Is Pot lawful in australia?

[greenbeen]

imagine if one person make it so 1 million people stop paying the taxes so the go to court but since its treason like you said they get let go and the business "government of Canada" would loose hundreds of dollars epically if you go the big man to stop paying taxes, there business if a business man would be a freeman's trade.... which his employee's are just trading there time to work for a good called money. each person is responsible/liable for there own actions to other British subjects. thus since they are not employed they are not a slave in which don't have to pay taxes to there master yet everyone (correct me if this is not legal since we only have one master) but to write a note or trade agreement between each other with decide on how much they trade there skill for and how much goods (or money) they receive for there skill...

so be like this
name.... is a freeman but this agreement between 2 British subjects or freeman indicates what times he shall be trading with.... (other name of employer) and shall not have to pay taxes since it is not a obligation to pay taxes. (tax act) and lets say a business had a store front all you do is drop the business and make a new name saying (if it was for a lawyer) lawyers trading post or something

just trying to think of ideas since I have been thinking about this none stop and trying to make it so we are free again and the only way is by a revolution which we can accomplish throw our friends and family if they were farmers aka pot growers. this is were we should stand in my eyes as farmers and we can take control as a people not as an employee of a business

 

[greenbeen]

I was thinking about not paying taxes this year but I am a locksmith under employment but like you said I guess I never really consented to it, as a signature means nothing in the eyes of god?

 

[greenbeen]

but now I know what you mean since we are all from commonwealth of Britain we all are equal and all follow the common-law court system, that being said we all should be tried by a grand jury and not the government courts since they are a business and if you accept there wishes through a lawyer or what not and take a oath than that means you are a lower class than the common wealth, which are subjected to taxes since they do not own there skill or property unlike a common wealth person. that is why you can use your name and use the licences but you can only be tried by a grand trail for criminal charges so when you make the court a common law court since they have given oath on the bible you swear that you only have one judge and should be tried as a individual not slave, who is obligated to pay taxes and since they don't own there skill they fall under the notwithstanding clause which means they can make any law as long as its for the good of the ship/ or business. since there was slavery in the olden times people would own people as property and that's why they can do anything to you in there court system if you oath that you are a servant to someone other than god.
and when ab Lincoln came around he wanted to see that the woman and children for those who didn't have a father would also be come a individual and not obligated to the laws of the constitution as well to make it so that everyone has an equal say and no one is above the law, this reminds you of the magna carta, it was passed because the people saw that the king and the monarchy was using power that helped them get money and wealth, and since that law was made it still states that no one shall be above the law .. and since than people have become slaves to a business because they don't understand about the law and that we still are a state of Britain till the common wealth says its not.
or when we all become mindless slaves to a business and oath to them and not the true master.

please leave me comments if anything is incorrect or needs a little adjustment, please and thank you

Greenbeen

 

[GeneralExecutor]

what if we stood together as British subject and all came together in a court which the people make the dissection and send a letter saying that we the British subjects take the queen and all of the governments to common law court. specifics and al that time a place and a date. and turn a public place into a court house? that should surly say something to them...

as an employee I am a slave to this government I want to own my own skills and trade as a farmer and a subject to the foundational law. and throw out this corporation and liberate it to the people once again. as we need to make a stand in our onw system and not a place that is run like a business, you my friend have made the government fall since I will not give up until I see justice for what I have started before.

In accordance with law of today, a Subject has no rights before the State, and that, under International law too. But also under International law, namely the Hague Convention, ANY ONE or MORE like minded people CAN create their OWN STATE. But if you know the amount of work required to achieve that....

 

[GeneralExecutor]

I was thinking about not paying taxes this year but I am a locksmith under employment but like you said I guess I never really consented to it, as a signature means nothing in the eyes of god?

Are you Canadian?

 

[GeneralExecutor]

but now I know what you mean since we are all from commonwealth of Britain we all are equal and all follow the common-law court system...

"they" may disagree with that. They claim most people are not under common-law but rather, commercial/admiralty/statutory law. Most, except those who have worked out HOW to change their standing/capacity in law by acceptable administrative procedures. Acceptable by "them"... of which, though they may masquerade otherwise to hide the truth, UCC is one. But one needs to really understand what goes on with UCC before applying it effectively.

...that being said we all should be tried by a grand jury and not the government courts since they are a business and if you accept there wishes through a lawyer or what not and take a oath than that means you are a lower class than the common wealth, which are subjected to taxes since they do not own there skill or property unlike a common wealth person.

Again... we need to know if you are Canadian so as to comment on your thought above.

...that is why you can use your name and use the licences but you can only be tried by a grand trail for criminal charges so when you make the court a common law court since they have given oath on the bible you swear that you only have one judge and should be tried as a individual not slave, who is obligated to pay taxes and since they don't own there skill they fall under the notwithstanding clause which means they can make any law as long as its for the good of the ship/ or business.

There's a little more to it than that GB. You actually do have options that need be applied at the beginning of any proceeding which determine whether or NOT they have jurisdiction over you, and that includes the prosecutor and the judge/magistrate. It's during the DISCOVERY process of any trail that one is able to knock the case on the head if (1) they know what they are doing, and (2) the matter does NOT have an injured party or victim (ie, it's criminal charge by COLOR of law)

... since there was slavery in the olden times people would own people as property and that's why they can do anything to you in there court system if you oath that you are a servant to someone other than god.

Again, it's not that simple GB. They cannot do ANYTHING they like to you if you know HOW to conduct yourself properly. The trick in most all false criminal cases it to establish/prove that you are NOT obligated by the laws they are attempting to use over you. ie, establishing what jurisdiction you truly are under, and NOT what they assume you are under.

Another thing to note is that in today's law, there are TWO forms of individuals. One is considered to be acting in what's known as "In person", the other "In being". The latter having FAR MORE RIGHTS than the former. In fact, if one reads the Regulations act of magistrate's Courts, they will find that a man acting In being CANNOT be seen or dealt with in such forum. Further, there are also differing forms of "being" which one may conduct themselves in. Each having it's own advantage depending on different matters.

And when one becomes good at it, then what's very interesting is that one may choose, by right of law, to conduct themselves in TWO or MORE differing capacities SIMULTANEOUSLY in a given subject-matter. When a Judge sees someone who he deems competent in such conduct, that is when the case coems to a very fast ending, and that, in the said competent's favor.

But again, one needs to have completed MASSIVE hours of study to know how that is done properly. And we mean thousands of hours in EACH jurisdiction of law, not just one or two, because when conducting one's self in that manner, one needs to make certain that they remain in honor of all associated and intertwining jurisdictions on a REAL TIME basis which they choose to deal with the matter as they conduct themselves. As one says/invokes something, they must make certain that they have NOT SHOT themselves in the FOOT (head) in the other jurisdiction they chose to accompany their conduct, which they shall invoke or say something about next that directly RELATES to the SAME matter in the previous jurisdiction just spoken of. IT can get very tricky, but once one has reached the point of being truly competent in such Art form of expression, then they can execute it EFFORTLESSLY.

 

[gaiusmarius]

so what do you call someone who's done these thousands of hours of study and has mastered being competent as you described it? sounds like this is a new job description? i for sure would want to hire this guy to represent me rather then a lawyer. specially considering all lawyers are officers of the court and have to play the game on the hardest setting. so who is one such competent individual who has the skills you described above?

 

[greenbeen]

yes I am Canadian and wow lots of time I gotta spend now but is this not why the treason act is good? since you dot have to follow there laws if you state you self as one of those states? how would one become a state in him self? through the in being?

thank you for your advice. I would need to learn what laws I would need to read and how to get those laws (ie. like what is the laws name?)

so was reading more of this thread and how would one speak or what should one not use as word when trying to show equality? and what words are good to use? once you have equality would you be able to question the defecto government and ask about there status?

is each jurisdiction a different level of court? is that what you were saying like you have court and it can go all the way up to supreme court would one have to know the procedure of each stage of court?

 

[isaih520]

The pope is taking over the world. And claims every soul therein.
He has a big army behind him. The US army for starters.
If you abandon the protection of the British Constitution, backed up by guns,which is protestant or opposing papal rule then you will be subject to the pope aka United Nations.

You may well tell them to get stuffed because you can make up your own law. But I don't see that being a position that you can defend physically.

If you do not follow the pope's United Nation rules, then you will be likely arrested or killed.

The united nations has catered to the possibility of people escaping their grasp by abandoning citizenship, long ago. They're not stupid (unlike freeman).

You can only claim to be part of a United Nations sanctioned state. Or it simply won't be recognised by any country in the world. and that makes you a criminal .

If you read the convention's rules agreed upon by our law aswell as the pope's you will see that you can neither create your own state or abandon your citizenship. Unless you have a recognised replacement. British subject is the only status I could claim that was both internationally recognised, respected my rights, and stayed outside papal control.

Freeman is disnformation in my opinion. Its fantasy stuff for gullible and unprincipled parrots.
Words without guns behind them are ludicrous in law.
Law does boil down to common sense if you look into it with discernment. Its is theoretical application of perceived physical force. Or strength of arms.


------------------------------------------------------------

The Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness is a 1961 United Nations multilateral treaty whereby states agree to reduce the incidence of statelessness.

"absent circumstances of fraudulent application or disloyalty toward the Contracting State, deprivations and renunciations of citizenship shall only take effect where a person has or subsequently obtains another nationality in replacement"

This is from the wiki, the treaty itself is online if you want to look deep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Reduction_of_Statelessness

 

[Mr.Fastcast]

That,s good to hear,smoke up johnny.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

 

[noyd666]

just don't get caught.

 

[hard rain]

so what do you call someone who's done these thousands of hours of study and has mastered being competent as you described it? sounds like this is a new job description? i for sure would want to hire this guy to represent me rather then a lawyer. specially considering all lawyers are officers of the court and have to play the game on the hardest setting. so who is one such competent individual who has the skills you described above?

Speaking about the Freeman argument:
I'd be tempted to call the person who has studied this stuff and claims that it works, a conman. I'm sure others will see it differently.
According to this link there are no listed Freeman successes. Here are a list of the failures. Don't take my word for it. See the link and scroll down for yourselves.

Freeman failures

Despite the numerous failed attempts to use freeman legal methods, freemen will always insist that they do work, even clinging to this delusion when arrested and thrown in the cells. Below are some examples.

New Zealand woman Kiri Campbell pleads guilty to four counts of fraud What began as a Freeman-inspired protest against the banking system ended with a young woman being convicted of four counts of fraud.
2012 October 3rd - State of Tennessee v. Anthony Troy Williams "we determine that Appellant was properly convicted of driving on a canceled, suspended, or revoked license. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed."
Meads v. Meads (2012-09-18) Alberta judge writes the all time smack down of Freeman on the land claims. "I agree with Justice Sanderman’s succinct evaluation of Henry’s claims as 'total gibberish'".
Judge challenged to produce oath by man disputing summons. Full panoply of Freeman delusion on display here, down to Black's Legal Dictionary being produced in court. End result: conviction, and when The FreeMan Bobby of the Family Sludds wanted to appeal—"I can’t accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can’t be verified," the Judge said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.
Two men are arrested and charged with growing cannabis. They claim to be "freemen on the land", but the courts state that they have "no personal circumstances applying to them which affords immunity to prosecution", that there was "no legal significance" to the term "freeman on the land" and that they would be tried anyway.
Freeman Mark of the family Bond gets arrested (more) after refusing to recognise the court and giving police his notice of intent. He gets a suspended 3 month jail sentence anyway, on condition that he pays off his debt
Freeman "Brian-arthur: alexander" tries to get out of speeding by telling a judge the law doesn't apply to him. The judge disagrees and the police suggest further charges of obstruction and mischief for his freeman shenanigans.
Mika Rasila gets stopped by the police for not having a licence plate. He tells them that he doesn't consent to their laws and that he isn't an employee of the "corporation of Canada". It doesn't work and they arrest him and impound his van. A judge later gives him a fine of $1,250.
Freeman Darren Pollard gets arrested despite telling the police officer he doesn't consent or contract. Not surprisingly it fails and they take him into custody anyway
Darren Pollard gets arrested again after refusing to appear in court despite trying to claim that he was "Darren of the family Pollard" and not the legal fiction of Darren Pollard they were looking for.
Freewoman Mary Gye recollects her account of being arrested for not having road tax or car insurance and having her "conveyance" impounded.img This in spite of all the freeman woo she tried. She was later sentenced to 14 days in HMP Styal women's prison for criminal contempt when she brought a tape recorder into a court hearing over nonpayment of council tax.[44]
Freeman Ben Lowrey is arrested for driving a motorcycle without registration, insurance, MOT or a crash helmet. Subsequently fined £500.
New Hampshire resident Ian Freeman (AKA Ian Bernard) arrested, tried and jailed for 93 days for dumping a couch. Within seconds of his trial commencing, he was rearrested and hand-cuffed for refusing to sit down when asked. He has since attempted using the freeman woo while defending a parking ticket.
James-Michael: Tesi arrested. After refusing to pay a fine for not wearing a seatbelt, he flooded the court with woo-woo documents basically refusing to pay. The court ignored this, and issued an arrest warrant. A police officer pulled him over, which resulted in gunfire and Tesi being wounded.
A Freewoman attempts to use the entire panoply of freeman woo to deny a court's jurisdiction in child custody proceedings. She was sentenced to nine months for contempt.
A person is a "person", a Canadian judge rules, after freeman[45] David Kevin Lindsay tries to get out of paying tax by asserting otherwise. Lindsay has also been designated a vexatious litigant.[46] (Whether entering into litigation counts as consent to said laws is not clarified.)
Star: Hills' house is foreclosed upon when her attempts to just stop paying her mortgage fail, and even her fee schedulesimg don't work. Despite having bought the entire $250 package from Robert Menard.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land
The entire link is worth reading. It even explains why the various government are listed as corporations.

Pot is not lawful in Australia. If you want to make a change lobby politicians or vote for the right party. The law can only be changed by changing the legislation itself.

 

[GeneralExecutor]

One can secede from their existing State, there are laws which permit it, but it has to be done per the laws. If one is NOT a citizen of any State, then one is what’s deemed as an Outlaw by definition. That is what they refer to when they say you have to be a citizen of some State. This is by the UNPO:

Self-determination. All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

So what is Self-determination? Essentially, the right to self-determination is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. In particular, the principle allows a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development. Exercise of this right can result in a variety of different outcomes ranging from political independence through to full integration within a state. The importance lies in the right of choice, so that the outcome of a people's choice should not affect the existence of the right to make a choice. In practice, however, the possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination will often determine the attitude of governments towards the actual claim by a people or nation. Thus, while claims to cultural autonomy may be more readily recognized by states, claims to independence are more likely to be rejected by them. Nevertheless, the right to self-determination is recognized in international law as a right of process (not of outcome) belonging to peoples and not to states or governments. The preferred outcome of an exercise of the right to self-determination varies greatly among the members of the UNPO. For some, the only acceptable outcome is full political independence. This is particularly true of occupied or colonized nations. For others, the goal is a degree of political, cultural and economic autonomy, sometimes in the form of a federal relationship. For others yet, the right to live on and manage a people's traditional lands free of external interference and incursion is the essential aim of a struggle for self-determination. Self-determination in International Law The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it was explicitly embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War I. The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which evolved into the United Nations Charter. Its inclusion in the UN Charter marks the universal recognition of the principle as fundamental to the maintenance of friendly relations and peace among states. It is recognized as a right of all peoples in the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which both entered into force in 1976. 1 Paragraph 1 of this Article provides: All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The right to self-determination of peoples is recognized in many other international and regional instruments, including the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States adopted b the UN General Assembly in 1970, 2, the Helsinki Final Act adopted by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) in 1975, 3, the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights of 1981, 4, the CSCE Charter of Paris for a New Europe adopted in 1990, 5, and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 1993. 6, It has been affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the Namibia case 7, the Western Sahara case 8, and the East Timor case 9, in which its erga omnes character was confirmed. Furthermore, the scope and content of the right to self-determination has been elaborated upon by the UN Human Rights Committee 10, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 11, and numerous leading international jurists. That the right to self-determination is part of so called hard law has been affirmed also by the International Meeting of Experts for the Elucidation of the Concepts of Rights of Peoples brought together by UNESCO from 1985 to 1991, 12, it came to the conclusion that (1) peoples' rights are recognized in international law; (2) the list of such rights is not very clear, but also that (3) hard law does in any event include the right to self-determination and the right to existence, in the sense of the Genocide Convention. The inclusion of the right to self-determination in the International Covenants on Human Rights and in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, referred to above, emphasizes that self-determination is an integral part of human rights law which has a universal application. At the same time, it is recognized that compliance with the right of self-determination is a fundamental condition for the enjoyment of other human rights and fundamental freedoms, be they civil, political, economic, social or cultural. The concept of self-determination is a very powerful one. As Wolfgang Danspeckgruber put it: "No other concept is as powerful, visceral, emotional, unruly, as steep in creating aspirations and hopes as self-determination." It evokes emotions, expectations and fears which often lead to conflict and bloodshed. Some experts argued that the title holders should be or are limited in international law. Others believed in the need to limit the possible outcome for all or categories of title holders. Ultimately, the best approach is to view the right to self-determination in its broad sense, as a process providing a wide range of possible outcomes dependent on the situations, needs, interests and conditions of concerned parties. The principle and fundamental right to self-determination of all peoples is firmly established in international law. A quick search on the UNPO website with the key words: self-determination will also provide a long list of self-determination related articles that will give you a more member specific perspective on the issue. http://www.unpo.org/article.php?id=4957

Freeman failures Despite the numerous failed attempts to use freeman legal methods, freemen will always insist that they do work, even clinging to this delusion when arrested and thrown in the cells. Below are some examples. New Zealand woman Kiri Campbell pleads guilty to four counts of fraud What began as a Freeman-inspired protest against the banking system ended with a young woman being convicted of four counts of fraud.

Kiri is not as competent in law as he should be, he is NOT a proper self-taught scholar of law, and we feel he should start researching into people who know what they are saying. What people such as him seek they shall only achieve by establishing their RIGHT to self-determination under International law. But once you've realized what is involved in such a process, you will also realize WHY so many fail, and others simply give up. When one is able to have the UN accept their right to self-determination, there is a GOOD reason as to why. It's because they are truly competent human beings, and we mean competent in everything they do, lawfully economically morally ethically spiritually - and competent in English (How else might one otherwise have that right if they cannot fulfill all those categories?). The latter, the Queen's English, is all too often overlooked. To become an accepted Nation amongst all other Nations of earth, one must regularly communicate and correspond with many of them to achieve ongoing treaties and covenants which benefit each other and other people. That is HOW trade is conducted amongst true sovereigns. That is how lawful standing is established and MAINTAINED. If one seeks to establish themselves in a way such as to simply be left ALONE by everyone, then one is incompetent with respect to reality. WE live on a planet with BILLIONS of people, to think that we will be left alone for the rest of our lives is simply silly. Left alone in terms of being told what to do by the minions ceases ONCE one has established their right to self-determination. No minion tells the Australian govt what to do in as much as they do the US or the UK. The same happens to all accepted States in the world, be they comprise of 50 people or 5 billion. We have nothing more to add to that.

2012 October 3rd - State of Tennessee v. Anthony Troy Williams "we determine that Appellant was properly convicted of driving on a canceled, suspended, or revoked license. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed."

Again, another case of listening to the freeman 'spil about the place' and not doing his due diligence. Tony Troy used the now near age old and well worn "freeman" argument that he has the RIGHT to drive without a State license even though he had NOT ALSO reached amicable agreement on the matter via private administrative process with the State's driving/licensing body. This has been repeated many times in the States/Canada/NZ/UK and Australia, and it never ceases to amaze us as to HOW such people can think or feel that what they are doing has any real standing in law; again, incompetent.

Meads v. Meads (2012-09-18) Alberta judge writes the all time smack down of Freeman on the land claims. "I agree with Justice Sanderman’s succinct evaluation of Henry’s claims as 'total gibberish'". Judge challenged to produce oath by man disputing summons. Full panoply of Freeman delusion on display here, down to Black's Legal Dictionary being produced in court. End result: conviction, and when The FreeMan Bobby of the Family Sludds wanted to appeal—"I can’t accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can’t be verified," the Judge said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.

AGAIN, INCOMPETENCE. And again, this has occurred more often in Courts than most may realize. Firstly, what on earth do any such defendants think they are doing when demanding/asking to see a Judges oath? What business is it of theirs? IT is a PRIVATE Court, and they are under PRIVATE ADMISSION or Appointment of Duty, they are NOT under any oath unless they are Judges of true Crown court (note, court, not Court). It matters NOT what form of oath or admission they have taken. What does matter is that all such Admissions clearly depict that they are under some form of DUTY of care in exercising their role of adjudication. That duty is a form of fiduciary duty in any given matter they are dealing with, which include providing proper assistance to all parties involved, that is, the trustee, the grantor, the executive AND the beneficiary... especially the beneficiary. They do NOT want to see you the defendant for what you are in the trust; that is, the beneficiary. They have other responsibilities, not just your care, so they assess the situation, and if they see that the defendant is incompetent, then they will prioritize their duties accordingly. If the defendant does NOT immediately assign them the fiduciary responsibility which they have taken oath/asservation to UPHOLD within their oath/Admission, then the judge is NOT obligated to perform for them as such, and will not. The way in which it is done is that one MUST, from the onset, ACCEPT the judges oath/admission and bind them to it by letting them know that they and the judge NOW have established AGENCY. Until that is VERBALLY expressed on and for the private and PUBLIC record, the judge will do as he well pleases, which more often than not is not what you wish him to do for you. WHY? Uuntil you have established agency with any minion, they have no responsibility towards you, no duty, no obligation. READ the Law of Nations, read Blackstone's, read most ALL Books of Authority which all of today's laws are founded and based on, you shall find what we have just said about accepting oath throughout ALL OF THEM, and you shall find MANY more nuggets therein. Start by doing a search on "Books of Authority" in google, wiki has a blur on them too, look there. So again, asking for the judge’s oath immediately exhibits incompetence of law, for if one were competent, they could FIND their oaths/admissions in the easily available Acts. They're written in plain black and white for all to see if they only looked.

Two men are arrested and charged with growing cannabis. They claim to be "freemen on the land", but the courts state that they have "no personal circumstances applying to them which affords immunity to prosecution", that there was "no legal significance" to the term "freeman on the land" and that they would be tried anyway. Freeman Mark of the family Bond gets arrested (more) after refusing to recognize the court and giving police his notice of intent. He gets a suspended 3 month jail sentence anyway, on condition that he pays off his debt Freeman "Brian-arthur: alexander" tries to get out of speeding by telling a judge the law doesn't apply to him. The judge disagrees and the police suggest further charges of obstruction and mischief for his freeman shenanigans.

"... but the courts state that they have no personal circumstances applying to them which affords immunity to prosecution""... Thank you. That is exactly what we have been saying from the beginning. "Personal circumstance... which affords immunity to prosecution" can ONLY be established beforehand by executing PROPER private administrative process with the minions involved. And the only way to achieve that is to KNOW what you are doing. That means that you will know it will achieve what you seek BEFORE you attempt to apply it. If you are trying or attempting things in HOPE, we assure you they will NOT work. Now think about that one. When one is competent enough, they know what will occur because it is setup such that it cannot fail. All contingencies are well covered from the beginning, nothing is left to "chance".

Mika Rasila gets stopped by the police for not having a licence plate. He tells them that he doesn't consent to their laws and that he isn't an employee of the "corporation of Canada". It doesn't work and they arrest him and impound his van. A judge later gives him a fine of $1,250. Freeman Darren Pollard gets arrested despite telling the police officer he doesn't consent or contract. Not surprisingly it fails and they take him into custody anyway Darren Pollard gets arrested again after refusing to appear in court despite trying to claim that he was "Darren of the family Pollard" and not the legal fiction of Darren Pollard they were looking for. Freewoman Mary Gye recollects her account of being arrested for not having road tax or car insurance and having her "conveyance" impounded.img This in spite of all the freeman woo she tried. She was later sentenced to 14 days in HMP Styal women's prison for criminal contempt when she brought a tape recorder into a court hearing over nonpayment of council tax.[44] Freeman Ben Lowrey is arrested for driving a motorcycle without registration, insurance, MOT or a crash helmet. Subsequently fined £500. New Hampshire resident Ian Freeman (AKA Ian Bernard) arrested, tried and jailed for 93 days for dumping a couch. Within seconds of his trial commencing, he was rearrested and hand-cuffed for refusing to sit down when asked. He has since attempted using the freeman woo while defending a parking ticket. James-Michael: Tesi arrested. After refusing to pay a fine for not wearing a seatbelt, he flooded the court with woo-woo documents basically refusing to pay. The court ignored this, and issued an arrest warrant. A police officer pulled him over, which resulted in gunfire and Tesi being wounded. A Freewoman attempts to use the entire panoply of freeman woo to deny a court's jurisdiction in child custody proceedings. She was sentenced to nine months for contempt.

All the above fall into the same category as previously expressed, so we feel no need to add any more there.

A person is a "person", a Canadian judge rules, after freeman[45] David Kevin Lindsay tries to get out of paying tax by asserting otherwise. Lindsay has also been designated a vexatious litigant.[46] (Whether entering into litigation counts as consent to said laws is not clarified.)

Aha. There you have it, what we mentioned in our previous post but in the judges own words. A person is a person, but depending on circumstance and the matter at hand, a Being is not or may not be person. The judge is NOT obligated to say anything about that, he is not there to teach anyone law, he there to adjudicate on it. It is our individual responsibility to know or learn the law, no one else’s. We shall add, that entering unconditionally into litigation most certainly enjoins the litigator under the respective jurisdiction which they enter. To think otherwise is another example of incompetents which is obvious.

Star: Hills' house is foreclosed upon when her attempts to just stop paying her mortgage fail, and even her fee schedulesimg don't work. Despite having bought the entire $250 package from Robert Menard.

We have seen the Menard method mentioned. We feel that by the grace of the presiding judge over that matter, Hills was fortunate enough not to be charged with fraud. What Menard and Hills' may not realize, or may not have back then, is that when one goes into any form of financial CONTRACT with another party, they have in fact established what is known as PRIVATE LAW. And it is also well known that CONTRACT is LAW - that is a MAXIM of commercial and trust law. What this means is that all those who have attempted to get their loans/mortgages etc paid off by A4V or other private Administrative process, are in fact DEFAULTING on the contract/trust which they agreed to fulfill (ie, SETOFF their loan using Federal Reserve promissory Notes which they acquire). If one reads all the FINE print on any such contract they shall notice a clause which effectively implies that the undersigned AGREES to abide by all the rules/laws of the Bank/financial-institution; and there are 100's of thousands of them. Bank's internal codes/laws are linked to hundreds of other statutes and international covenants/treaties etc., if you add them all up you will be SHOCKED at the number of laws a borrower is obligated by. You shall also notice that the manner in which the contract is written from the onset, the undersigned also effectively signs away Power of Attorney to the Bank. Now given it is effectively an unconscionable contract as there is ONLY ONE party signing it, where it takes on force and effect as an acceptable contract (understood by the undersigned) is upon the borrower/undersigned making a FIRST payment/installment. Once that occurs, then the contract is deemed VALID in law, and not before. But over 99% of borrowers do make the first payment, so from there on, they are obligated to do as the BANK tells them to, they are then at the mercy of Bank and there is NO legitimate manner of getting out it other than to pay it off or declare yourself bankrupt. You have agreed to that when you signed. You have gone into PRIVATE contract, so it is of NO USE to then come forth at a later date hollering Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other form of law. Why? Because you have established the highest LAW FORM on all matters pertaining to THAT contract. That is, the rules/company-policies of the BANK are the highest law on THAT subject matter, full stop. To then go about buying a $250 or $250,000 package from Menard of Menzies to help you get out of it simply will NOT WORK. Again, incompetence of the law is the true cause of Hills' downfall in that matter, not just Menard's incompetence which simply compounded Hills' situation. GB, if you do your homework into Canadian Civil Law and Codes, you shall find therein a section which states that the only persons obligated to pay tax are those who work for the government or the tax department. And if you do your homework properly, therein laws exist yet another section which states that the only persons allowed to use private Federal Reserve’s Notes are employees of the government. That's how they get you. If you declare that you are not an employee of theirs but go about paying for your debts with private bank notes, then your declaration is null and void, though with what we have said, a truly competent BEING would be able to work out a remedy in conjunction with other laws of that State. We have said enough on that matter.

so what do you call someone who's done these thousands of hours of study and has mastered being competent as you described it? sounds like this is a new job description? i for sure would want to hire this guy to represent me rather then a lawyer. specially considering all lawyers are officers of the court and have to play the game on the hardest setting. so who is one such competent individual who has the skills you described above?

People such as Frank O’Collins, Jean Keating, Mark Stevens, David Clarence and others would be more than capable of such feat. Sorry to say we feel such people would rarely accept to assist one personally in such matters as it would be most time consuming to do so. This is why lawyers etc are happy to have you pay them for help because they do bugger all homework on your behalf leading up to and during the trail. Most of the paperwork which they prepare for their clients is basically TEMPLATE form which they change the names and modify slightly to cater for yourself.

 

[isaih520]

Hardbrain you either do not understand how law works or have a dog in this fight and are being deliberately misleading to justify your actions.

There are 3 powers that have historically had power to make law.

Originally the monarchy had absolute power.
They abused that power and the people got upset.
So we had wars to alter that.

We had then parliament having absolute power to make law.
The parliament abused their power and the people got upset.
Then we had wars to alter that.

The people then had the power to make law.
Only the people.
If you would like parliament to have power to legislate contrary to the law I suggest you buy a musket and go fight a war to change that law.

I linked to a judge's opinion in 2011 in melbourne showing that parliament does not have the power to override that law. Because he has totally ignored legislation that is contrary to the law.

which is precisely what I do when I grow pot. And I am yet to be convicted.

Theres a judge ignoring legislation conttrary to our law and me doing the same. And neither of us are in gaol.

Why?

People only having the power to alter the law IS THE VERY BASIS OF OUR LAW` . Please watch that video I recommended , again.

And please actually click this link and read it. Read it out loud if you have to.

The judge is ignoring legislation made by Bob Hawke because bob hawke did not have the power to change the law.

If your next door neighbour wrote a law saying you must demolish your house because it spoils his view, would you obey his law?

No because he has no lawful authority to write that law. you would ignore it. ( or maybe you should obey if you are scared of him)

The parliament is writing legislation it does not have the authority to write. Ignore it. ( or maybe you should obey if you are scared of them)

http://api.ning.com/files/pa1EQhLUM...10OjeQ/579431_486112951467783_948094260_n.jpg

 

[hard rain]

Hardbrain you either do not understand how law works or have a dog in this fight and are being deliberately misleading to justify your actions.

There are 3 powers that have historically had power to make law.

Originally the monarchy had absolute power.
They abused that power and the people got upset.
So we had wars to alter that.

We had then parliament having absolute power to make law.
The parliament abused their power and the people got upset.
Then we had wars to alter that.

The people then had the power to make law.
Only the people.
If you would like parliament to have power to legislate contrary to the law I suggest you buy a musket and go fight a war to change that law.

I linked to a judge's opinion in 2011 in melbourne showing that parliament does not have the power to override that law. Because he has totally ignored legislation that is contrary to the law.

which is precisely what I do when I grow pot. And I am yet to be convicted.

Theres a judge ignoring legislation conttrary to our law and me doing the same. And neither of us are in gaol.

Why?

People only having the power to alter the law IS THE VERY BASIS OF OUR LAW` . Please watch that video I recommended , again.

And please actually click this link and read it. Read it out loud if you have to.

The judge is ignoring legislation made by Bob Hawke because bob hawke did not have the power to change the law.

If your next door neighbour wrote a law saying you must demolish your house because it spoils his view, would you obey his law?

No because he has no lawful authority to write that law. you would ignore it. ( or maybe you should obey if you are scared of him)

The parliament is writing legislation it does not have the authority to write. Ignore it. ( or maybe you should obey if you are scared of them)

http://api.ning.com/files/pa1EQhLUM...10OjeQ/579431_486112951467783_948094260_n.jpg

I don't have "a dog in this fight". I have always been interested in social issues. Have studied things along those lines. This thread seemed interesting but the more I dug the more like a bad Dan Brown novel it became. I am not deliberately misleading anyone. I care about the cannabis community and how it is perceived.

As usual you (or someone else) has put their own spin on a judges statement. I thought you didn't think courts were legitimate anyway?

What the judge said was this (quote from the link Isaih520 provided):

"It is an ancient principle of the Common Law that a person not under arrest has no obligation to stop for police, and answer their questions. And there is no statute that removes that right.
The conferring of such power on a police officer would be a substantial detraction from the fundamental freedoms which have been guaranteed to the citizen by the Common Law for centuries."
Judge Stephen Kaye, Melbourne Supreme Court ruling 25 November 2011

I put in my own italics. He is effectively saying that there is no legislation (statute) that gives police the power to stop you and make you answer questions. He is NOT saying that Common Law trumps Legislation. This is a decision about a particular case. It is quite specific. The case was about a guy who cops tried to stop and question but he ran away. He was not under arrest and therefore did not have to answer. Pretty decent decision by the judge. In fact great decision.
A quick search and it seems someone tried to argue the case on a david ickie forum (a real nutcase). Some readers agree but most seem not to. Note some of the replies the replies:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-192057.html

Statute therefore had nothing to do with the case. There wasn't a relevant statutory provision for common law to "trump".

Yeah, this case has absolutely nothing to do with statutes.

Have you got a transcript of this case where the judge ruled "common law trumps statute"?
I note he did say:
Justice Kaye said it was an ancient principle of the common law that a person not under arrest has no obligation to stop for police, or answer their questions. And there is no statute that removes that right.
Which is not quite the same.

The world has moved on since 1688.

I don't know what video you are referring to? I suspect it will take more than a youtube vid to convince me.

 

[b00m]

This thread is so hard to read and follow along with, it lost me long ago, but it's great to see such a discussion taking place
And just a heads up, enough of the name calling, we are all on the same side and we all love the ganja plant.

 

[isaih520]

Hardbrain I asked you to read that decision out loud , so it would gel.

Maybe you have someone in the family who isn't stoned who can explain it to you. Someone with a higher IQ, your goldfish perhaps.




Wakey wakey. Look at it again. Its not rocket surgery.

Bob Hawke has made legislation cutting off our connection in Australia to English common law with the Australia act.

And yet this judge more than 20 years later is freeing a man based on violation of his rights in english common law.

So either the judge is unaware of the Australia Act which was parliament dissolving English common law in australia, or is aware that Bob Hawke did not have the power to change the law.

NOW ILL REPEAT IT IN BIG LETTERS. READ IT OUT LOUD. PARLIAMENT DISSOLVED ENGLISH COMMON LAW IN AUSTRALIA WITH "laws" they passed under Bob HAWKE.

A JUDGE OVER 20 YEARS LATER IS STILL USING ENGLISH COMMON LAW ANYWAY.

According to your 2 weeks experience of studying law through random wikipedia searches. then English Common law no longer applies in Australia.

But wait a minute. Over 20 years later the judiciary are ruling on a case by applying ENGLISH COMMON LAW.

HOW CAN HE IGNORE THE LAW BOB HAWKE MADE???? Wasnt Hawke prime minister? Doesnt he have the power to make new law? Doesn't the fact the judge ignored the federal parliament's law mean he is a criminal?

Doesn't the judge know the Australian constitution means federal law overrules state law?


Or does he know something about law , that Hardbrain has not managed to discover from 2 weeks on Wikipedia?


"I care about the cannabis community and how it is perceived."

Do you? Why? according to you we're criminals. Do you care about the bank robbers community and rapists community? Are you concerned how they're perceived?

Or don't you get paid to inform on them?

Anyone know this guy in real life??
Anyone let him know where they live?
Anyone get busted afterwards?

no I think its more of a case of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxQ8XxmbMkA


If you want to stay on the plantation, fine. But don't drag everyone else down with you.
I'm pretty sure everyone knows how to take it up the arse when they get busted.
We don;t need that to be taught to us by you.

 

[hard rain]

Hardbrain I asked you to read that decision out loud , so it would gel.

Maybe you have someone in the family who isn't stoned who can explain it to you. Someone with a higher IQ, your goldfish perhaps.




Wakey wakey. Look at it again. Its not rocket surgery.

Bob Hawke has made legislation cutting off our connection in Australia to English common law with the Australia act.

And yet this judge more than 20 years later is freeing a man based on violation of his rights in english common law.

So either the judge is unaware of the Australia Act which was parliament dissolving English common law in australia, or is aware that Bob Hawke did not have the power to change the law.

NOW ILL REPEAT IT IN BIG LETTERS. READ IT OUT LOUD. PARLIAMENT DISSOLVED ENGLISH COMMON LAW IN AUSTRALIA WITH "laws" they passed under Bob HAWKE.

A JUDGE OVER 20 YEARS LATER IS STILL USING ENGLISH COMMON LAW ANYWAY.

According to your 2 weeks experience of studying law through random wikipedia searches. then English Common law no longer applies in Australia.

But wait a minute. Over 20 years later the judiciary are ruling on a case by applying ENGLISH COMMON LAW.

HOW CAN HE IGNORE THE LAW BOB HAWKE MADE???? Wasnt Hawke prime minister? Doesnt he have the power to make new law? Doesn't the fact the judge ignored the federal parliament's law mean he is a criminal?

Doesn't the judge know the Australian constitution means federal law overrules state law?


Or does he know something about law , that Hardbrain has not managed to discover from 2 weeks on Wikipedia?


"I care about the cannabis community and how it is perceived."

Do you? Why? according to you we're criminals. Do you care about the bank robbers community and rapists community? Are you concerned how they're perceived?

Or don't you get paid to inform on them?

Anyone know this guy in real life??
Anyone let him know where they live?
Anyone get busted afterwards?

no I think its more of a case of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxQ8XxmbMkA


If you want to stay on the plantation, fine. But don't drag everyone else down with you.
I'm pretty sure everyone knows how to take it up the arse when they get busted.
We don;t need that to be taught to us by you.

You seem to have a fair bit of contempt for cannabis users. Are you sure you are one yourself?

I understand your link just fine. My understandings are not based on 2 weeks looking at wiki. Wiki just happens to conveniently explain things.

Again you are relating 2 unrelated things and putting them together. Australian Common Law is based on English Common Law. The fact that "Australia" is substituted for "England" does not mean that the basis of the laws that originated in England have been wiped out overnight.

"Common Law: Judge made law based upon tradition and precedent, which looks to previous decisions as a measure of how to adjudicate in the present"

White,R and Perrone,S 1997Crime and Social Control: an introduction, Oxford uni press, Melbourne, p67.

Do you really think an act made in 1988 changes everything that it was based upon? I suspect that over time our Common Law will eventually diverge from Engish Common Law, as does American Common Law. It all came from the same place.

Please keep it civil as b00m has politely asked.
It is quite a disgusting insult to be called an informer which you basically have.
EDIT: You have got under my skin a bit with that comment. Informing on someone is totally against everything I believe in. You don't know me at all. Please remove the comment.

 

[isaih520]

I have contempt fpr men whop have achieved nothing and lecture those that have.

no i dont smoke pot . I just grow it.
I'm a beer man.
Pot doesnt agree with my constitution..
Also grow tobacco, which I do smoke.

I want you to focus very carefully. Are you ready?
What is your motivation?
To reinforce the lies of government that we must do what they tell us to do?

If a man gets busted, which we never anticipate, I will stand behind him if he wants me to. And i will free him lawfully, And unconditionally. Because he has the right to grow and sell pot.

If he believes you, he should get ready to go to prison.\\

Correct?

theres no man in the British commonwealth , as far as I know who had grown pot openly in his yard.
Got busted , for a killo or 2 and maybe 100 plants.
And walked out opf court without conviction. Besides me.
(walked out of court 3 times in 2 states. Because they did not want to touch the issue)


If I was here theorising I could understand the oppostion.


Your moticvation that you "care about how the cannbis community is perceived by the general public" is bizzare


frankly i think you're a shill.

Men dont think theyre going to get busted, however it does happen.

And they can either go to prison by following Hardrain's advice.
\Or go home following mine.

Only policemen want marijuana growers in gaol.

and the fruits of your posts are to convince men to go to prison.

they are already. they don't need your help.

 

[greenbeen]

it seems like isaih, and the general have very simullar ideas but different at the same time for example cant you be a prodacen (sorry for bad spelling) and still try and get out of stuff by using equality in how you speak? I would think that would get you out of court quicker, since you made a court that is equal than you say your a prodacen and finally you say that you shall not follow there orders because you will be knowingly submitted to an act of treason? and if you keep saying that would wont agree they will let you out right?

also when your in your car and you say what is the emergency brother?
I call all sons/sisters of god a brother since we were all created equally.
I am not conducting any type of trade and I do not use a vehicle.
I do not use a licence we each have the equitable use to use one

(if you did say all that you maybe able to make a equality court right? and you are also stating that commonwealth people (commonlaw) does not need a licence when using transportation only if you are a servant you would need a lisence is this all correct? am i kinda getting a better understanding?