herion?

  • @GBYRNE123 so you would be happy to take some ones life?

  • @Mickygemma dont be silly, i dident mean it like that, what i meant is where do u draw the line with this, can you only do this for no liesence or tax or insurance or does it work for watever law you break?

  • @GBYRNE123 I get where your coming from now. You made a good point and hope a "freeman" will reply to how far this consent things go???

  • I fuckin love the cockney accent

  • What the idiot is saying is that he can break a good law and not have to be approached and reproached about it. Anarchist.

  • try and get the average Joe to understand that the "person" can not be in charge of a sovereign human being is a near impossibility.

  • I love that, thanks to the Internet, and Controversial TV, people are now coming to realise that most laws we are supposed to abide by dont actually affect us.

    Therefore we should protect the internet at all costs, as I believe it to be our most precious resource right now, though the powers that be will attempte to shut it down, because the last thing they want is a conscious and informed public.

  • @BradBrassman What can we do to keep the internet active, i've been asking around but I'm not teck savvy. All these people who apply the common law are great!

  • @D33Lux I think just supporing it and telling all your friends about these issues is paramount right now, because if they do take it down, all we will be able to do is protest. Only this morning The Guardian newspaper in the UK is reporting that Obama's administration is demanding stricter controls on YouTube, and in the UK, the media watchdog, Offcom is attempting to shut down PressTV, which reports the truth about what Britain and the US are really up to in Afghanistan, etc.

  • About the only thing we can all do right now is write to our elected officials and complain, and keep the pressure up, and remember, keep reading and stay informed, because as the saying goes "Knowledge is Power" and they can only survive as long as the public are kept in the dark and follow like sheep.

  • @BradBrassman Thanks for the reply. I'm sure the governments know the repercussions of them taking down the internet, people will get very angry & I'm sure they'll create some pseudo cyber attack and blame it on the next country they wish to invade to steal their resources so they don't get blamed. Amazing all these events are happening worldwide, if you didn't tell me I wouldn't have known what's happening in Britain about them trying to shut down PressTV. Be well, greetings from Canada

  • @BradBrassman most laws that try to apply to us are givin the definitons of animals or medical devices to include human beings. they dont apply to us my friend. ppl need to spread this!!!

  • @VaderNocturnas Or common law being replaced by the law that governs Corporations. Buy Veronica Chapmans book "Freedom is more that a seven letter word" for more info.

  • @BradBrassman no, right on man, i know what your talking about. common law is a far more easier defense than drafting up a freedom of religion defense lol. under common law we are superior. laws have been replaced by statute law. it needs our consent to be considered a corpse. robert menard gets it. i think what were talking about is called marytime admiral law, or something like that, ya. the word magic so easy to decipher, ppl need to get on this. jordan maxwell is pretty helpful.

  • @BradBrassman

    It’s not that they “affect” us, they don’t even exist. No government has ever been “legal"

  • the mot is a fucking joke anyway - it is a CON I took my vehicle for a mot, it failed (as I knew it would) but I rectified all the faults - and it cost me mega. Took it back to the SAME mot station, and it was FAILED again! I was told 2 different testers were involved at the SAME garage! This was in Dorset as well. So far, it's cost me £110 JUST for 2 fails!

  • Comment removed

  • When councils create a by-law for instance under the authority of an Act, they can do so with ascension and then it becomes a piece of secondary legislation.

  • Legislation is made up of: Primary and secondary legislation... Primary legislation is what we know as "statutes" or "acts" these are the primary building blocks that are created in the UK parliament and are what we know as "law" when created . Then there is secondary legislation, which is made to support the enforcement of a piece of primary legislation, however secondary legislation is created by a person or body, with the authority of an "act".

  • Kudos to the bloke who had his tea cooking who decides 'fuck it, I'll help this guy.'!

  • @wesmatron fuckin 2 tru m8 if we all helped each other a lot more we would all benefit

    shame we didnt show his face so we could return the favour

  • Being thrown in jail DOES NOT mean that the court has jurisdiction over you. It only means you have been put somewhere by force. I can chain my girlfriend to a radiator, but that doesn't mean I have jurisdiction over her.

  • @FreeBlago1 The difference that you are not the official authorities.

  • I wonder how many arm-chair lawyers end up losing their cases. My guess is pretty much all of them.

  • @witchtelus

    Yeah, because the legal system is so opposed to the common man, my father has been told by COUNCILORS themselves (I am from the UK, so not sure about US). That the whole process is so complicated, and any complaints procedure is so complicated because they want you to give up in the process.

  • The gentleman behind the wheel appears to forget rather a lot.

  • did you have licence, insurance, number plate ?

  • You could here the guy didnt want to go with him lol

  • isnt it funny how in all these videos you never see the start of the incident?... hmm

  • So you just don't consent to the law then it doesn't apply to you? Hmm I then don't consent to murder laws so if I kill you I don't consent to be charged. LMAO.

  • @TheEodtch whether you consent to that or not you would still be killed by police or the by person's loved ones, even if the cops didn't have enough evidence for a murder charge they could always say that they think you might have marijuana and therefor be given a free pass to kill you whether or not they find anything or you have anything to do with drugs, police murder innocent people all the time, so if you really want to get away with murder be a cop. isn't the system great?

  • @mesmokumpeacepipe OK buddy you been smoking to much weed. Come off your high a little and maybe try to retype that to make some sence. All of your comments were incorect.

  • @TheEodtch exactly what part of that was incorrect? go ahead and try to point something out, I'll be glad to prove you wrong.

  • @mesmokumpeacepipe CESTUI QUE VIE. He for whose life or land is holden by another person; the latter is called tenant per auter vie, or tenant for another's life. Vide Dane's Ab. Index, h.t.

    If you don't object then you agree.

    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. Since the state/province which registered the trust is the owner, it is also the trustee the one that administers the trust.

  • Respond to this video. 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.

  • @TheMarcusMark 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, and for them to switch their roll from trustee to beneficiary no party can be both, at the same time. They must somehow trick us into accepting the role of trustee. Why would we do so when the trust is for our benefit?

  • @TheEodtch killing its a crime and when u comit a crime then u dont haave to consent to anything cuz the law applys automaticly... if u did not commited a crime (speeding, parking etc) then if u dont consent it doesnt apply... its called search for common law and UCC (universal comercial code) and law of the land

  • @gsus787 That's all very well, however you clearly haven't actually researched common law, as it contains an offence called "Contempt of statute", which in laymans terms means that you have to abide by Parliamentary acts. So by your own theory, acts are laws and require no consent whatsoever.

  • @TheEodtch its not that the law does not apply it is that an act is not a law. A law is a law, like the laws written on the Constitution or the Magna Carta. Research into the differences.

  • @beatingsoundss That day will never come to the UK, because we are civilised (unlike Arabia) and abide by common sense laws rather than the bullshit you come out with.

  • @beatingsoundss Ok, I assumed you were freemaning which was an error on my part. I'm not sure why you think your private vehicle is exempt from tax apart from thinking 'cos it's not a commercial vehicle. I can't see the point of trying to dodge it apart from not wanting to pay the money. In my view, it's a reasonable law. Can your trustee can cover another's accident and poss medical costs, maybe for life? And you may have to contend with prosecution for not being insured if in an accident.

  • @beatingsoundss I think you'll find it's a case of schools educating how the world works TODAY. You cannot declare yourself not subject to the law, that's just ridiculous. The way the world worked before the constitution is completely irrelevant, as that is not the way it is in modern society. You have every right to your opinion on the system, however that's as far as it goes, it's just an opinion.

  • @beatingsoundss Hiya. My input on this was quite a while ago and i can't remember what it was.But not to worry. But what I would say is don't believe too much in the freeman stuff, it's all bollocks as they say. Some of the ideaology or sentiment behind it has some merit but drop the 'state is a corporate being' and 'birther bonds' stuff. It aint true. Keep well and best wishes.

  • :) a brit one,seen an american one,a canadian oone and an australian 1

  • It saddens me how God's creations are being intimidated. And it pains me how it has been d case for a longtime. Now we r too afraid to even listen to d truth or act upon d illumination. Edward Mandel House and all ye inspirators, burn in hell and never reincarnate. If ye were only vessels used fir this massive enslavement, we forgive ye.

  • dosent your driving licence say that youve contract to the road traffic acts ?? cos if your moy it out tyen youve probarly got a drivers licence would be cool if there was a part 2

  • Go and park it "legally"??? You are mad, no?

  • Wahey! Pinky!

  • So you were sexually assaulted?

  • hahahaha if they wernt so gay itd be good

  • why dont u guys just have anal sex?  its obvious that's what u REALLY want ...

  • would they even need to arrest you at the spot?

    they'll just write you a ticket and sort it out with bailiffs and stuff... ?

  • @HumanityWins And address who?

  • @Nikkeftw

    to whoever rents the licence plate or vin code

  • @HumanityWins If you drive with licence plate, you confirm you are a person. A freeman drive without licenceplate. If you registre your car with the government, they OWN your car. So ofc a freeman wouldnt do that.

  • @Nikkeftw

    how do you get the insurance then?