It would seem that many folk seem to realise what a “person” is within the legal framework, yet fail to realise that the same implication of the legal fiction term ‘person’ exists in many legal words. So I hope this may help somewhat.
If you live and breathe you are a man or woman and not, and never can be, a legal ‘PERSON’, ‘CITIZEN’, ‘SUBJECT’, ‘INDIVIDUAL’, ‘TAXPAYER’, ‘MR’, ‘MRS’, ‘SIR’, ‘MISS’, ‘RESIDENT’, ‘MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC’, ‘VOTER’, or the like, within the ‘public’, ‘legal’, and ‘corporate’ arena. ‘Public’ is pertaining to the ‘State’ (Blacks Law 5th), and private is pertaining to the man or woman.
If in your thoughts, language or paperwork you classify yourself as any of the above, then you are firmly stuck in the matrix of the illusion. Forget worrying about whether as a man or woman you fit into a classification status box with such legalese terms as, ‘natural person’ etc. But keep in mind that when dealing with any ‘public’ entity, you are dealing with legal, NOT ‘private’ lawful, and the definitions within the legal framework will always refer to artificial entities, a/k/a legal fictions. A man or woman is commonly known within the layman law community as foreign (Black’s Law 5th Edition, “Foreign” – belonging or attached to another jurisdiction; non-resident person, corporation, executor) to the public (legal/political) and therefore in the public arena. Theoretically in the legal system, a real sentient man or woman does not appear and cannot be seen in the public. This is why, when addressing a public entity on a private document, it is commonly practised by the layman law folk, to refer to the private side first and then doing business as, i.e. Gordon Brown, d/b/a First Lord of the Treasury, and Prime Minister. Don’t refer to them as Mr Gordon Brown or Prime Minister Gordon Brown, as you would then be going straight to the public side (legal title and fiction). If you do, you cannot have a meeting of the minds and a private agreement with an artificial entity and legal fiction.
Please be aware that Mr, Mrs, Miss and Sir can all be considered legal appellations and therefore point straight towards a legal Title, which signifies legal ownership and therefore fiction. Folks can get very drawn into the name that appears on documents from a public entity, and some believe that if it isn’t in CAPITALS or doesn’t have Mr or Mrs, etc, preceding the name, then it must be directed at the man/woman. It is easier to be aware that any and all presentations coming from the public are always directed at the fiction and artificial entity – remember a man/woman cannot be seen by the public.
Some folk still consider themselves as a ‘Taxpayer’. Yet look on any Tax related paperwork and what name do you see? The legal fiction! And where does the paperwork originate? The public! So a taxpayer is a ‘Member of the Public’ and therefore an artificial entity and legal fiction – a man/woman is not a taxpayer.
A ‘Resident’ signifies an entity that is residing within something. For instance, the property you may be sitting in whilst reading this article will have a legal title and therefore the legal ownership will be within the UNITED KINGDOM (UK); mind you, ultimately, if you keep on going down the rabbit hole maybe even the Vatican appears? But lets keep it simple hey! Men and women are not part of or within the legal fiction, UK, and therefore a man or woman is not a resident of the UK, only an artificial entity and legal fiction can be a resident of the UK. So, do NOT use the term ‘Resident’ or ‘Residence’ (Blacks Law 5th Edition, Resident, any ‘person’ who occupies a dwelling within the ‘State.’) on any private documents. Always use c/o address, omit the postcode or place between four-corners, i.e. [SW1A 2TL], and state, ‘Non Domestic without the UK’ – being that you are a man or woman you cannot be part of the UK Corporation.
Even the term ‘Individual’ means artificial entity and legal fiction within the legal framework (Blacks Law 5th Edition, Individual, denotes a single ‘person’ as distinguished from a group or class). I have attached a copy of the, “POLICE POWERS OF ARREST AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT” with all the ‘persons’ and ‘individuals’ highlighted, and obviously not a man or woman in sight.
Just remember this, the legal system is written to facilitate commerce, fictions, the use of fraud and deception and to create divide and elitism. So the legal system is not written for the protection of men or women, but the protection of commerce. Therefore every legal defined term is theirs, so let them use their legal definitions on themselves. The easiest way to overturn all legalese presumptions and assumptions on your documents is to add the following statement:
“All words herein are as John: Doe defines them.”
And a great phrase to have with you at all times in a court situation is,
“It is my understanding that I am a man/woman commonly known as John of the family Doe, and not a person or any other artificial entity; does the court possess any evidence to prove otherwise?”
As soon as you create an acknowledged void between you, the man or woman and the artificial entity, then one final question destroys everything they thought they might have had,
“Does the court have a valid claim against me here today?”
Of course they don’t. They may have a claim against the artificial entity, but not against you, the man or woman… matter over.
Creating the void between the legal fiction, the man/woman on paper, in thought and in language, adds fuel to the growing awareness of whom and what you are and who and what you are not.
As a great exercise, try this:
Sit with your eyes shut for just a couple of minutes and ask yourself who you are. But you are not allowed to refer to your given name, nationality, gender, religion, occupation, politics, family, roles, race or culture. There is a deeper self that is nothing of these. Contemplate this:
“Thought requires consciousness, yet consciousness does not require thought!”
Warmest regards,
Matt.
Matt you are brilliant!
Peace
Hi Matt,
I just wanted to ask you a couple of things.
Now we know that we are men or women and that each of us has a strawman which is separate to them but nevertheless somehow attached to them, not least because the strawman’s name resemble one’s own so much.
Now, whe you are in front of a copper or a judge and they try to obtain jurisdiction, you play the name game with them and you hopefully have sufficient stamina to never agree that you are the person so they don’t get to have jurisdiction.
That’s all very well, but what about the benefits and privileges that almost everyone enjoys: national insurance number, healthcare, passport, driving licence, etc….
Is it not the case that by the mere fact of having a driving licence or a passport or a NI no, the man/woman has essentially accepted jurisdiction.
So the mere fact of never conceding verbally to being a person surely is not enough. Surely they can find out that you have signed all kinds of applications for registration to construe that you are a person, hence all the statutes apply to you ?
For jurisdiction to be properly dis-established is it not necessary to never apply for anything and not even to have a birth certificate ?
If you are already an adult and you already have all kinds of licences, then is it not the case that one should somehow rescind them all ?
More questions then arise.
How does one rescind the registration of one’s birth and of all the other registrations ?
Another thing I came across is this.
When you are in court and you play the name game to avoid jurisdiction, it occurs to me that the judge knows you are a man/woman and not the strawman. He is not stupid.
It just means that if the strawman does not perform, then the man/woman is being held as surety. How can you avoid that ?
Thanks
Fred
Hi Fred,
You raise too many questions my friend to answer without spending a considerable amount of time over, and most of the answers to these questions can be found on the previous replies given on this site and within the articles themselves. Once again much of your concerns appear to circle around not fully understanding who and what you are and what you are not. Think about this question, “Does the court have a valid claim against “me” here today?” The court, if they have a claim at all, certainly won’t have a valid claim against you, the man or woman, it will only be a claim against the legal fiction that falls under their jurisdiction. I suggest that you read the articles on affidavits and the affidavits themselves. Absorb what they are saying and more importantly, what their deeper meaning releases in you. Reading your comments and questions it would appear that the fear and self limiting belief is creating a small box that won’t allow you to think creatively. As Albert Einstein said, “You cannot solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it.” Regards, Matt.
Hey folks,
This article was a wonderful read thanks Matt, I also felt it added some “validity” to my own chosen path. What I find fascinating about this whole “awakening” or “Freeman” movement, or whatever lexical tag one wishes to ascribe to this increased level of comprehension, is that it is a UNIQUE journey for each… I’ll say “soul” not “individual” after reading that (thanks again for noticing that).
On an instinctive level back in July, I decided to tentatively step into this murky and confusing world I found myself in; anyone reading this will know the one I mean, the one where words can have a distinctly different meaning to their “common usage”. I realised the only thing I felt SURE about was that a “Legal Fiction” was created with neither my knowledge or consent upon my birth, purely for the facilitation and function of commerce. My evidence for this belief is the use of two different “styles” in writing SURNAME’S. I believe this was done to differentiate between a living, breathing man or woman who naturally can SIGN and a “legal fiction” which by it’s nature of being a fiction, requires a representative to ACT on it’s behalf… Please prove me wrong.
I decided the easiest way was to change my name, BUT doing via a Public Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right. This way I could carefully craft WHY I now chose, at common-law to go by the name of Dream.
And to read Matt, that you felt a great question for court was “It is my understanding that I am a man/woman commonly known as John of the family Doe, and not a person or any other artificial entity; does the court possess any evidence to prove otherwise?” actually DEFINED my “stand” from the start.
I genuinely drafted my NOUICOR mindfully to express my perceived view logically and rationally, the truth as I saw it at the time, and my intent on how I hoped to “act”. I would appreciate any inspection and critique as we are all learning as we go. I would also point out that I defined my “role” as Philosopher, Truth Seeker and questioner, “recognising” no other obligations, duties or demands made upon me. http://www.TheTao.co.uk (please scroll to the bottom to see the first post and YouTube NOICOR).
Anywayz, great to listen to the interview with Marc Stevens, also very enlightening.
Who am I? “I am a Spiritual Being on a physical journey”.
Much thanks again to all involved, inspiring website,
Dream
Hi Matt, a quick question if I may? I was under the impression that the human being (Grison of the Badger family) is responsible for his strawman, MR GRISON BADGER. he has licence under commercial law to use a Strawman for commercial purposes, and should always act in honour. I have also heard it said that in court you should always plead guilty, and then make a conditional offer to pay. for instance, the plea could be (if someone says you owe them money) “yes, i will pay, upon production of a contract signed by both parties, and an invoice signed by the human being who has allegedly suffered a loss” – for instance in credit card arrears where no such contract exists, and where an invoice showing loss to a human being is highly unlikely to be presented in court.
now to the question: if you bypass the opportunity to make a conditional offer by asking the court to prove you aren’t a strawman as you suggest, aren’t you acting dishonourably, creating a controversy, and thereby allowing the court to make a judgement?
Hi,
The word human comes from two words; hue = take on color or become colored; and obviously man. So the hue is adding colour to man, i.e. man is becoming colourable. Colourable = Meant to deceive; not genuine. Interestingly the bible doesn’t mention human once.
One of the big problems I see is that many people actually think they own the STRAWMAN and it is theirs; it is not! Do you own the legal title to it? No, so it is not yours. I can see which way you are coming from on this question; I suggest it is more of a creditor/debtor type scenario, yes? And one of the finest ways for that scenario to be brought to an end is simply to ask the judge for the “Penal Sum” (the true bill behind every court case kept in the judges private file), and accept it for value. But we are starting to discover that there is an even better way, in fact you could go as far as to say the key might have been found, and I am involved in the research of this now. We are talking about “Trusts.”
We could go into different creditor/debtor type scenarios yet in my experience, most folk struggle to get their heads around it. For instance, so many people now have heard of Accepted for Value, yet many times when I ask if folk know what Accepted for Value really is and how does it work, very few actually know, yet they are so willing to use it and then come unstuck as soon as they are asked to explain what they have done.
So if you want to operate in the creditor/debtor world then of course you would want to go into court and say, “I am a 3rd party intervener appearing specially and not generally, and I am here to effect payment and settle this matter, please bring forth the penal sum, blah blah blah.” But that isn’t the only way to operate. Another way is the way that so many more can understand and prefer; and that is the fact that no statute has any lawful authority over a man (unless in someway consented to), and unless another man or woman has a valid claim of injury against another man or woman with a sworn Affidavit of Liability to support, then there is no subject matter.
It is also important to remember that in the public, “Whoever creates the liability is obligated to provide the remedy.” So if the corporate entity sent you a bill (proposed liability statement/contractual offer) without enclosing the remedy, i.e. a cheque for your endorsement, then they are in immediate commercial dishonour. If a court sends a summons without enclosing a cheque then they are in immediate commercial dishonour as every court hearing has a bill attached, yet they didn’t provide the remedy. Name any corporation that gives full disclosure to the man or woman in all their offers? There isn’t one, therefore immediate commercial dishonour has taken place, so the whole honour and dishonour lark is really quite comical as it will almost always be the corporations that will go into dishonour first. Yet I do believe it is wise to stay calm, polite and so-called honourable as much as is possible.
You ended you piece by stating that going into controversy would allow the court to make a judgement? Well for the court to make a judgement, they have to demonstrate jurisdiction, and how do they do that when there is not a valid claim against a man or woman? The only valid claim, if they have one at all, will be against a legal fiction whose liability belongs the it’s legal title owner; and that isn’t you!
There is always more that one way to find remedy. Regards, Matt.
Thanks for that answer, there is much to think about.
the word “bill” – is a credit card statement a bill, and is the tear-off bit that you fill out and send back with your cheque, THE cheque? if not, what would happen if i asked the credit card company to send a “bill” insted of a statement? and what is the relationship between this bill and the “true bill” in court?
NB i am currently attempting to cancel an alleged debt by offering to pay anything i lawfully owe ( a conditional offer) upon production of a signed agreement and signed invoice. i haven’t asked for a “bill” though.
finally “no statute has any lawful authority……unless another man or woman has a valid claim of injury against another man or woman with a sworn Affidavit of Liability”
does this mean a penalty for a so-called “serious” offence under statute, if no-one has been hurt, is unlawful?
for example, 15 years or whatever it is for carrying a knife, (not actually physically attacking someone, which deserves longer)
has anyone escaped this kind of punishment, which is inconsistent with common law (no loss or damage to anyone) by asking the judge for a valid claim of injury and sworn affidavit of liability? it seems too good to be true. if it were as simple as that it would be printed on cards and given to scrotes by their solicitors to read out in court.
I am a relatively new free-man its a journey of learning for me. thank you for this article and all the other guys as well for this site.
we aren’t freemen 😉 but thanks alot for your support!
Oh well, I just took you at your word in the podcast. never mind I suppose its just words.
Has any of this been put to the test in court?
Hi there,
yes my friend, affidavits are part of the staple diet to the judicial system. Remember an Admiral court is simply a place of business, and certainly nothing to fear if you know who you are and what you are not. Men and women have the ability to create private and lawful contracts, trusts and agreements, so if you don’t like statute law, create you own law! If you have a perfected private agreement of the parties, it rarely gets to court to be honest as there is nothing to adjudicate on; it normally stops at the judges chambers if not well, well before. Regards, Matt.
Hi,
The majority of information on the theory, creation and use of affidavits seems to be buried in small peices far and wide on the web. Can you suggest one or two resources that will help “break the ice” for the layman. It would appear that going to court is the very last resort. Good article too,
Dazzle
I should have added any resources on commercial liens would also be helpful.
D
hey matt, how come thetruthwillout is disabled?
hope all is well
Hi,
all will be well with http://www.thetruthwillout.com within 24 hours, please check back then. It is due an update soon as well… just where to find the time? Regards, Matt.
to matt it may help others
hmmm well your not a man woman or fiction.in a book called law and medicine on google [url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lo5t2zqlzHoC&pg=PA227&dq=law+and+medicine+legal+personality&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=onepage&q=law%20and%20medicine%20legal%20personality&f=false]links here [/url] explains about natural entities with legal personality and natural entities without legal personality!when you have been given a birth certificate then your a natural entity with legal personality.its the birth certificate which draws you into the legal system.but then again that could be argued that the contract was made without your knowledge so fraudulant.another arguement would be that to be a member of society any society requires membership (again hense the birth cert) and to join something means you have the freedom to be able to leave the society and relinquish membership!if you cannot or are not allowed to relinquish membership then that can be construed as a form of slavery which would then go against the slavery act!if you never consented to having a birth certificate you were never asked to join the society then it must of been forced upon you!i mean if you dont conform and dont register your children then your liable to a fine so that in itself is blackmail 😀 take care have fun wish you all the best.
markie b
But if the State is only interested in the legal fictional person, and the State decides to punish that legal fictional person, then surely the flesh and blood human being gets drags down with it, doesn’t it? Thats the bit that I find difficult.
welll said, just reading thro all of this. what a lovely debate! learnt something new from you guys. will put this info to use when the chance arrises.. 🙂
A fantastic post please keep going thanks
it seems to me that it all revolves around consent (loosely) the name or label that you we’re assigned (without your consent at birth) then follows you through you’re natural life, all legal jurisdiction upon you comes from this assignment, but the wider issue i think is only really being scratched at here. the fundamental question is “who are you”?. As a physical entity you do have an historical lineage and whether that is you’re registered birth name or some other name that you decide at a later date, the moment you label yourself, you become restricted within that label. from a deeper level it seems that existence cannot be measured from only a physical level, i am both the physical behavior i display ( measurable ) but also the thought forms i experience
( immeasurable ) and thus need to be aware that any attempt to restrict the later is an attempt at absolute slavery ( of the mind and subsequently the soul ). The good news is that looking at this website and many others it warms my soul (not my mind) to see that the true nature of existence is shining through the illusion.
so in essence the battle of the physical world of slavery is an over spill of the awakening of the mind which is the expression of the unlimited and unlimiting capacity of the soul.
we create what we think! you are all great beyond boundaries!!!!
You can not fight it.
A natural person is attached to the Legal name(sob),which is the body poltic. The SSN/SIN is the number of the Statement of bith (sob). The government owns both the SOB and the SSN/SIN and has “SUR – NAME” surety. It is the property of the province /state in right of the Crown.
You can only free yourself by claim of right,which is Private Necessity.
Interesting thread, interesting site :).
However, it all raises far more questions than answers.
We live in a system, and the system is complex. You can ‘smash the system’, but you will still be living in a system. You can pretend to be outside it, but you will still be part of a system. Any changes to the system you inhabit will have consequences, and since they are systemic, it will be difficult to calculate those consequences in advance.
It is really very easy to say that things are wrong. It is a much more difficult to design a better system. The real magic though is in finding a way from one to the other. While righteous indignation is enormously satisfying, it changes little. I want a just society, not a world where its every being for themselves.
So what am I asking?
Are you saying you want no legal system? No contracts? If so, what do you want in its place?
Are you saying people should not pay for products and services they have had (as with getting out of credit card debt)?
Are you suggesting that we should not pay taxes, or have a government to run things? If so what would you do instead?
Fundamentally, if we all exit the system and refuse to play, the whole thing falls. While it is very male and testosterone filled to shout out ‘Smash the system!’, it doesn’t build anything new. Where is the reasonable, thought out, ethical and fair replacement? Or is this movement primarily a product of the ‘me, me, me’ American dream?
I am being fed propaganda from every side and I am choking on it. I read between the lines and all I find is self interest, both from the Gov’t, and from those protesting.
Help me out and let me know there is somebody thinking beyond the end of their own nose….
Yet another explanation why the Lord said, “I am no respecter of persons.” Jesus doesn’t recognize the legal term. He only sees men and women, brothers and sisters.
after being arrested twice for similor offences i have been reading up alot on common law, statutes and acts, human rights, how policing works, the lot and this is probably my saviour, i have written an affidavit using the example from the tpuc website basically stating that i do not wish to act upon the statutes and acts brought by the government and that i do not wish to be harrased by the police anymore about these 2 cases nor be harrassed about further offences i ollegidly commit, my affidavit has:
Sent Registered Mail # ** **** **** ***
Reference # ******
what do i put in these spaces?
and
Signed and sealed this ____ day of _________, 20_____.
i assume this referes to the date, but i really cant seem to understand this bit, what do i put here?
Hi Matt I agree in principle with what you say,my only trouble is as I have experienced on several occasions these Courts don’t give a shit they intentionally keep no record the clerk of Court will not enter into the minutes anything you say or require them to,and as soon as you corner them they hold you in contempt of Court rush you through trial with or without your consent by appointing a Solicitor on your behalf, they always find you guilty,appappealing is a waste of time they back their colleges in the corrupt rigged judicial system you don’t stand a chance, I have even raised Devolution compatibility issues and had this removed from my record how do you suggest you challenge this Matt.
Hello, I am looking for a good layman representative to represent me in court, I got a letter saying I have to present myself in the magistrates court for a speeding ticket, the letter says clearly I will be suspended ( my licence ) and I wouldn`t know for how long but still, I wouldn`t be able to go to work and do my things without my automobile ( car, commercial definition ). I have the hearing on the 10th of December 2015 but I have sent an email to hms asking for more time, 2 months to be precise and the reason I have put in my email was : I am investigating a fraud case, which to be honest this is the fraud they try to continue with and make me pay their commercial law ( fine ) but I don`t want to pay nor be suspended because I didn`t sign any contract with them and I am a Freeman of the land so I don`t convey with their commercial law ( law of the sea, admiralty ), I do respect and follow common law only. Please advice, help and support me win this. Thanks