Truth Juice Brighton
'An examination of the definition of the term 'person' as found in the Interpretation Act. Does it mean 'people AND corporations', or does it mean 'ONLY corporations'. You decide.'Robert Menard has a stab at unravelling the spellings (spells) of, and grammar (grimoire) attached to, the word 'person'.
'Rob Freeman speaking about lawful resistance in Sheffield on 15th October 2013'The ever excellent Rob Freeman addresses an audience in Sheffield about his processes fighting unlawful demands upon his person and the remedies he has found to repel them, making him the man who currently pays no bills except for his mortgage, which he hopes will be the last demand on him to be dismissed.
The main point is to be able to insure that 'Consensual Human Interaction' took place. One of Nathan's main points is that the officers of the court need to prove that a particular law applies to you, and, that you need to agree that such a law applies to you. Neither the prosecutor's nor the judge's opinions constitute as evidence.
QUESTIONS: 1) What's your proof that I was within the State? 2) Does this Court get its jurisdiction from the Constitution? 3) What's your proof or what evidence do you have to prove that the Constitution is applicable to me? 4) Are you saying that I violated a Statute? 5) What evidence do you have that the Statute applies to me?
RESPONSE: Objection, calls for a legal determination and this witness is not qualified to render legal determinations (i.e. the police officer is not an attorney).
CORPUS DELECTI means that there needs to be a physical person who was harmed in order for the Defendant to be guilty of a crime.
JURISDICTION means that the Defendant was within the state of the police officer's area of responsibility. However, since a state is a legal fiction (i.e. does not actually exist) so it is impossible to prove the Defendant's presence within a state and therefore impossible to prove jurisdiction relative to a state. Nathan Fraser has never had the court be able to prove his presence within a state.
REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY means that both parties (Prosecutor & Defendant) have to reveal completely what they are going to use as evidence to support or controvert, disprove, or dispute the charges against the Defendant.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST means that if the Prosecuting Attorney represents or is financially compensated by the alleged injured party (Corpus Delicti) like the Federal Government, the State, the County, etc. then you can not receive a fair trial because it would be impossible for the Prosecuting Attorney to be objective and not be prejudiced against you.
RULES OF EVIDENCE lays out the types of admissible evidence that can be used against the Defendant.
CAUSE OF ACTION is the reason for the court proceeding and the charges being brought against the Defendant which are things like a traffic citation.
IMPEACHMENT means that a witness or evidence is ruled inadmissible. A witness may not be qualified to render a legal opinion like a police officer who does not know what the actual law that was broken was. LOTS of police officers give out traffic citations routinely and most people accept it as if it was actually the law.
PLEA BARGAIN means that there is the possibility that before any actual court proceeding takes place the Defendant can possibly get the Prosecuting Attorney to reduce the fine to $20 or whatever just to avoid a full court proceeding, ESPECIALLY if your Discovery has any merit. Because even if you win the case it may still cost you time and money to prove yourself innocent. This is thought of as a 'slap on the wrist' kind of punishment which might be preferable to hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines or imprisonment. This is simply something to think about if you are concerned about your time.
CROSS EXAMINATION means that the Defendant has the opportunity to challenge any evidence or witness testimony that the Prosecutor used against them. DISCLAIMER: Nathan Fraser is NOT an attorney nor lawyer and has never been to any kind of academic law school. He has studied the law for about six years from many different aspects like the sovereignty approach, the commercial redemption approach, as well as the government's own Rules of Procedure and Rules of Evidence and has experience in actual court rooms over 200 times. Since the Defendant (you) can not be prosecuted without the full understanding of, or agreement with, the charges against the Defendant then the Defendant has the right to ascertain the full extent of the facts relative to the alleged offense in order to receive a fair trial.
QUESTIONS TO THE JUDGE: * Who does the Prosecuting Attorney represent? * Can the Defendant (you) get a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest where you, the Judge, represents or has a special relationship with one of the parties to this proceeding?
FEDERAL RULES OF PROCEDURE: Rule 601 Rule 602 Rule 1101 - Applicability of the Rules Please note that references to UCC1, Strawman, or Postmaster-types of legal defenses were left out of this interview because Nathan Fraser has never found any success by using them himself or with people whom he has attempted to advise or assist.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The editor of this video is well-versed in law himself so any extraneous or unnecessary repetitive statements were removed to maintain consistency and integrity of the legal concepts offered by Nathan Fraser.
PHYSICAL LOCATION EXPLANATION: http://youtu.be/-WFg5O3vB1s
'Freedom Talk Is A State Of Mind - TruthJuice BristolNot sure that I've come across Colin Power before, but he gives an entertaining take on the Freeman philosophy at this talk from a while ago.
Colin Power of Paradigm Shift TV - What is the legal fiction?
Looking at issues around common law (and the freeman movement), birth certificates, registrations, sovereignty and lawful rebellion, money, debt, banking and more.....'
'Asking questions at Worthing Police Station 27th April 2013, about the FACTUAL proof of the creation of the obligation between an individual and the State? - And What Empirical Proof they have (Factual Evidence) that the acts and statutes apply to anyone?'Pretty much self-explanatory and No, just because you live in a 'country' it does not mean that you are required to abide by the 'law' of that 'country' when the 'country' is in fact a corporation. If you don't work for McDonald's, do you have to abide by their rules....?
One cannot change reality by changing the words you use to describe reality. Look beneath the rhetoric, and glimpse the truth.A parable for those who think that they still live, or have ever lived, in a 'free' country.