2 votes

Corporate Law vs Common Law - Freeman and Strawman Explained



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

uh ok

so because I have a law license I "keep people in chains' and "jail them for bogus trumped up charges when no crime has been committed." Well, that's just not accurate. I don't even do criminal law. Well, I've represented a couple of defendants but that is about it. I don't lend money to people, so I can't possibly be practicing "usury." I don't steal or defraud them either.

But I tell you who does: Those straw man guys. Yep, yessirreee. See, there is no straw man, and the uneducated twits (like yourself of course) who say there is are just looking to make a quick buck. They do it by selling too-good-to-be-true to people who are stupid, naive or desperate. And they call all legitimate legal practitioners "frauds" because they say, accurately, that it is rubbish.

Good evening!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

again,you failed

and wrong,
you and your kind offer bondage,slavery,theft,deceit,and all from and for
administrative judges,lawyers,attorneys are wanna be judges,these get paid no matter if they win,so why would any of them care? they get paid regardless
you have not proven a thing,other than the courts are corrupt,change and switch meanings of words,and laws,and get paid
what you offer is paupers (debtors prison) for all concerned,when the fact remains
no judge can ever hear a criminal case
judges rule out of fear and our own ignorance,ignorance of who we are,and ignorance of we answer to (IT IS NOT MAN)
but you are so afraid,you cannot even answer one question,afraid you will be out of a job,and fearful of having to get a real job
all courts,cities,states are corporations,this is commerce,,judges rule
by color of law(laws that are not,but look like it)
all courts and their hired dolts are all paid whether and regardless of one being right(oops,there is no innocent plea)it is either guilty or not guilty
you being a professed lawyer should know this already,right?
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

gosh gee golly

you mean I get paid even if I lose a case? Well, in that case, you guys should be rich.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

blabber!

blabber blabbler blither blather blabber-blabber. Blabber? Blibber blather-glither glather blab bab/blib. Blabber! Blabablbablablablabablblblbl.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

and yet

you just proved my whole point !!!
by your own admission you proved my comment right
but so did the 2 down votes,lol no comments to refute
as there aren't any to be found
thank you
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

blather blither

blibber blobber blabber blabber admiralty blather sovereign blabber blibbber

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

oh my rubbery friend

the plucker of everything righteous,pure and true
no one here trusts you,not even me
why,you don't even trust yourself(hence the name changes)
and yet you keep on keep'n on,just trying to get one here to talk to you
but why doesn't anyone trust the rubber chicken plucker?
could it be,you are a fraud,a fake,in disguise?
or could it be something more nefarious? like maybe your soul is black as coal?
You aren't to be trusted,and here is why,why fish using the wrong bait
you try to hard getting others to do your own work
and you are a troll
but i can thank you,yet again,for proving me and a few others right,and for me being right yet again,on this comment :)
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

well, , you see

I was just driving around with no license plates naked with a lampshade on my head, and with a homemade passport which says I am supreme mucky-muck of the principality of oxnard, which therefore establishes my true sovereign Chickenhood. A policeman tried to arrest me but I clicked my heels together three times and then rubbed my stomach counter-clockwise, which nullified his attempts to exert jurisdiction. What? You don't believe me? What the cluck?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

being a chicken

you drive around on roads that were given to the states
given by our grand parents,with the implied intent that them roads were to be freely traveled,unfettered,unhindered,and unbothered by the respective states
they are public roads (PUBLIC) who or what is the public?...oh yeah !!! it is you and me DUH !! you sold your right for the privilege of driving on your own roads,and now you want everyone else to bow and bend,just as you did
so get condescending all you like,you know nothing,and you want everyone here to know nothing
you are bought and paid for,you are a slave and you are a tool(not a very good tool) though
you and I both have rights by virtue of birth here in america,but you sold your rights to be free,just as you want others to do
read this
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm
case after case after case sited here of the rights to travel,and you mock
them laws by not even knowing any of them (and you call yourself a lawyer)

you might want to get your other lawyer buddies here to down vote this post,it makes too much sense not to
you posted i was using ad hom attacks,you are a liar,you are the one projecting your own brand of chicken crap onto this site
you attacked me out of spite,and out of the fact YOU CANNOT REFUTE ONE THING I POSTED) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
have a nice day

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

more distraction

prove there is a strawman. Go!

Oh, look, you didn't!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

oh LOOK

you can't read !!! nor do you you comprehend
i just proved you WRONG AGAIN,yes again
you posted your idiotic dribble about your license
your drivers license to be exact,and you can't handle it
now prove it wrong...oh thats right,you never proved anything wrong
you just try to have others prove you right HAHAHA,ain't gonna happen
but i did find your useless sole in a web link
wanna read it? here it is..here we go......

http://www.healthfreedom.info/mark_of_the_beast.htm
read it and weep,i dare you
when you get done reading that,i will give you some more reading
but i truly know you won't read any of that,you just might learn,and you be not have'n any of that nonsense hehehehehe
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

If that is what you call scholarly research

and what you consider a good source of info, I think that speaks for itself.

You cited to a mutlicolored website with the argument that the social security number is the mark of the beast, and that because most of the people in Congress were lawyers when it was passed (of course, this is not substantiated but nevermind that, in the world of sovruns, you just make a claim on the internet and your disciples mindless buy into it), that lawyers are what? The antichrist? Great. Knock yourself out with that superior knowledge there.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

distractions !!!

again,you cannot read,nor do you comprehend,
I said I found you and you alone
you aren't a lawyer,not by a long shot,at least they can read and comprehend
you on the other hand can do neither
gee willikers,could this be why you cannot understand plain english?
did you comment back yet about your drivers license? did you understand it?
or haven't you been able to read it yet?
but you could,with your vast superior intellect just shut me up,once and for all
but why haven't you yet?? hmmmmmm? tis a funny question,isn't it?
you claiming to be all lawyerie and all,and haven't debunked one thing,not on this post,and certainly not on the other 2 you frequented.
All anyone,err everyone got from you is double talk,nonsense, jibberish
and bunk
and yet you are here all day,with nothing to do,and can't even grasp common
english.
shall i go on?
i can,and will if you want me to
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Yup haha

Yup haha

Ventura 2012

Yepo

that's what they do. and they lose...every time.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

this old con

the fact that this site lets people post this crap is bothersome. The whole strawman thing is bunk. Just ask one of these charlatans for proof that it works, or for proof of any of its underlying assumptions, and see how much screaming and howling you get. Pathetic.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Why don't you proove

that this is a "bunk con" then?

so you think you;ve discovered proof of aliens

might as well share the proof. If you;re making the preposterous claims (straw man, etc.) and have the true knowledge - all of which is totally contrary to all law and common sense - then you should be the one providing proof. I'm not going to prove your alien spaceship doesn't exist. There are already dozens/hundreds/thousands of court cases which say it doesn't.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

So you can't prove it then.

So you can't prove it then. Just as I thought.

ok

kindly post up a court order or appellate decision from one of your cases where they reference your straw man and where you won. Go.

If you can do it, you;ll be that elusive hero that your movement (probably a #2 variety) so needs!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

From what I have abstracted

From what I have abstracted so far, even if one attempts to adhere to all rules regarding representation of the natural self, you ARE likely to fail and end up in jail.

There are many legal (and illegal) traps involved with trying to represent your natural self. So in this sense you are correct.

This however, does not mean that the strawman is imaginary. In fact, I think it is safe to assume that if starwman identities do exist (for the sake of argument), virtually all judges themselves will not be aware of this. Therefore, the judges will automatically, instinctively and habitually reject any of the seemingly outlandish claims made by the defendant with respect to natural representation and continue to conduct court matters in accordance with Maritime law, regardless of the evidence presented. So it follows, there is no "seeing the light" for judges 99.9% of the time. The conjecture is then that 99.9% of defendants who try to represent their natural persons, fail.

For the record, I am not part of any "movement" associated with this information. I am merely investigating the claims and presenting the information for others to hypothesize their own conjectures, in the spirit of ultimately finding appropriate evidence for or against the claims.

One Cannot Re-Present Himself!

That is the whole problem!
Only corporate Fictions can go aboard the Admiral's Ship.
In other words if anyone sets foot beyond the ships rail (bar) he is automatically on the Admiral's Ship and is therefore considered an officer of the summoned ship, not a man with landed rights.
Yes, the courts of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION, STATE OF IOWA are all for fictions only.
In other words, courts of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations.

No man can enter a court of fictions.

One simply does not belong there unless he is acting as a sailor or government employee.
The problem is the Social Security contract creates a War Supply Vessel and then they appoint the poor fool who got tricked into Granting this Trust into Being the Trustee!
They call the Trustee MR ANDERSON, MR is title of Nobility in The British Crown Corporation.
The man who acts the boneless chicken "part" knows all this.
He is a Sworn Esquire, Loyal to The Crown Corporation. An foreign enemy agent on American soil.
Veritas, you are out of your league playing mind games with this trickster.

The Oracle

uh....

Yes, of course, that makes perfect sense!

"State of Iowa"...? rofl rofl rofl That's a new one. Don't tell me that fake sovruns now believe that the State of Iowa is Babylon or something like that. I should've known. It is a "corny" place.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Blabber blabber

Blabber blabber blithering blabber blubber blubber blabber blabber evade distract avoid blabber blabber blinner

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Yes, You Are Doing Your Job Well MR ATTORNER

Perhaps your Liege Lord Rothschild will pin a Medal on you one day for your fine Babble Babble, MR ESQUIRE THE BABYLONIAN!

The Oracle

You are truly delusional.

I hope one day you wake up.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

How So?

I am awake, quick, what's that number on the back of the SS card?
Are you awake, looks to me like you are lying on the floor snooring.
Are you one of boneless chicken's personalities?

The Oracle

to be perfectly fair

it would be impossible for a chicken to have a personality. Why? Well a chicken is not a person! That's why. But a chicken could possible have a straw man, in your world, where a birth certificate is a "warehouse receipt." But alas, Boneless is not a Corporate Chicken Personage (Chickenage?) but a mere boneless chicken, although as supreme ruler of all boneless chickens, a highly influential one.

Blabber-blibber sovrun gibber jabber blubber bligger.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Problem?

Hmmm

not sure if I am being trolled, the board being conned, or all of the above.

But I take it at face value. Good for you if you are searching for evidence. This myth/hoaz/con/fraud has been around for ages. Decades. Where is the proof that a straw man exists? I haven't seen it. What's more, I haven't even seen anything that one could infer that from. There is a complete lack of a basis for it. And, in many court cases, that is what has turned up - nothing to support it.

I find the conclusion that "of course" a judge wouldn't know something like the law somewhat amusing. Judges deal with jurisdictional challenges all the time. Cases over whether there is a straw man or whether one can be a sovereign have been litigated many times and there is a body of caselaw (common law, you know) which deals with it and it says there is no such thing.

But assuming (for the sake of argument) that there is a straw man and that a judge didn't know about it, you then have litigants and lawyers and evidence and courts of appeal. The information would be put out there. Many have alleged things to the effect it exists, none have provided proof. Not even a slight measure of proof. They've provided hearsay and supposition and downloads from the internet and misquoted passages and bad analysis.

Bad analysis pervades these videos. While they don't provide any evidence of a straw man they do demonstrate that the authors don;t know how to read the law. Where is the cite to the claim that the US went bankrupt in 1933? There is none! It is a common myth. And quite a whopper at that. Don;t think you'd be able to hide that one. And the idea that a person is now only a corporation under the law - which the first video says then contradicts - that is complete bunk. A corporation is considered a fictitious person under laws governing corporations, but that doesn't mean the same thing as "persons are now corporations." As a lawyer I can tell you there is no legal concept of person/corporate person that applies to all of us, that admiralty law does not rule in regular non-admiralty courts, and that most of the other representations about the law and legal system are just false.

If you can show where these nuts/cons get these theories, I'd be interested to know. Not because I suspect it is true (it isn't) but because I'd find the thought process interesting at least.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein