Common Law knowledge is spreading...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Tower

Where is this written?

John Locke wrote it.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Anyone can drive. It is your right.

Should you actually wish to use a publicly funded road, THAT is a privilege.

Where is this written? Is that in a MV act? I never read that anywhere.

You do not need insurance... But it is a good idea. How about using a bond instead?

[Tower]

Here are some Claims sent to our "representatives"

Canada enjoys and all her people enjoy the protection of the Common-Law and;

Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory and;
A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law and;

A society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal and;

For something to exist legally it must have a name and;
The Law Societies and Bar Associations of Canada are the ones who create the statutes therefore they are applicable only to those members and to those that consent, and;

The only form of government recognized as lawful in Canada is a representative one, and;

All governments are corporations which provide services, and;

All governments and corporations are bound by the Criminal Code of Canada, and; etc,
.... It's 14 pages long.... All claims that are to be answered. If ignored they become Law... But not for you. You have to claim the rights you should already have.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

Just wanted to thank those who earlier stepped up to answer Mikey's challenge to me. I haven't been at my computer since I posted earlier.

A couple of things I did want to mention. If you go back and read my post Mikey, you'll see that I anticipated that the argument in the case was about a failure of consideration even though I hadn't (and still haven't) read the case. Do you want to know how I knew what the argument was going to be? It's essentially the only possible defence to a mortgage foreclosure, that the lender didn't actually give you the consideration that supports the legal right you have given them to take your house away. Now here's the trick, consideration doesn't have to be 'backed' as Tower would have you believe. As long as everybody agrees to accept the 'fiat created' money as legitimate, then it is. The borrower has no right to object to how the bank chooses to meet the obligation it had to pay the seller whatever portion of the purchase price it agreed to finance as long as the seller or the seller's financial institution accepted same, which they clearly did since they weren't suing to try and get the property back.

Your credit card, your personal line of credit, even the interest in your savings account is all fiat created money, but it is collectively agreed to be valid and an individual can't opt out of that group consensus any more than they can opt out of obeying the criminal code.


As many others have said, the case is bad law, has been overruled by later common law precedents, and is inconsistent with the entire basis of the US monetary system. There was no need for me to specifically know the details of the case because it was obvious what the argument had to be.

By the way, I'd like Tower and Mikey to answer this for me... How is it just and equitable for me to lead the bank to believe that I accept the terms of the mortgage agreement and start living in a property with no intention of honouring my word to the bank that I would pay them a certain amount of money in return for standing behind my name by granting me credit that the seller recognizes as having value. If I truly disagreed with the concept of bank created credit, shouldn't I refuse to be involved with the bank at the outset instead of taking advantage of them? Where is the justice in the case on that basis.

Also if one is using deception and/or does not fully disclose... It is NOT a binding contract.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by peter12

John Locke wrote it.

For the record, not the guy on Lost.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Tower

Also if one is using deception and/or does not fully disclose... It is NOT a binding contract.

What the hell does that have to do with the post you quoted? This is kind of fun, arguing with someone who refuses to use any sort of logic or common sense.

Dude, you can argue BS language semantics all you want. Reality is, law is law, follow them or face the consequences. Like several posters have asked before, have you once put any of these whackjob theories you throw out into practice? Please, enlighten us with how you did it. How did you, oh Tower of such infinite wisdom, manage to completely circumvent the law and society when no one else does?

Please just give ONE EXAMPLE. JUST ONE. I beg you.

I'm willing to bet you either ignore this post or have some random crap post about "Everyone makes their own choice, I just present the truth" or some other random string of words that say a lot and don't mean anything.

I am clearly calling you out. Again, please provide one single instance when any of your complete horsecrap ideas have worked in real life. Please.

You won't, because you can't. Troll.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Tower

Here are some Claims sent to our "representatives"

The Law Societies and Bar Associations of Canada are the ones who create the statutes therefore they are applicable only to those members and to those that consent, and;

Maybe I missed some context along the way that relates to this, but on its face this is another example of a fundamental misunderstanding of some basic elements of Canadian law that characterizes Freeman dogma

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by Tower

Also if one is using deception and/or does not fully disclose... It is NOT a binding contract.

Okay, you've quoted my post twice now and haven't answered the question I posed.

How does using a bank's credit to purchase a property when you don't intend to honor the terms of the agreement upon which that credit was extended to you comport with principles of fairness and justice?

(and don't give me the line about the bank not disclosing the source of the credit they are extending because it is irrelevant to the moral question I have posed. If the seller of the property is willing to accept the payment proferred by the bank, you now own a property based on the bank's good credit and are taking advantage of same.)

I'm not sure if you've done any actual research on the history of money and credit but you would be well served to investigate the history of 'bank notes' as it might provide some illumination for you as to why people might be willing to accept a note from the bank but not from you even though we know the banks are 'making' money.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

You won't, because you can't. Troll.

Sadly, I don't think Tower is trolling. Everything from the way he writes to what he's arguing and the links he's referring to suggest to me he's totally genuine.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

Sadly, I don't think Tower is trolling. Everything from the way he writes to what he's arguing and the links he's referring to suggest to me he's totally genuine.

I meant it more along the lines of avoiding responding to questions that obviously shatter his window licking ideas. He just moves on to another pointless point or quotes the post and puts some crap together that doesn't fit at all.

I don't see any arguing on his side. I imagine him more like the homeless preacher spewing vitrol on a downtown streetcorner.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

The real reason I was responding to this thread though, was to confirm anecdotally that Tower is right about this lunacy spreading. I was at Court the other day on a couple of my real estate files and overheard a couple of other lawyers cracking jokes about a guy they had just seen in chambers that morning spouting off crap about being a freeman and not consenting to the Court's jurisdiction and the extremely direct and dismissive reply givwen by the judge or master. First time I've run into this garbage in RL.

The court does not have Jurisdiction. Can they bring forth the contract that allows them to administer the action? Nope... not likely. Did the Freeman give his name? In other words did he contract with the judge. (Yes, crossing the BAR or giving your name contracts you to the judge. Sneaky!) You cross the BAR you step on his ship. It's Admiralty law. A "Security interest" because that's what makes "money" and makes good slaves. It is offensive, fraudulent, disrespectful to fellow man and CRIMINAL. A judge dismissing one means nothing. It's a case closed for a freeman. Your Societies Statues mean nothing to one such as him. And those statues will slowly erode to the fecal decaying abyss that they deservedly belong. More people are standing up to the BS. It is Raining Bliss and freedom and Law Society is not invited.

[ResAlien]

^Thank you for making my point.

[Blaster86]

Just ban him. Please.

[jammies]

Oh what a surprise - no response to my suggestion that Tower actually puts his ideas into practice. Hey Tower - what's the problem? Come show me, and everyone else, how right you are! Opportunity is at the door!

[BlackArcher101]

Wouldn't banning him basically prove he's wrong?

[@theCBE]

Originally Posted by Tower

For something to exist legally it must have a name and;
The Law Societies and Bar Associations of Canada are the ones who create the statutes therefore they are applicable only to those members and to those that consent, and;

Mike F has already said it but I think this needs repeating.

That statement above is 100% completely wrong. Open up any grade 8 social studies text book .. read about the seperation of powers and then come back an tell us that it is still the Law society that creates statutes.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Tower

And this is why Lawyers are not liked... Lawyer - You have no choice but to follow OUR rules. You do not need to give consent. You are a slave.
HA! See you bring up your Legal mumbo jumbo inside that box that the society you belong to has created. You have no choice due to your oath but to follow. You arguments IMO will soon be obsolete, and those not part of the Law Society will be free from it's BULL. (I have better names for it but I won't use them here.)

Making this monetary system obsolete is also a great thing. Perpetual self-creating debt does nothing but create slaves.

LOL wtf?

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Tower

Anytime your up for a brew again feel free to PM me. I won't bring this up if you wont... lol

If that's an open invitation, I might take you up on it. You sound like you have some interesting ideas.

You buy the first round, what do you say?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

If that's an open invitation, I might take you up on it. You sound like you have some interesting ideas.

You buy the first round, what do you say?

If you go, let us all know how he covers the tab

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by fredr123

If you go, let us all know how he covers the tab

Blast! My cover is blown in one post. That's exactly why I wanted him to pick up the first round.