John Harris It's an illusion 2 - BBC5 - 2009
John Harris gives us his perspective on what’s going on. He describes how we are economic slaves to a debt dependant system, notably achieved through the deception of the birth certificate and the creation of a legal fiction known as your ‘PERSON’. It is this PERSON that the government then wields it’s control upon. Although John points out that this arrangement only works when we consent.
Unfortunately inaction is taken as consent, hence we have unwittingly surrendered our inalienable rights through identifying with the PERSON. Remember you are a human being with god given rights, all you have to do is claim them.
Filmed at the 2nd “Lawful Rebellion” Conference in London on the 13th of June 2009
1hr 29mins
How to get out of Debt (the simple DIY Method) 2009
(From Mary-Elizabeth: Croft)
“You just send the letters”
Whenever you receive a demand for payment from a Bank, Building Society, or Loan Company, all you need to do is to respond correctly, the drift of which is to request them to provide three things:
1. Validation of the debt (the actual accounting), and
2. Verification of their claim against you (a sworn affidavit or even just a signed invoice – signed is important!), and
3. A copy of the contract binding both parties.
Write to say you would be happy to pay any financial obligation you might lawfully (important word!) owe as soon as these three documents are received.
They can’t validate the debt because they never sustained a loss.
They can’t verify any claim against you – as a flesh and blood human being with a living soul – they will be attempting to talk to your legal fiction NAME.
They can’t produce a copy of the contract because a lawfully binding one doesn’t exist.
What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract.
What they refer to as ‘your contract with us’ is not a valid, bilateral, agreement – since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the Credit Card (or whatever) ‘application’, namely:
1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are actually creating the credit with our signature), and
2. Equal Consideration. They bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose. (“Consideration” means ‘something of value’, e.g. money, or an item of value – something they are trading for your signature/promise – something they have to lose), and
3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud), and
4. Signatures of BOTH Parties/Meeting of the Minds (Corporations can’t sign because they have no Right, or Mind, to contract, because they are soulless legal fictions)
Credit Cards and Loans are win/win for them, and lose/lose for everyone else – it is the slickest con game on the planet.
But you have to know and realise all this. If you don’t they will steamroller you. They will try every trick in the book because it is their life-blood.
Stick to your guns.
ENSURE THAT EVERY LETTER YOU SEND CLEARLY STATES “Without Prejudice”, which means that you reserve all rights in law, and yield to no contract unless it is lawful by virtue meeting the four conditions above.
Conditions (1) and (2) can never be met. Simply because they never have any money to lend in the first place. Banks are not allowed, by law, to lend any Depositor’s money. Loan Companies do not have any Deposits anyway. Therefore they can only ever lend what you gave to them in the first place, based on your signature on the Loan Application.
THEY LEND BACK TO YOU – WHAT YOU GAVE TO THEM – VIA YOUR SIGNATURE/PROMISE!
They will get the message because they know they are operating fraudulently.
But what about my Credit Rating?
IN THEORY, since you have no judgment against you, your Credit Rating should remain intact.
(I did say … “In theory”)
My son says “Well, yes, but two wrongs don’t make a right”
Banks/Building Societies/Loan Companies have never had, nor ever will have, any money to lend you … except your own (created by your signature on a Promissory Note – called a Loan Agreement).
So they con you into paying them in order to use your own money.
The ‘wrong’ is that they charge you for the use of your own money. It is ‘right’ not to let them play this confidence trick on you.
If you do (somehow) end up in court
You will be asked your name, or whether your name is <whatever> … e.g. Veronica Chapman.
The correct reply is “If I tell you my name, will I have a contract with you?”
If the answer is “No”, then you say “I’m a flesh and blood human being, with a living soul, and commonly called Veronica” (Obviously substitute your own Given Name – or use mine which would constitute a fraud … your choice). If they continue to use your legal fiction NAME (e.g. ‘Ms. Chapman’), do your best to ignore it, until they make it clear they are addressing you, and then repeat “I’m sorry, were you addressing me? I’m commonly called <whatever>”.
If the answer is “Yes” then you can say “Then you need to provide me with FULL DISCLOSURE, some CONSIDERATION, the LAWFUL TERMS AND CONDITIONS, and we would both need to SIGN. Is that not so?”.
Either way, you would be seriously looking at “Case Dismissed”!
If they threatened ‘Contempt of Court’ (a trick they often use), then the response is “Is that CIVIL or CRIMINAL contempt?”.
DO NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL YOU RECEIVE AN ANSWER. (Do not be sucked into filling in ’empty silence’).
If the answer is “Criminal”, then the response is “Who makes the CLAIM, what is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?”. If they say “The COURT makes the CLAIM”, the response is “You know that the court is not a human being and that only human beings, blessed with a living soul, can make a CLAIM!”.
If the answer is “Civil”, then the response is “Please explain the CONTRACT. Will you provide FULL DISCLOSURE, what is the CONSIDERATION, and will you provide the SIGNATURE of a human being with a living soul?”
(I wish I had known about this when I was young!)
(By the way, they generally hate LIPs – Litigants In Person – who actually know the ropes. On the other hand, if you stick to your guns, there’s not a whole lot they can do about it. But they are sharks and will try every trick. You need to remain alert. More information here)
Veronica: of the Chapman family
(January, 2009) FMOTL website
Dean Clifford on Trust Law and Sovereignty - 2009
Dean Clifford is a sovereignty guru who teaches his Youtube students that the whole dynamic of the court room process can have a dramatic change by understanding and asserting your rights under Trust Law, and changing the presumptions surrounding this.
Dean Clifford, Sovereignty, and Trust Law:
Dean teaches that the legal person of the STRAWMAN (the ALL CAPS JOHN H DOE name) is a Public TRUST; and he teaches about the different roles of this trust and that these roles can be inverted at any time if you decide to claim that and do so.
The Grantor is your parents who gave birth to the birth certificates ESTATE/STRAWMAN from the moment they registered the birth of the child, put his or her footprints, height, and weight on the application form, and handed the registration and application over to the STATE c/o Vital Statistics. This created a LEGAL PERSON, or a corporation that that living person has, by default, been doing business through.
The Grand Deception – Rob Menard - 2009
Rob Menard Has Had His Critics
fair share of critics over the years, some good, some bad. As a rule,
people should view Rob as an equal and listen to his views before making
judgements. Nevertheless, any person who teaches others to become free
from enslavement is a friend of our movement. Rob, like others in our
movement, should not be used as the sole source when it comes to legal matters. For one thing, your own issues will be unique and you will need to do your own research.
Sources of Contract Law: Common Law & Uniform Commercial Code - 2009
Instructor: Kat Kadian-Baumeyer
Kat has a Master of Science in Organizational Leadership and Management and teaches Business courses.
Contract Law in General
Contract law controls most agreements between parties, whether oral or written, that involve goods, services, money, employment contracts and real estate deals. Let’s use an example to put contract law into motion.
The law recognizes this as a contract, meaning a legal document containing signatures of two or more parties that is binding and enforceable. Of course, there are certain other elements that must be present, like:
- Mutuality or meeting of the minds, meaning both parties understand and agree with the terms of the contract
- Capacity, meaning both parties are free of mental illness or intoxication and neither is a minor
- Legally accepted terms
However, even when all elements are met, this does not always mean that both parties will commit to the promises made in the contract. For this, the set of laws or rules were developed that govern how contracts are written and executed. In short, they ensure that both parties to a contract adhere to their promises. The law sets some ground rules everyone has to follow, so that neither party loses out on a promise made to him.
The umbrella of contract law is divided into two areas:
- Common law
- Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
Both areas of contract law work in similar ways, but the difference lies in the type of contract. And, both require that certain elements of a contract be present. The most significant difference is in acceptance, an important element to any contract.
Common Law and Acceptance
Common law contracts require strict adherence to the mirror image rule, while the UCC allows for minor changes to a contract that do not significantly impact its terms. We will focus on the element of acceptance. Common law is like a precedent set by prior court rulings. In other words, no set-in-stone law applies to common law decisions. And, decisions may vary by court or state.
Next, common law contracts also use the mirror image rule, meaning acceptance must be for the exact same terms and conditions presented in the offer. Nothing is permitted to change or the offer is no longer valid. To make this a bit clearer, let’s revisit Maurice and Kendall. We know that Maurice and Kendall were in the midst of working out a deal for the sale of his sports car.
Suppose when Maurice presented Kendall with the contract for $35,000, Kendall slashed through the $35,000 and returned the signed contract with a price reduction of $2,500 written in pen. Mirror image rule would say that there is no longer a valid contract. Acceptance of the original offer of $35,000 stands. Even though Kendall signed the contract, the price was changed. The element of acceptance has no longer been met and no contract exists. The Uniform Commercial Code is a bit less restrictive.
Uniform Commercial Code
Unlike common law, the Uniform Commercial Code deals specifically with commercial contracts. It is actually a set of laws that governs transactions between states and in business transactions. It was designed to create a uniform set of standards that regulate fairness in commercial transactions. The Uniform Commercial Code is a comprehensive set of nine articles or laws and rules. For our purposes, we will focus on Article 2 – Sales.
Article 2 was written so that transactions between businesses would be more elastic than, say, the mirror image rule, to allow flexibility making contract formation easier to facilitate. This is because acceptance and consideration work a bit differently. In common law, for a contract to be binding, one party offers, the other party accepts and something of value is exchanged.
The terms of offer, acceptance and consideration – amongst other elements – are written or expressed orally in a very specific way. The Uniform Commercial Code does require that whatever promises each party makes must be fulfilled but not in such strict terms.