DATABASE
DATABASE
Check updated information about occupy movement around the world.
Report INITIATIVES and information about your local situation as well as IDEAS and PROJECTS.
Register in order to RECEIVE ALERTS of events related to your locality and FEEDBACKS from your reports.
Translators needed!!!
TRANSLATORS DESPERATELY NEEDED
Contact us if you can translate into MANDARIN, ARABIC,FARSI,JAVANESE,PANJABI,URDU,FRANCAIS,TELUGU, VIETNAMESE,ESPANOL,RUSSIAN,PORTUGUES, ENGLISH (if not existing), JAPANESE, SWAHILI, HAUSA, AMHARIC, YORUBA, KURDISH,LINGALA, AFRIKAANS or any other language!!

The Legal Fiction – How They Control Us

Throughout the ages mankind’s ingenuity has allowed one group of people to control others. The creation of the ‘legal fiction’ is a superb example – it is the very foundation of how we are controlled today and yet the knowledge of its existence eludes all but a tiny few of us.

Judges know how the ‘legal fiction’ applies to each of us, but barristers, solicitors, Magistrates and politicians mostly do not – it is a closely guarded secret. Our courts impose their will on us using the ‘legal fiction’ and it is through this imposition that governments are able to control every facet of our lives. Without the ‘legal fiction’ governments and an array of authorities have no power over us whatsoever and with this in mind it is perfectly clear that understanding the ‘legal fiction’ is a prerequisite to understanding how the world around us really works as distinct from how we think it does. Knowledge and understanding of the legal fiction is the first step on the road of freedom.

So What Is The Legal Fiction & How Does It Impact On Our Lives?

If you tried to explain the concept of the ‘legal fiction’ to the average individual in the context of how it applies to them, there is a high degree of probability that they would stare back at you as though you were quite mad… explanation rarely attracts a demand to know more, which it should, generally people find comprehension beyond their scope of understanding and they prefer therefore to dismiss it as an absurdity. The creators of the legal fiction knew this and have used our own ignorance to further their aims to control and dominate us, their ultimate weapon being ‘plausible deniability.’ But suddenly we are waking up to what is really going on and as we do the shackles of control are starting to loosen.

Imagine having a conversation in the 10th century in which you were describing a mobile telephone to an audience… they would to a man and woman think you were a complete lunatic… despite being able to explain the science behind it, and so it is with trying to explain the ‘legal fiction’ today.  Fortunately, thanks to people like John Harris, Winston Shrout, Robert Arthur Menard and others, the secret of the ‘legal fiction’ also known as the ‘strawman’ has been laid bare and as a consequence those of us who are prepared to learn are now able to take advantage of this very important knowledge.

But bear in mind this… the ‘powers-that-be’ have a vested interest in us not knowing how they effect their control over us… and this translates into them being adamant that you must not know of the existence of the legal fiction, never mind understand it.  So if you are thinking about writing to the government and asking them to confirm the existence of the legal fiction, may I suggest that your time would be better spent writing to the mafia and asking them to confirm in writing that they are indeed engaged in organised crime. Please let us know if you get a reply.

The legal fiction is described briefly as ‘a means by which something can be done in law, which, without the legal fiction, would not be possible.’ Look it up in a law dictionary. There are many applications of the legal fiction concept and only through study will you get to grips with the extent of its functions. It is not complicated, just confusing and understanding it requires that you resist the urge to dismiss it as a nonsense. Because we have limited understanding of the origins of the universe, that does not mean that it does not exist – and so it is with the legal fiction.

A Company Is A Legal Fiction

If we assume that your name is Roger Hayes… you could create a legal fiction called ‘ROGER HAYES LIMITED’ which you could own lock, stock and barrel. You could lend the company money and it in turn could buy and own plant, machinery and stock and build up an array of assets and wealth through trade – all of which would then belong to the company… but not you. Yes you would own the company, but the company would own the assets. If on behalf of the company you sold some stock, you would be required to put the proceeds into the company’s bank account and not your own private account. The company would be obliged to pay back the money that you lent it, but apart from that the only way that you could take any benefit from the company would be if it paid you a wage as a manager or a dividend as a shareholder and if the company went bust with net liabilities, you would not be liable for its debts.

It is easy to see then how despite you being the only owner and thus the controller of the legal fiction ‘ROGER HAYES LIMITED’ that it remains an entirely separate entity to you.  You could sell the company and somebody else would then control it, despite it keeping your name. Now to deliberately confuse you… this entity was also given the generic name ’person’  and yes, it is meant to confuse you. In legalese (the language of law) the word ‘person’ means company or corporation; it does not mean man or woman. In an ordinary dictionary ‘person’ is described as an individual human being. In a law dictionary ‘human being’ is described as a monster. Do you think they were trying to bring clarity to the meaning of words or do you think they were trying to create confusion? Obviously it was the latter and it was both deliberate and calculated.
When you were born (still assuming that your name is Roger Hayes) and your parents registered your birth, the government set up a company which they called ROGER HAYES. If you look at all your official documents you will see that they are all represented with capital letters as a means of distinction. It is important to remember, that as it was the government that created this company, it is they that own and control it – despite it having your name. The deceit was in the fact that they did not tell you, nor did they want you to know, that they would use this company (person) as a tool to attach liabilities to the real you.

Thus, ROGER HAYES the company was created and existed alongside Roger Hayes the flesh and blood boy created and named by your parents. But in the absence of the knowledge of the existence of the former everybody was led to believe that everything applied to the latter – as devious a plan surely as selling land on the sun to the unsuspecting.

When officialdom then asks the question ‘Are you Roger Hayes?’ What they are really asking is ‘Do you accept the liabilities for ROGER HAYES the company (i.e. the person)?’ and when you say YES – you are unwittingly accepting the liabilities placed upon the ‘person’ (company) that they own and through which they establish their authority over you . How very clever and devious is that?

Roger Hayes is a flesh and blood man. ROGER HAYES is a person (company) – and they are separate entities. You control you, they control the person, if you accept the liability of the person – then they control you.

All Acts of Parliament are applied to the ‘person’ (the company), and not the man or the woman. This is self-evident in that the words man or women are never used in Acts of Parliament. So Acts do not therefore apply to the flesh and blood man or woman, if they did, they would say so. Acts of Parliament extend to you the man or woman only if and when (through your ignorance) you accept the responsibility and liability of the ‘person.’ When a policeman or a judge asks you for your name – they are tricking you into accepting their authority over you, because you have unwittingly assumed responsibility for the legal fiction (despite them also being ignorant of this fact) and the fact is that they must get you to acknowledge ‘the name’ i.e. ‘the person’ i.e. the ‘legal fiction’  ‘ROGER HAYES’ before they can assume their authority over you.  When you say YES my name is ROGER HAYES, you are submitting/consenting to their authority, and conversely if you deny the liability of the corporate entity then you deny them the control that they need to enforce their penalty charge notices upon you. Denial of consent is denial of authority which means no penalties. It is as simple as that.

So now you know – government secures its authority over you by simply asking your name, or by getting you to fill in one of their forms. If you understand this then you can start to adjust the way in which you respond to their demands. Learn how to respond to this deceitful tyranny and your life will change; you will become freer in mind, in spirit and in reality. And the more of us pushing them back the faster we will take back control of our nation.

By denying the control that the legal fiction creates, you will be making an enormous stride in securing your freedom.

The fact remains that the Government and its institutions, i.e. the police, the courts, the taxman have authority over you by virtue of you unwittingly giving them your consent. But, whilst statutes (Acts of Parliament) apply only to the legal fiction – common law most definitely applies to YOU – the flesh and blood man or women. Be very careful to understand the difference. Common law which the police monitor as peace officers (constables) protects our natural rights, common law are the rules that govern how we behave towards our fellow men in order that we can all to live in peace and harmony with others without the threat of harm or loss.

So speeding, parking, council tax, VAT, PAYE etc all apply to the ‘legal fiction’ which you have an absolute right to reject if you so choose, but if standing up for your rights is too much trouble, you can chose to continue to remain compliant and obedient. Take your choice.

I have no objection to paying my fair share towards running a system of which we are all beneficiaries, but I will not be dictated to. If refusing to pay my council tax, speeding and parking fines is the way to bring about change that will benefit us all, then that is what I am going to do. Hopefully many more people will start thinking and acting like free men and women, the sooner we do then the sooner we will close down the tyranny and the sooner our lives will start to improve.

BUT…   and there’s always a but, the ‘legal fiction’ has benefits as well as liabilities. The NHS, schooling, child benefits, land and home ownership, bank accounts etc, all come to you courtesy of the ‘legal fiction.’ If you want to dump the liabilities, you are potentially going to have to dump all the benefits as well. So you have to have a clear understanding on what it is you are letting yourself in for before you start messing with the system.

Dear reader, our controllers are not stupid… they have been working their scheme for a long time. They have devised a system that gives as well as it takes and it has been a careful balance of both of these that has allowed them to maintain their control. So if there are benefits as well as liabilities and we do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water, where do we go from here?

The answer to that dilemma is simple. The system can be used for our overall benefit. The bad guys have taken control of it and they are quite deliberately using it for their benefit at our expense. They are using it to fine us excessively and needlessly to feed their greed, to tax and persecute us; keeping us on a tread mill of servitude and making our lives a misery in the process. We have a right to take the benefits and reject the liabilities when the balance has been distorted to our detriment – which clearly it is.

The writer has been in court (on numerous occasions) denying the liabilities of the legal fiction – to date 100% successfully. There have been some feisty moments – it has been an interesting journey during which compliant servants of the system have watched in bewilderment (and ignorance) as we (many friends and activists) have turned up at court and said NO… we do not accept your authority. The shock to authority is palpable; they respond by shouting, barking orders for us to obey, they use threats, intimidation and occasionally they call their security guards and the police to try and force us into submission – all to no avail. We have stood our ground and witnessed the weakening of their resolve and have watched as they have instead slowly started to submit to our authority. In court now, we ask the questions and they do the responding. They become particularly more compliant when we remind them that the courts belong to the people… not them.

The flesh and blood man is considerably more powerful than their legal fiction controls; it is just a matter of discovering how it is that we can demonstrate our authority over them. It has been and will continue to be a bumpy ride, made smoother with the support of those who attend courts as witnesses. The British Constitution Group is pushing the tide of tyranny back slowly but surely, we do it with the knowledge that we are right and they are wrong as evidenced by their gradual submission to our demands.  But we still have a long way to go. The more of us that join the fight, the faster we will take back control. We do not need elections or referendums or any other controlled mechanism to free ourselves from corrupt government be it in the UK or in Brussels, we just need the spirit, determination and courage to stand up and say NO.

We, the British people have right to govern ourselves, we have a natural instinct to want to preserve our sovereignty and our independence… but we have been lulled into thinking that we need the permission of a powerful elite to secure it… we do not.

We have become confused about our identity and our nationhood -  we no longer understand the purpose of our constitution and the rule-of-law. Some of us have been fooled into thinking of ourselves as European, a universal description with as much meaning as calling ourselves earthlings. We are British – English, Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. We have amongst us people from every country on earth, here to share in what is unique to these islands and the British people  – a nation of tolerance, compassion, fortitude, fair play and justice. We have taken these values to the world – and it seems that the time has come to do so again.

Our future will not be determined by a political party, it will not be determined by puppets like Clegg, Cameron or Brown (remember him?)… our future will be forged by those amongst us who find the courage to stand up for our rights and declare them to the world.

The tyranny that has been build up around us will crumble when we stand up and defend ourselves. This is a game of numbers… when there are more of us than there are of them… the job will be done.

Roger Hayes

About author
We are just like you, citizens of the world fed up with the critical situation and we believe a real change can be achieved through the coordination of non violent actions and self-managed alternatives around the world. There must be a better way of dealing with the survival and enjoyment of our life, we believe in consensus and in non-hierarchical organization. We believe that another world is possible, where nobody has to die of hunger while others throw food away. We don’t have flags and we fight the borders crossing them. We try to be in the best place at the good moment, from Brussels to Lisbon, from Madrid to Athens, reporting but also acting. We come from activist groups, hacking platforms or post capitalist projects and we participated a lot in the Spanish revolution since the beginning. We leave our respective assemblies for this international project of global coordination but we keep in touch, sending back information and visiting regularly. We are open to integrate new people to our project or to help the creation of new teams. More information about our way to work in the protocol.
13 total comments on this postSubmit yours
  1. Fascinating how, after retreading a message of British rebellion against “The State”, you still require a name for commenting…

    • We like the US Constitution and believe in natural rights. Umm, to violate the law will just cause problems for them, especially with a large military force returning home. Change must be gradual and include all aspects of the system, but with accountability, fairness, and as close to justice as we can get, the internet makes that possible. For instance, politicians will have access to technology to determine the will of constituents. We see this happening now with popvox.com, facebook, etc. An impartial judge could be picked randomly from anywhere in the country, but local courts should remain and states must be able to retain their rights, even though they are a legal fiction . Having states, counties, towns, will allow people to organize locally and differ from their neighbors on matters of taste. Having a free web and closing the digital divide; educating the masses. Unless this will just a bargaining chip for labor, I would understand. I respect that Common Law is given great authority; that is so very important. Blah blah my rant

  2. Roger Hayes,
    I appreciate the fact that you are trying to educate me about the concept of Legal Fiction. However, I am afraid that I was not able to grasp what you mean by the term “legal fiction” from your article.

    I feel that your article could be improved by answering the following questions:

    1. What is a legal fiction?
    The closest thing to a definition I found in the first couple sections was “a means by which something can be done in law, which, without the legal fiction, would not be possible”. This definition fails to help me understand the term because it is both vague and circular. Without a firm definition of the term when you use the term “legal fiction” the first thing that comes to mind for me is a John Grisham novel.

    2. Why are legal fictions bad?
    The name itself sounds bad, but that is not enough to convince me. Even Wikipedia says “The term ‘legal fiction’ is not usually used in a pejorative way”. Reading Wikipedia leaves me with the impression that is a respected way that laws are interpreted.

    3. How are legal fictions used to control me?
    It is possible you answered this question in the article already, but by that point I was too confused about what you were trying to say that I missed it completely. In order to understand I need you to be, not just clear enough that you can be understood, but I need you to be so clear you cannot be misunderstood.

    Thank you for reading my comment.

    • You are so right, I totally agree with you LOL. I began this article in all seriousness and was disappointed at its lack of clarity. I agree with you sir

    • A legal fiction is essentially a fact which is assumed to be true by a court in order to allow the application of an existing rule of law in a situation inwhich it would not otherwise be applicable. For example, under English common law in a case in which two people died simultaneously and each had a will that applied to a third
      person, there was a question as to which will should be enforced. To decide the legal fiction was created that the older person of the two had died first, unless evidence to the contrary could be presented.

      In the case of corporations, it was at first not possible for them to sue or be sued in court, since they were not persons. Since this meant, in effect, that corporations
      could renege on their debts, a legal fiction was created that corporations were persons, with the right to sue and to be sued. Note that natural persons had such rights already.

      So it can be seen that there is no mysterious “the legal fiction” there are instead
      many legal fictions. For better or worse they are part of the legal system in many
      jurisdictions.

      Legal fictions have been objected to by many legal philosophers, most famously
      perhaps by Jeremy Bentham, who argued that they should be entirely eliminated
      in favour of more rational formulations of the law.

      However it can be seen that not all legal fictions are negative in
      effect, and they are far from being the secret means by which government
      controls us.

      As to natural persons being made into corporations by
      the government at birth: in the US this is not the case. Such
      assertions, together with all the talk about how names
      are capitalized or not in legal documents belong to the
      realm of conspiracy theory.
      eliminated from. But it can be seen that

  3. Roger, would you please elaborate on how you have successfully denied the liabilities of the legal fiction in court? Do you simply remain silent? Do you deny that your name is ROGER HAYES? To me, how we deny those liabilities seems like an important point in your description of legal fiction – or at least the next step in making our understanding of it a reality.
    Thanks for sharing, brother.

  4. This is exactly what I have been looking for in order to understand the foundations of the Tyranny that controls mankind currently.
    I have already put some of the aspects you mention into action, I am bringing myself upto date with current affairs both on the ‘legal’ media and freelance media such as Alex jones, David Icke and of coarse OWS.
    I whole heartedly 100% support your movement and have been trying to educate my friends and people around me about this for the past 2 years. It is only now that they are beginning to wake up to the issues.
    I hope to be joining you all in a more productive way soon, but in the meantime am being a messenger!
    Keep up the Good Work.

  5. Very easy to understand. By taking a name, given at your birth… a parallel life is devised, and awaits you coming of age to accept the social security card… without which, you will have much dificulty getting employment.

    Your name, becomes yours as you. Your name also becomes a company listed under the number issued via the social security card. Once you are able to sign your name and accept the card…. you’re allowed to work and become part of the societal salve trade they have put in place – using the company name ( yours ) given at birth.

    They can control your company ( of same name… ) but they have no control over you the person – same name.

    Two lives, running parallel.. they have control over one, you control the other.

    Refuse the company ( with your name… ) you live free as your own person.

    Only by accepting responsibility of their given company ( same as yours.. ) do they have authority to control you.

    The choices, are – comfortable living using monetary means to obtain what you need.. however easy or hard that may be… or,

    comfortable living without following those guide lines they’ve set in place.. being responsible for your entire needs to survive.

    So, working for money, you’re under their control.

    They have also so cleverly racked the laws, rules, and regulations against you, that denying their control can make your life miserable… you’ll get fines whichever way you turn in most cases.

    You as an individual.. owe them nothing simply because you were born.

  6. The problem is that the STATE treats you as a legal fiction . The problem is people treat the STATE as a man. The have been conned into believing the STATE is sovereign. and that we owe it allegiance. From that flows the doctrine of Parens Patriae .The STATE claims to be your father and steals you children to protect them. The STATE is your nanny.

    This is all contrary to the law and rests on the legal fiction that was created by the 14th amendment that corporations are people.

    Allegiance is between MEN .
    READ THE REST CAREFULLY ASK YOURSELF WHY THEY USE THE RULES CONCERNING SLAVERY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SOMEONE IS A CITIZEN

    A birth certificate is nothing more than presumptive evidence of a particular political allegiance.
    Unfortunately it is often used as evidence as allegiance to an actual sovereign man.
    It is evidence of a guardian ward relationship as well.
    SUBMITTING REPORT ON THE SUBJECT OF CITIZENSHIP, EXPATRIATION, AND PROTECTION ABROAD. December 20, 1906

    This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen,
    as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law, and as well settled
    as the rule partus sequitur ventrem. the one being a rule fixing the status of
    freemen, the other being a rule defining the ownership of property ; the one
    applicable to different political communities or states, whose citizens are in
    the enjoyment of the civil rights possessed by people in a state of freedom,
    the other defining the condition of the offspring which had been tainted by the
    bondage of the mother.

    No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or
    any other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam (31 Barb.. 486)
    the court says: “The universal maxim of the common law being partus
    sequitur patrem, it is suflicient for the application of this doctrine that the
    father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance
    beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother.”

    The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (p. 101), says: “As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” Again, on page 102, Vattel says : ” By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.” This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any postive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.

    Everyone should take note that the PTB use the same rules concerning slavery as they do in determining political allegiance.

    but….Allegiance to a political body is a legal fiction and and is not within the natural law.
    the natural law being ex fide non ficta as illustrated in Calvins Case. Calvin’s Case is the Case cited In Yick Wo v. Hopkins in which the plaintiff wanted to be a “citizen”. If they where fighting no to be there would have been a different result. Citizenship is a political CHOICE.

    The relevant portin of Calvin’s Case decided by Lord Coke

    1. Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign…

    But between the Sovereign and the subject there is without comparison a higher and greater connexion: for as the subject oweth to the King his true and faithful ligeance and obedience, so the Sovereign is to govern and protect his Subjects…

    It is true, that the King hath two capacities in him: one a natural body, being descended of the blood royal of the Realm; and this body is of the creation of Almighty God, and is subject to death, infirmity, and such like; the other is a politic, body or capacity, so called, because it is framed by the policy of man…

    … First, every subject (as it hath been affirmed by those that argued against the Plaintiff) is presumed by Law to be sworn to the King, which is to his natural person; and likewise the King is sworn to his subjects which oath he taketh in his natural person: for the politique capacity is invisible and immortal; nay, the politique body hath no soul, for it is framed by the policy of man…

    4. A body politique (being invisible) can as a body politique neither make nor take homage: Vide 33 Hen. 8. tit. Fealty, Brook. 5. In fide, in faith or ligeance nothing ought to be feigned, but ought to be ex fide non ficta.

    Read the last sentence again and again and again.

  7. A birth certificate is nothing more than presumptive evidence of a particular political allegiance.
    Unfortunately it is often used as evidence as allegiance to an actual sovereign man.
    It is evidence of a guardian ward relationship as well.
    SUBMITTING REPORT ON THE SUBJECT OF CITIZENSHIP, EXPATRIATION, AND PROTECTION ABROAD. December 20, 1906

    This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen,
    as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law, and as well settled
    as the rule partus sequitur ventrem. the one being a rule fixing the status of
    freemen, the other being a rule defining the ownership of property ; the one
    applicable to different political communities or states, whose citizens are in
    the enjoyment of the civil rights possessed by people in a state of freedom,
    the other defining the condition of the offspring which had been tainted by the
    bondage of the mother.

    No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or
    any other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam (31 Barb.. 486)
    the court says: “The universal maxim of the common law being partus
    sequitur patrem, it is suflicient for the application of this doctrine that the
    father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance
    beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother.”

    The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (p. 101), says: “As the society can not exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” Again, on page 102, Vattel says : ” By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.” This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any postive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.

    Everyone should take note that the PTB use the same rules concerning slavery as they do in determining political allegiance.

    but….Allegiance to a political body is a legal fiction and and is not within the natural law.
    the natural law being ex fide non ficta as illustrated in Calvins Case. Calvin’s Case is the Case cited In Yick Wo v. Hopkins in which the plaintiff wanted to be a “citizen”. If they where fighting no to be there would have been a different result. Citizenship is a political CHOICE.

    The relevant portin of Calvin’s Case decided by Lord Coke

    1. Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject; for as soon as he is born he oweth by birth right ligeance and obedience to his Sovereign…

    But between the Sovereign and the subject there is without comparison a higher and greater connexion: for as the subject oweth to the King his true and faithful ligeance and obedience, so the Sovereign is to govern and protect his Subjects…

    It is true, that the King hath two capacities in him: one a natural body, being descended of the blood royal of the Realm; and this body is of the creation of Almighty God, and is subject to death, infirmity, and such like; the other is a politic, body or capacity, so called, because it is framed by the policy of man…

    … First, every subject (as it hath been affirmed by those that argued against the Plaintiff) is presumed by Law to be sworn to the King, which is to his natural person; and likewise the King is sworn to his subjects which oath he taketh in his natural person: for the politique capacity is invisible and immortal; nay, the politique body hath no soul, for it is framed by the policy of man…

    4. A body politique (being invisible) can as a body politique neither make nor take homage: Vide 33 Hen. 8. tit. Fealty, Brook. 5. In fide, in faith or ligeance nothing ought to be feigned, but ought to be ex fide non ficta.

    Read the last sentence again and again and again.

  8. Occupy the courts freeman and do the mic check . Awareness is the absolute necessity.

  9. I fully understand the “STRAWMAN” they have applied each individual at birth
    where the Governments open a corporation in your name as all Capital Letters
    and conduct their business, I suggest people should type the word STRAWMAN into any search engine for greater clarity on the legal friction

  10. the ideas that our goverment was built on are beautiful things but if you have to stray from those ideas in order to realize them then they are not the same ideas that you began with which is what has happened it is our responsibility as the people to get shit straight

Submit your comment

Please enter your name

Your name is required

Please enter a valid email address

An email address is required

Please enter your message

You think some article is too ethnocentric or difficult to grasp for most of world's population? Tell us - or even better: send us a better version! Thank you!
Donate with WePay

Copyleft, 2011. All rights reversed.

Designed by WPSHOWER

Powered by WordPress