Foxx
The Living Force
Hi all!
Has anyone looked into the sovereign "freeman on the land" movement much? I've looked around a bit on here and not found much discussion beyond criticism and emotionally-loaded responses.
While I had generally ignored the movement for sometime, citing the very clear reality that the psychopathic ruling elites don't obey the law and have all the weapons, after viewing a lecture series by Dean Clifford and contemplating the cassiopaean's statements on things like forming the legal entity for the Paleo Christianity group as being a 3D symbolism of 4D concepts and some of their descriptions around areas of consenting to 4D STS, I've been wondering if there actually is something useful to the movement and that ignoring the legal element, despite its tremendous prominence in our lives, is perhaps missing a key element of the puzzle. There certainly seem to be elements of disinformation and/or incomplete information within the sovereign movement, which also suggests to me that there might be something of use there.
It's certainly very clear that those who make the rules (perhaps laws aren't the right word, as common law/man's law/god's law seems to be the actual law and the rest are statutes, acts, etc) both make the rules in their favor and then don't even follow them (or follow common law), but it's also clear that, in general, people consent to statutes/acts, taxes, and other areas that clearly benefit those in power which likely has 4D symbolic outcomes as well. I'm not looking to 'get out of paying taxes', but to stop feeding the cancer.
Here's the link to the lecture series by Dean Clifford. All the lectures are titled PartXblah and there are also interviews in the playlist as well, that seem to just be primarily profanity interspersed with some redundant information to the lectures, unprepared interviewers, and some other non-productive dialog.
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsJjPZkqspA&feature=BFa&list=PL1B289953BD4AE100&lf=results_main
Essentially, what he says is that just because the government was established and then created a whole bunch of rules, doesn't mean that we consented to them by being born. Legally speaking, each individual person is a beneficiary to the last will and testament of god, which is proven by the birth certificate they receive (one of the few, perhaps the only, government documents one has that is signed by the government). Being the beneficiary, one can appoint whomever they want to be the executor or director of the legal entity or person that was created along with the creation of the birth certificate (your name in all caps, ie JANE DOE), and that there is then a third role, that of the trustee or employee, which is the one who serves the other two and is 'ruled' by the executor. This can be illustrated more clearly in corporate law (which is also trust law) in that there are shareholders (beneficiaries), executive(s)/CEOs, and then employees, who are the trustees. Shareholders choose who the executives are, those who will give them the best 'return on their investment' (theoretically), who in turn give the direction to the entity (corporation), which is carried out by the employees, who are required to listen to the executives in order to (theoretically) get the best return on investment for the beneficiaries.
He starts off by saying it comes down to the holy trinity and that in trust law, there are always the three parties of beneficary(ies), executor(s), and trustee(s). There are many trinities that arise in the legal system and laws, it seems, which is especially interesting. Being born, one is innately the beneficiary, though which of the other two roles one chooses to play is up to the individual at the time of choice (which could be anytime and is done essentially anytime one interacts with the government in a 'law enforcement' capacity).
Essentially, then, the birth certificate certifies that you are a beneficiary to the last will and testament of god which, legally speaking, is the 'common wealth' that is, the planet. As the beneficiary, one can choose to be either their own executor or to give someone else that role and play either no other role (not what usually happens) or play the role of the trustee. What happens typically, he says, is that the government makes legal presumptions (a presumption of law is the term he uses) that you are playing the role of the trustee in your legal entity and that you've appointed the government (which is also a corporation) to be the executor of your legal person, which then subjects you to the statutes and acts that they create since you've essentially given away your free will to them as they're the executives and you are required to do as they say as per the defined roles. In a false way too, this is signing over your liability (and thus free will) to them and in doing so, they take on a responsibility for you and thus can tell you want to do since they're [falsely] liable. One can't give away one's liability truly, though, as demonstrated by not being able to have someone pay you to take on their liability for doing damage to others--the damage causer is fundamentally responsible ("...but that guy said he'd take on the liability of me punching you in the face if I paid him $50", doesn't work). This, he says, is how one becomes an employee of the government (by assuming the trustee role and de facto appointing the government as your executor) and, thus, subject to its statues or 'rules for employment'.
To get out of this, he says, one must assume liability and responsibility for oneself and one's actions (certainly ties in to spirituality) and appoint oneself to be one's executor and then clearly establish the roles of the public servants as trustees, instead of executors. This is done both at the time(s) of interactions with public servants (police, judges, etc) and also, more ideally, before hand at the courts by filing affidavits and contacting the government ahead of time to clarify rights (as in, I understand myself to be the beneficiary, which empowers me to appoint an executor--I'm appointing myself--which then permits me full control and liability of my legal person and governance power over any trustees appointed or employed to serve my common inheritance. If my understanding is incorrect, you have [a reasonable timeframe] to respond to me. Failure to respond within the timeframe indicates that my understanding is correct) and then filing the information as an affidavit in court and deferring the applications of statutes to the affidavits and asserting your role as the executor. One then obeys common law, existing peacefully without damaging others, and taking responsibility when one does damage others, and then does not consent to contracting with the corporation of the government.
One of the biggest keys seems to be PROVING that you're free, as in all these elements are true to the degree that being free is true and all other arguments are rendered completely irrelevant.
I can write more about what he talks about in the videos, but this seems to be enough of an intro that anyone can reflect on whether they think this thinking is either false or fruitless, because that's what mainly interests me. A lot of what he says rings true in my mind, but navigating the legal field is obviously designed to be tricky/challenging and I have not been able to find all the pertinent legal references for the united states (he's in Canada, but says it generally applies everywhere), except this referring to the united states as a federal corporation (15 A):
_http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html
After reading through some of the maxims of law, also referred to as common law, it generally seems to be a kind of logical (deductive reasoning) list resulting from an assumption of freedom and respect for others (if all are free, then these are true). The idea of his description of being a method for taking over the freedom of others makes a great deal of sense to me, which clearly does not make it true (or, potentially, relevant), and sounds similar to some of the descriptions of consent to 4D manipulation and general interactions between 'us' and 'them' from the cassiopaeans, as I've understood them.
What is certainly true, is that taking this path legally speaking would not be easy (it'd involve risk and probably confrontation--neither of which are terribly enjoyable), especially early on and especially paving the way, but once one has enough knowledge of the system, it seems relatively easy to opt out initially and then deal with the ramifications (probably reduced if one sets up a fee schedule properly AND asserts one's rights--the latter being most challenging ['A: we didn't say some flashing lights hypnotize, we said all.']) afterward which, to me, strongly suggests that the path can be fruitful and have 4D implications.
And, (theoretically) conveniently, if any of the sovereign ideas have any actual weight to it, then getting the relevant information out there to folks should be a relatively simply compilation job, though with the onus being on each person to resist hypnotism and assert their rights.
I plan on looking for more pertinent information in the US legal codes and have some resources that I haven't digested yet that may shed more light on relevant references, but until then does anyone else have a take on these ideas or any additional relevant information and/or legal advice?
Thanks, as always, for all the help!
Has anyone looked into the sovereign "freeman on the land" movement much? I've looked around a bit on here and not found much discussion beyond criticism and emotionally-loaded responses.
While I had generally ignored the movement for sometime, citing the very clear reality that the psychopathic ruling elites don't obey the law and have all the weapons, after viewing a lecture series by Dean Clifford and contemplating the cassiopaean's statements on things like forming the legal entity for the Paleo Christianity group as being a 3D symbolism of 4D concepts and some of their descriptions around areas of consenting to 4D STS, I've been wondering if there actually is something useful to the movement and that ignoring the legal element, despite its tremendous prominence in our lives, is perhaps missing a key element of the puzzle. There certainly seem to be elements of disinformation and/or incomplete information within the sovereign movement, which also suggests to me that there might be something of use there.
It's certainly very clear that those who make the rules (perhaps laws aren't the right word, as common law/man's law/god's law seems to be the actual law and the rest are statutes, acts, etc) both make the rules in their favor and then don't even follow them (or follow common law), but it's also clear that, in general, people consent to statutes/acts, taxes, and other areas that clearly benefit those in power which likely has 4D symbolic outcomes as well. I'm not looking to 'get out of paying taxes', but to stop feeding the cancer.
Here's the link to the lecture series by Dean Clifford. All the lectures are titled PartXblah and there are also interviews in the playlist as well, that seem to just be primarily profanity interspersed with some redundant information to the lectures, unprepared interviewers, and some other non-productive dialog.
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsJjPZkqspA&feature=BFa&list=PL1B289953BD4AE100&lf=results_main
Essentially, what he says is that just because the government was established and then created a whole bunch of rules, doesn't mean that we consented to them by being born. Legally speaking, each individual person is a beneficiary to the last will and testament of god, which is proven by the birth certificate they receive (one of the few, perhaps the only, government documents one has that is signed by the government). Being the beneficiary, one can appoint whomever they want to be the executor or director of the legal entity or person that was created along with the creation of the birth certificate (your name in all caps, ie JANE DOE), and that there is then a third role, that of the trustee or employee, which is the one who serves the other two and is 'ruled' by the executor. This can be illustrated more clearly in corporate law (which is also trust law) in that there are shareholders (beneficiaries), executive(s)/CEOs, and then employees, who are the trustees. Shareholders choose who the executives are, those who will give them the best 'return on their investment' (theoretically), who in turn give the direction to the entity (corporation), which is carried out by the employees, who are required to listen to the executives in order to (theoretically) get the best return on investment for the beneficiaries.
He starts off by saying it comes down to the holy trinity and that in trust law, there are always the three parties of beneficary(ies), executor(s), and trustee(s). There are many trinities that arise in the legal system and laws, it seems, which is especially interesting. Being born, one is innately the beneficiary, though which of the other two roles one chooses to play is up to the individual at the time of choice (which could be anytime and is done essentially anytime one interacts with the government in a 'law enforcement' capacity).
Essentially, then, the birth certificate certifies that you are a beneficiary to the last will and testament of god which, legally speaking, is the 'common wealth' that is, the planet. As the beneficiary, one can choose to be either their own executor or to give someone else that role and play either no other role (not what usually happens) or play the role of the trustee. What happens typically, he says, is that the government makes legal presumptions (a presumption of law is the term he uses) that you are playing the role of the trustee in your legal entity and that you've appointed the government (which is also a corporation) to be the executor of your legal person, which then subjects you to the statutes and acts that they create since you've essentially given away your free will to them as they're the executives and you are required to do as they say as per the defined roles. In a false way too, this is signing over your liability (and thus free will) to them and in doing so, they take on a responsibility for you and thus can tell you want to do since they're [falsely] liable. One can't give away one's liability truly, though, as demonstrated by not being able to have someone pay you to take on their liability for doing damage to others--the damage causer is fundamentally responsible ("...but that guy said he'd take on the liability of me punching you in the face if I paid him $50", doesn't work). This, he says, is how one becomes an employee of the government (by assuming the trustee role and de facto appointing the government as your executor) and, thus, subject to its statues or 'rules for employment'.
To get out of this, he says, one must assume liability and responsibility for oneself and one's actions (certainly ties in to spirituality) and appoint oneself to be one's executor and then clearly establish the roles of the public servants as trustees, instead of executors. This is done both at the time(s) of interactions with public servants (police, judges, etc) and also, more ideally, before hand at the courts by filing affidavits and contacting the government ahead of time to clarify rights (as in, I understand myself to be the beneficiary, which empowers me to appoint an executor--I'm appointing myself--which then permits me full control and liability of my legal person and governance power over any trustees appointed or employed to serve my common inheritance. If my understanding is incorrect, you have [a reasonable timeframe] to respond to me. Failure to respond within the timeframe indicates that my understanding is correct) and then filing the information as an affidavit in court and deferring the applications of statutes to the affidavits and asserting your role as the executor. One then obeys common law, existing peacefully without damaging others, and taking responsibility when one does damage others, and then does not consent to contracting with the corporation of the government.
One of the biggest keys seems to be PROVING that you're free, as in all these elements are true to the degree that being free is true and all other arguments are rendered completely irrelevant.
I can write more about what he talks about in the videos, but this seems to be enough of an intro that anyone can reflect on whether they think this thinking is either false or fruitless, because that's what mainly interests me. A lot of what he says rings true in my mind, but navigating the legal field is obviously designed to be tricky/challenging and I have not been able to find all the pertinent legal references for the united states (he's in Canada, but says it generally applies everywhere), except this referring to the united states as a federal corporation (15 A):
_http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html
After reading through some of the maxims of law, also referred to as common law, it generally seems to be a kind of logical (deductive reasoning) list resulting from an assumption of freedom and respect for others (if all are free, then these are true). The idea of his description of being a method for taking over the freedom of others makes a great deal of sense to me, which clearly does not make it true (or, potentially, relevant), and sounds similar to some of the descriptions of consent to 4D manipulation and general interactions between 'us' and 'them' from the cassiopaeans, as I've understood them.
What is certainly true, is that taking this path legally speaking would not be easy (it'd involve risk and probably confrontation--neither of which are terribly enjoyable), especially early on and especially paving the way, but once one has enough knowledge of the system, it seems relatively easy to opt out initially and then deal with the ramifications (probably reduced if one sets up a fee schedule properly AND asserts one's rights--the latter being most challenging ['A: we didn't say some flashing lights hypnotize, we said all.']) afterward which, to me, strongly suggests that the path can be fruitful and have 4D implications.
And, (theoretically) conveniently, if any of the sovereign ideas have any actual weight to it, then getting the relevant information out there to folks should be a relatively simply compilation job, though with the onus being on each person to resist hypnotism and assert their rights.
I plan on looking for more pertinent information in the US legal codes and have some resources that I haven't digested yet that may shed more light on relevant references, but until then does anyone else have a take on these ideas or any additional relevant information and/or legal advice?
Thanks, as always, for all the help!
