this isnt DIRECTLY related to the CEL
but i believe it can be it can be applied if we learn enough.

i have been reading and researching on whats called "common law", "common law jurisdiction" or "the law of the land"

i started after coming around to this guy Robert Menard who has achieved status of "free man on the land inside of common law jurisdiction.(a sovereign)"
with over 10,000 hours of research and studying.
he explains what you should/could do and outcomes for VARIOUS situations for mostly any predicament you might find yourself in.
such as getting arrested or interrogated.

you can even find videos on youtube with people in court doing this and winning the court cases.
NOTE: always have your camera ready and recording in any situation, just start the video with you saying you are recording FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION.
if you dont know about law and equity basically what that means is that WE ARE ALL EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW.
so when a officer comes up to you asking for ID you ask them for THEIRS
how do you know that they are even a real officer?
and what kind of officer they are (peace vs law)

so he says that he can only be prosecuted inside of common law jurisdiction which is really the only "LAWS" and there is only a few.
everything else that is not inside that jurisdiction is not really a law at all, they are statutes, regulations and acts.

now first of all i have been really wondering why this hasn't been discussed on here because what this guy explains is
VERY mind blowing and eye opening.

now i assume there is alot of propaganda with this whole sovereign thing due to main stream deception, but i encourage everyone to watch
rob menards movie which is bursting bubbles of government deception ---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-HnExGn69c
and his series of clips here -----> http://www.youtube.com/w...E4Bo&feature=related

sovereignty and common law (the law of the land) still exists
i know there is people from all over the world on here but here is a list of sovereign states and it seems like a good chunk of the world
http://en.wikipedia.org/...List_of_sovereign_states

in the first clip of rob menards clips he tried to put in perspective how language is the main tool of deception
because the definitions of your words may be different than other peoples words, such as the "law society's"

the only direct experience i have with this is my one friend who recently went to court(USA)
for having a suspended licence and they called him up and he claimed common law jurisdiction and he walked out with not even a court fee.

the prosecutor went up to the judge and told her my friend dosent need a licence under that jurisdiction.
you dont need a licence, birth certificate, SSN and many other things we believe we do, we dont need to register our automobiles or anything else.
we dont need to pay taxes(also in his movie).
tickets, citation violations ect.

you can even claim land with something called a land patent ----> (http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/landpatent/index.html)
we just need to draw the line between their club(law soceity) and the rest of the world
we need to draw a line between their LANGUAGE and ours, because theirs is VERY different.

Menard also talks about in his movie how he got a pub to legitimately have people be able to smoke cannabis inside and rob got the police to knock on the door state that they are PEACE OFFICERS not law officers and walk through the pub and out.
but they cant do anything about things that arent real laws while they are PEACE officers

especially victim less "crimes" like smoking cannabis or using psychedelics

so basically we are in bondage because of the deception of our language and our ignorance.
like on your social security number or any ID your names are in all capital letters which states you as a coorporation
NOT a sovergn human being in common law jurisdiction. the definition of a PERSON in blacks law dictionary is A COORPORATION
and coorporations can be prosecuted inside if MARITIME ADMIRALTY LAW, which is the law the water, financial boating, banking, stock law.
heres a clip that explain this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5I21wE-h_g

when people go to court and the judge does not state their oath of office and you dont ask them to they are acting as a banker and not a judge and they are there to settle the balance between stocks and finances and they can "prosecute" "your person" aka coorporation inside of THEIR law soceity with all of THEIR statues, regulations and acts.
thats why no matter what we pay a court fee.

basically it would be like us making a big club with our own language and the people that didnt bother learning the language can be
screwed over because they basically have NO IDEA what is going on.

i belive this is a huge start to regaining our true freedom all over the world.

i strongly encourage everyone to watch these things maybe a couple of times and come back with some good opinions.


love and light
frtltime

So what exactly are you proposing we do with regards to common law?

In the US, any establishment that tried to implement cannabis-allowance as in the pub example you provide would be immediately shut down by local (state) or federal authorities and would have no ground on which to challenge this in US court.

as for what to do with it
i was just implying to learn and exercise our god given rights if possible.
at least discuss this topic and see where it goes

all i can say is i trust this source mainly because it has much depth of information and other sources i can look into and research further
and i have been piecing it together and it makes the most sense to me.
so if you want to take a look at what i have provided or other things i could provide and form and opinion thats up to you

if you have sources i can research further into i would gladly do that

What good are god-given rights when they are consistently trampled by man-made laws?

Most (if not all) common-law falls flat on its face in modern judicial contexts. One prime example would be the attempt to prosecute Dr. Kevorkian under Michigan common law, which clearly stated his actions were illegal, but only in the realm of common law, not statutory law. The case was dismissed within the first day or two if I remmeber correctly.

You can sing about god-given rights as much as you want from a jail-cell, as far as the system is concerned...god-given rights don't mean anything in a litigious society that functions (and prosecutes) based on man-made law.

What are you interested in sources for? I'd love to help, but I'm still unclear as to what you're looking for.

i dont know if you seen anything ive put in my posts but if not i suggest taking a look
because you misunderstand what i mean with what i am saying
im just a messenger for this idea
and if you want to discredit everything i said already because you are positive about what you know then okay thats fine
but if not then look from my side of the table

you are just throwing examples of things with no basis that would influence my perspective
if you have things i can look at for myself then i would be glad to look at them like i said before

i have a question i mean i dont know much so dont take my attitude the wrong way i am a sincere person and this is just an honest question
how do authorities such as federal work without the courts? i thought of the courts as the main thing in the conclusion of situations and there is higher and higher courts

This is why I'm asking what your goal is...I can't answer the questions you are asking of me until I know what your intent is.

In your post I see a bunch of thrown together examples (that I believe are) being presented to make a case for establishing common-law protection for people in the community. Is this correct? If not, what are you trying to say?

I've read your post...it's just very confusing to me and I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish through common law. What are you hoping to apply common law to? What are you hoping to do with (or through) common law?

your right, perhaps i wasnt clear on perspective and standpoint

i am not trying to establish something for the community i dont have the capability to do that
common law starts on the individual level
thats why i encourage everyone to look at what i have presented in my post

i cant explain everything i am trying to do and accomplish through common law

all i meant by my post was to take a look at rob menard and tell me what you think because he is my main source and he explains a lot
there is like 2 hours of him talking in what ive put in my post and my perceptive greatly comes from him because he presents ALOT of information so if you havent seen it then you wont understand where i am coming from at all
but if you have then perhaps we can expand or discredit him and this idea
perhaps i should of just put the links and said opinions?
then maybe people would watch it
all I was trying to do was give some examples and a idea of what is in the videos

im not trying to use common law for something specific im not trying to do anything with it
im trying to learn about it first of all

i just see it as becoming something, i am trying to become a free man on the land
its not something you have to do or use
its just living the way you obviously should
its the way the the law obviously should be
to not get terrorized by our own police and not have so many people in jail that dosent help anything
its your rights, right to land, right to speech, right to health, right to security ect
and rob menard says it is the way it is and he is a freeman on the land.
the things you cant do are the obvious things
like harming/killing, damaging/stealing using deception in your contracts/behavior ect.
by being a freeperson you take back what was unrightfully taken from you
its more than just this and that
its an attitude and a way of life
you have to grow up and not be a child of the province anymore
free from the unnecessary stuff like fines, tickets, taxes, applications, registrations and free from police messing with you
you revoke consent to be governed therefore all statutory laws, bilaws ect dont apply to you


if i still didnt answer your question its because i dont understand exactly what your asking

i am sure if your watched rob menard you will understand where i am coming from and why i dont understand your questions

I don't know much, if anything about Canadian law, so all of this is from an American perspective:

Yea...I've listened to him before. He makes good points with regards to social/linguistic constructs but...

what does it do?

It doesn't provide any protection from the very real system under which (or around which) everyone tries to live.

So, I find his ideas entertaining, but ultimately irrelevant as they provides no basis or means for protection, afaik. If you get caught breaking a law you're still subjected to the power of the courts, at least within the US.

In the examples Menard gives involving himself, if you pay attention, you can see the reason he doesn't get in trouble is not because he's a "free man on the land" but because the police/DA know who he is and don't want to deal with him over trivial issues.

You claim that this provides all kinds of protection - that this prevents police from messing with you. Can you show any legal evidence that this is the case?

Where is the legal protection here?

"It doesn't provide any protection from the very real system under which (or around which) everyone tries to live.

So, I find his ideas entertaining, but ultimately irrelevant as they provides no basis or means for protection, afaik. If you get caught breaking a law you're still subjected to the power of the courts, at least within the US."


in my perception rob claims that it does provide protection because you start to bill people and then they dont wanna mess with you anymore
and with the courts of course you are subjected if you break a law.
but again rob says laws are laws and statutes are statutes.
so if you are in common law, laws only consist of a few obvious things
court is no problem, ive seen videos of people winning court cases
and i hear you have to get in contact with them before your court case to try to talk to them
or else your in what is called dishonor.
it seems like there is a bunch of little cracks and slits they have set up for us that will enable them to win
but thats just because we dont know about them
they set up a whole dungeon of traps with language and things your supposed to do but never learned about


"In the examples Menard gives involving himself, if you pay attention, you can see the reason he doesn't get in trouble is not because he's a "free man on the land" but because the police/DA know who he is and don't want to deal with him over trivial issues."

i disagree why wouldnt they want to silence someone talking about all this, plus things like smoking in a pub or drinking in public.
i think going around telling people that they can revoke consent to be governed is pretty crazy, it seems like he knows what hes doing and he dosent get any trouble now, because he dosent commit any real crimes.
of course it takes time and effort and struggle and your gonna get arrested and people are gonna look at you like your crazy but if we put the time in and learn we could be able to do it
at least thats how he makes it seem.

"You claim that this provides all kinds of protection - that this prevents police from messing with you. Can you show any legal evidence that this is the case?

Where is the legal protection here?"


I dont claim anything, if it seems like i claimed something its because i misunderstood something
Rob is the one that makes me believe that it provides protection
he seems like hes living proof
you start billing police they stop messing with you.
traffic tickets are bilateral adhesion contracts and can make the police pay
like take this clip for example
she evicts a court house and then later she makes the police officer the debtor in what seems like traffic violations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1wxYHKNVZM
and your quote agrees with everything i believe so i dont understand how this is a fallacy

Excuse me, I presented his claims as yours...I apologize.

So you honestly believe if you get busted for possession of an illicit substance, the mere threat of billing the system is going to keep you from going to jail?


Have you heard Menard give a single example where a moderately serious law (in the eyes of the system) was actually broken and he didn't get arrested? He's gotten arrested even for trivial things and has been released when they realized who he was/how well versed he is with semantic games, but even in those cases he's going through the legal system. How many times (and for what) has he been arrested? How many times (and for what) has he been convicted? These are things I've never heard him address.


Also...afaik, this holds zero relevance in the US...every example given has been Canadian, which is wonderful for them, but of little interest to me.

I'd like to see this material work.

I am not sure anyone with a social security number is a freeman,

but worse, i have a friend who has a few cops in his family and knowing them and how they work I worry that anything other than complying with an officer is largely ineffective in actual practice, regardless of a legal right to do otherwise. after all, it isn't like you can call the cops on them and the the judge is nearly always sympathetic to the officers

For example, asking an officer to prove they are a cop is something i know people to have tried, and it doesn't seem to work for any of them

i've seen officers lie about their identity to suspects, remember there is no law that says they must tell the truth to 'suspects' they can lie and it is called a 'tactic'

If you look at statistics for death and injury in US police custody you might not want to try and exert your rights. the right to remain silent is the best right you can employ

As to the video of the woman, if you listen to what's said in the video and then try to find an officer in debt to the tune of $300 billion in Canada, it's not there. Seems like it would be a major news story, no? Again, it seems like a small time offender who was let off because the judge didn't want to deal with the hassle.

Where are people using this to defend themselves against real issues (like the drug war or civil rights cases)?

"So you honestly believe if you get busted for possession of an illicit substance, the mere threat of billing the system is going to keep you from going to jail?"

no not at that point but if you get them to at least reduce their bother it would help not get arrested
and as for when court comes around
i like to believe there is a possibility to not be charged with things that can not be connected to common law.
like smoking/possession of cannabis
i mean its the drug regulation acts right? not drug laws



"Have you heard Menard give a single example where a moderately serious law (in the eyes of the system) was actually broken and he didn't get arrested?"

what about this claim of smoking cannabis in a lounge and the officers walking in and out for routine checks?




"also...afaik, this holds zero relevance in the US...every example given has been Canadian, which is wonderful for them, but of little interest to me."


i am in the US also but if you see in his videos it says "life with no SSN in US and CA"

plus the list on Wikipedia shows that we are a sovereign state.




"For example, asking an officer to prove they are a cop is something i know people to have tried, and it doesn't seem to work for any of them"

thats because they probably didnt know what to ask them for and you have to come off as a serious intelligent person
not question their intelligence, intent or integrity just the meanings of the words they are using to claim authority
you cant be someone they can apply some stereotypes to and you have to know what to do when court comes around


"If you look at statistics for death and injury in US police custody you might not want to try and exert your rights. the right to remain silent is the best right you can employ"

and that is why they win

and even sadder that what you just said dosent make people want to try harder




"Where are people using this to defend themselves against real issues (like the drug war or civil rights cases)?"

i dont know, if there was it would be hidden from us
i just wanted to present what seemed like something of interest, what better chance is there?
nothing that i know of, this seemed very plausible to me.

When you say things like "we are a sovereign state" I really wonder if you understand the terminology being used here...this isn't a criticism of you, but rather a flaw with the whole "let's tie the system into a semantic knot and see what gets ensnared" strategy.

This is the kind of confusion people like Menard create.

"A sovereign state is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states."

What relevance does this have to anything?




What you "like to think" has no bearing as to what the courts "like to charge you with" which is what has always really bothered me about these people. If you read the things you are calling "acts not laws" you will find that there is language within the acts that presents how the acts are enforceable by law. There is not a single case where anyone has used the "freeman of the land" claim to avoid serious jail time or to mount an actual defense, afaik. This is a semantic magic trick that holds no water when actually applied to the really existing legal framework.

What better chance is there? I'd say working towards changing the existing law and/or revolution...both of those seem considerably better to me than symantic gymnastics.

wow what a weird scenario
this whole idea is

i am done because there is no way for this to conclude

well all i can say is thank you for helping and clearing my perspective on all this

"What better chance is there? I'd say working towards changing the existing law and/or revolution...both of those seem considerably better to me than symantic gymnastics"

yes i agree, i apologize i didnt know i was doing gymnastics, i just thought i came across something worth knowing and forwarded it to see other perspectives.
but now that i have a little bit better of an idea of what all this means and a better idea of how stupid i am i will divide my energy equally with better stuff like changing the existing law/revolution ect.

I apologize if I somehow offended you, that was not my intention.

I looked at some of his other links and realized that this is someone who I came across years ago. I found his linguistic capacities amazing but ultimately found his claims as to the effectiveness of his strategy to be wanting.

I didn't mean to upset you.

Sorry
SB

no there is no need to apologize
your right mang
yes i definitely noticed his linguistic capacities

you didn't offend me at all there is nothing personal about this
its all for a reason right?
im not the kind of person to take anything personal everything is always content
its all just experiment
theres no need for egos
why would i get offended by something i have nothing to do with ya know?
seems like people take what they believe/"know" to seriously

when people argue about anything its just resistance from the ego
a manifestation of fear, no?
seems like something that would come from lack of patience
like anger
if we really wanted to help each other sincerely there would be no anger involved
just patience you know, accept all ideas an integrate with open minds and help each other understand each others perspective calmly and peacefully.
thats what i believe
we are just a big family on this rock

The tone of your reply (that I inferred) made me think you were offended (especially with the self depreciating language that didn't seem humorous). If that's not the case...cool.

When that officer pulled a gun on me while on my own property and he was the trespasser, my sovereign rights did not seem to matter to him. I was more concerned with not getting shot than waxing elegantly with the man who's job it is "to serve and protect" the (police) state that is....