text:
Is More Than Just A Seven
Letter Word
a book by Veronica: of the Chapman
as in
First Edition: September 2009
his book is all about freedom. I think it will surprise
you how much you actually do not know about that
subject. And how very little, in essence, you really
need to know in order to attain it.
I hope that, by the time you have read it all the way
through, your path into the future will be obvious to you.
You should discover that, even at the age of 7 years old,
you had more power than any Government, Judiciary,
Police Force and Military combined. But you did not
realise it. And therefore, throughout your life, you have
thrown it away. But take heart, it is still there. And you
can learn how to use it.
After having read the Chapters on Taking and Money,
you may be wondering why you paid a price for a copy
of this book. The answer is pretty obvious. The Monetary
Belief System is still 'king', however much one would
wish it away. Suffice to say, the majority of that price
was the production, printing and any postage costs. As
the Author, my royalty has been reduced to the barest
minimum, in order to keep down the overall cost.
Consequently, in that respect, it forms a labour of love
on my part.
What is worth more than all the gold in the world is
your appreciation that, having read this book, you have
become empowered in the way you always should have
been - had you been educated, rather than indoctrinated
- during your childhood.
I apologise, up front, for the use of word-stressing in
the text of this book. I'm compelled to do that in order to
attempt to overcome the ingrained indoctrination to
which we have all been subject throughout our lives. And
the lives of our ancestors living or now deceased. I only
have 'the printed word' (in its various forms) at my
Please also note that, if you wish, you may quote any
part of this book under one restriction only: That you
quote exactly as is and within context ... because I
cannot be held responsible if you should misquote me.
One final thing. Please don't worry about the grammar or
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
the style. It's written exactly the way the Author wanted
it written. I know that, because I'm that Author.
Veronica: of the Chapman family,
September 2009, Feltham, UK.
I dedicate this book to everyone in the
Freedom Movement, without whom
(and without whose support) writing it
would not have been possible.
You are heroes. You are heroines.
And you know who you are.
"Reason is the life of the law; nay, the
common law itself is nothing else but
reason. The law which is perfection of
Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice of
England 1552-1634.
"Corruption is not the problem. It's the
acceptance of corruption that's
Patrick Rattigan ND.
"I just say what I say because
everyone is entitled to my opinion"
Saffire: of the Elder family (aged 7).
I write this book for Yana, and
Saffire, and all the little ones like
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
them. And I thank Yana's mother
for the cover design.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Foreword 10
Chapter 1: Taking 13
Chapter 2: Money 16
Chapter 3: Legalese 29
Chapter 4: Religion 35
Chapter 5: Global Elite/Psychopaths 38
Chapter 6: Promises & Contracts 46
Chapter 7: Honour, Dishonour & Noticing 52
Chapter 8: Societies & Statutes 55
Chapter 9: Common Law, The Law-of-the-Land 60
Chapter 10: Notices, Invitations & Summonses 64
Chapter 11: Legal Fiction Person 66
Chapter 12: Solicitors, Lawyers & Notaries 70
Chapter 13: Veronica's Very Cunning 2-Step Plan
for Freedom 73
Chapter 14: The Principles of the Application of
Common Law 76
Chapter 15: Fundamental Established Axioms 78
Chapter 16: Signatures 87
Chapter 17: Courts & Proceedings 88
Chapter 18: Liability & The Ultimate Sanctions 102
Chapter 19: The Law-of-Waters 105
Chapter 20: Names 111
Chapter 21: Orders 114
Chapter 22: Laws, Regulations, Guidelines &
Sovereignty 115
Chapter 23: The Hive Mind 119
Chapter 24: Without Prejudice 121
Chapter 25: Mass Mind Control & Enslavement 123
Epilogue 134
Appendix A: Templates & Usage Disclaimer 137
Appendix B: Freedom of Information interactions
with HM Treasury 151
Appendix C: Magna Carta 1215 182
Appendix D: Notice of Understanding and Intent
and Claim of Right 199
Appendix E: Summary of Freeman Principles 220
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
am not a Solicitor. I am not a Lawyer. I am not an
Accountant. I am not an Economist. I am not, in any
way 'legally-trained', nor am I qualified to pontificate
on 'monetary or economic policy'. It is hoped that, if you
read this book all the way through, you will be very glad
I am none of those things.
So, what are my qualifications? Well, I have some
academic ones (in engineering), but they are not directly
relevant to the fundamental messages contained in
these pages. They do provide me with a background in
'working things out', but that's all.
My fundamental qualification for writing this book, my
primary one, is that I am a Human Being. Blessed with a
living soul. Just like you. And that's the only qualification
I need for writing this book, and the only qualification
you need for reading it. And, I hope, for understanding it.
I believe I have Common Sense. I believe you do, as
well. I believe that's all that's actually necessary. I
believe that, by simply tapping into your Common
Sense, we will end up in complete agreement.
I certainly hope so.
Everything stated in this book is either based on my
own personal experiences, or on the experiences of
people I know and trust. And it's all based on Common
Sense anyway. It really is just the practical application of
Common Sense, as you will see.
So where do we start?
Well, first of all I'd like to quote Mahatma Gandhi when
he said: "There is no path to peace … peace IS the
Is it, therefore, OK if I say: "There is no path to
freedom … freedom IS the path"? I reckon it's OK to say
that. Because it's true.
Whoa! What does that mean? Well it means that to be
free - you have to be free. And nothing else will do.
I have devised a Very Cunning 2-Step Plan to achieve
freedom. I expand on this in more detail, in a Chapter all
of its own. But, fundamentally, the two steps are:
1. You are free because you say you are free. Because
no-one else will say it for you.
2. The second step is to make sure everyone you
encounter recognises Step One.
It sounds easy, but obviously it isn't. In fact even Step
One is extremely hard because it takes a constant effort
to hold the line. This line has to be held 24/7. For
example, most people in the British Isles, will say: "Of
course I'm free! I live in a democracy, don't I? I have
freedom of speech, don't I?"
Well, the straight answers to that are: "No", "No" and:
I'll add one more quotation, from 18th/19th century
philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: "Those most
hopelessly enslaved are those who falsely believe they
are free".
And that's the nub. Or maybe you could say, the rub.
Is one's belief in one's freedom false or true? Is one
really free, or hopelessly enslaved?
There's a pretty simple test. Do you think something…
something that happens (or has happened) to you, is (or
was) unfair? And you can't see how to put it right? It
doesn't matter what it is … but: "Did it happen to you,
was it unfair, and was there very little you could do
about it"? If the answer to that question is: "Yes", then
you are hopelessly enslaved.
Hey! Don't worry! Plenty of that has happened to me!
However, by the time you've read this book, I hope you
will be in the position of knowing 'how to put it right'.
(Not necessarily how you can right wrongs done to you
in the past, but how to prevent wrongs happening to you
& your loved ones in the future).
Because, generally speaking, we all understand the
difference between right and wrong. We are built that
way. It's called Common Sense. We just feel it, more
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
often than not. But, just because we are only feeling it,
doesn't mean that we can, or should, ignore such
Because within them lies the truth.
Listen: I'm anxious to get on with what I plan to say.
And I'm sure you feel the same way. All fired up and
raring to go! So, having laid just a little bit of
groundwork, let's quickly move on to the first Chapter.
How does that sound?
OK, well just a couple of final things before we can do
that, because I just need to say, in order to fully
comprehend the purpose behind this book, the Reader
needs to be familiar with the works of other writers, such
as David Icke, Jordan Maxwell, (the late, great) William
Cooper, Eustace Mullins and G. Edward Griffin etc. If you
are not, then I suggest you make up for it as soon as you
possibly can. Nevertheless it is assumed that you know,
deep down in your soul, that: "Something is wrong with
the set-up" into which you were born.
Writers such as David & Jordan & others explain what
those 'somethings' are in very great detail. And, if you
know what those 'somethings' are, then you'll fully
understand why I'm writing this book. However, if you
don't know what those 'somethings' are, then we will
just have to soldier on as best we can. Regardless. And
simply rely on your 'basic, gut, feelings'. (I think it will all
work out in the end).
Perhaps the very first thing to do is to start at the
beginning (always a good place, I've discovered!). It will
probably be a little bit of a surprise, but the first thing I
do is to analyse the word: "Take" (including its
And the reason for that, as you will see, is that it all
starts from there.
Chapter 1: Taking
uh? Just 'taking' is wrong, isn't it? Taking is
'greedy', isn't it? People are wrong to just take!
Scroungers, tax dodgers … the lot of 'em! I can't
stand people who think it is OK to just take! What right
do they think they have to do that? Fair's fair! And just
taking isn't fair! I worked hard for what I have!
Errr … 'scuse me. Just a moment. Can I interrupt, just
one moment? Please? Pretty please?
What was the first thing you did when you were born?
Most people will say: "I screamed my head off, so my
mother said!"
Well, no way, I'm afraid. Before you could scream you
must have taken a breath. And, what's more, you
continue to take breaths throughout your entire life.
Does the atmosphere ever send you a bill? Such that
you pay it - for all the breaths you take? It would be a
bit of a nuisance if it did that, wouldn't it?
Do you drink water? Where does it come from? Do you
expect to pay back the sky, for all the rainfall you took –
and drank?
Where does the light & heat come from? Do you
expect the Sun to be paid back for all the light and heat
you took from it, throughout your life? Do you expect an
invoice, from the Sun, to land on your doormat one fine
Where do you get your minerals from? Oh! The Earth!
Yes, of course! Does The Earth send out invoices, asking
for payment for all the minerals taken from it (in your
Well, no. People and Companies send invoices, but the
atmosphere, the Sun & the Earth don't bother doing
such an absurd thing.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
We take everything. We have to. There is no
other way. The alternative is death.
And we are not alone in this. Every single life form –
from the lowliest amoeba to the grandest specimen of
Homo Sapiens (i.e. you), does the same thing. That
includes all animals, fish, reptiles, plants … everything
What, in point of fact, do we (life forms) give back?
Waste. Sewage. Pollution. (I can't think of anything else,
on the physical level. With the exception of pollution, we
do, after taking, actually contribute to the Life Cycle of
the planet, in terms of the carbon dioxide we exhale, the
organic waste we excrete, and the waste materials we
leave behind when we die. However the point is that we
have to take, in the first place, in order to live). There
is no dishonour whatsoever in 'taking', provided
you do not take more than your fair share.
The dishonour comes – or at least came – when certain
families (historically) elbowed their way to the front of
the queue, thrusting all others out of their way, and said:
"THIS IS ALL MINE! Everyone else sod off!" That's
Taking just what you need, no more, no less, is fair,
reasonable, right, just and honourable. Because your
only other option is death.
Scroungers, eh? Well scroungers actually ask
permission, generally speaking: "'Ere, mate, gissacupla
quid, will ya?" …. "Cor, fanks, mate! You're a bloody
Now, sit back and imagine something. Imagine a world
in which everyone (that's everyone!) just took. Just took
what they needed, whenever they needed it. Just what
they needed, no more, no less.
No, don't laugh. Try to imagine it. It's really important.
It is what is going to set us free.
Here's a quick example. The Farmer grows wheat. The
Miller just takes the wheat, and grinds it into flour. The
Baker just takes the flour, and bakes it into bread. The
Farmer and the Miller just take the bread and eat it. The
Baker eats his own bread. All three survive.
Now that was a very simplistic example, just to make
the point. Obviously one has to expand that example to
encompass all walks of life, but that can be done.
However, certain 'walks of life' – those that are not in
any way productive, would disappear. They would
become obvious under a 'moneyless' paradigm.
(Basically it would be everyone who you currently
accept, grudgingly, as: "Well, I suppose they are just
doing their job")
The fundamental point is: That example is precisely
what is happening already. The only factor left out of
that example was 'money'. Or should I say 'methods of
So, how would that work without 'money/payments'?
Well it would, I can assure you. Once again, I'm having
to leave the detail until later, because I don't want to
overload your Common Sense at this point.
Just keep reading. This whole book. All will be
All I want to achieve, at this point, is that Common
Sense tells you there is no dishonour, nothing to be
ashamed of, in taking whatever you need, because you
have no alternative. That nature provides for everything
you need, and there is no alternative to nature. And
Common Sense tells you that the Farmer, Miller & Baker
would survive in that example.
So I guess the next stage, in order to flesh out the
situation in which we find ourselves, is to recognise
three very powerful Grand Deceptions, which have
together suppressed many people's ability to listen to
their own Common Sense.
So, let's make a start with … with what? Well, we have
three choices: 'Money', 'Legalese' and 'Religion'.
They are all Grand Deceptions, so let's start with
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Chapter 2: Money
he first Grand Deception is 'money'. It's an
illusion. But, my goodness, a powerful one! This is
probably the hardest part to understand. So I am
going to have to explain as carefully as I can.
Well, what is 'money'? Most people will think of a £10
or £20 note, and say: "That's money of course!"
And the problem is: That's not money, of course. They
are just pieces of paper, with a design printed on them,
and a splash of silver-coloured ink.
Fundamentally people know that, coinage is not
'worth' the 'value' stamped on it i.e. coins cost peanuts
to make. And banknotes the same. Surely no-one really
believes it actually costs £5 to create a fiver? Or £10 to
make a tenner? And so on?
I plead to your Common Sense! I prostrate myself, and
grovel, at the feet of your Common Sense!
So, if 'money' is 'not worth the paper it is printed on',
what, exactly, is it worth?
Perhaps one answer to that can be gained by defining
it. What is the definition of 'money'? Here's Chambers
money: noun (plural in sense 1b and 4 monies or
moneys) 1 a coins or banknotes used as a means
of buying things; b any currency used as legal
tender. 2 wealth in general.
Wrong! Let's see if a Law Dictionary can be of more
help. Here's Black's 8th edition:
money: 1. The medium of exchange authorised
or adopted by a government as part of its
currency; esp. domestic currency <coins and
currency are money> UCC1-201 (b) (24) 2. Assets
that can be easily converted into cash <demand
deposits are money> 3. Capital that is invested or
traded as a commodity <the money market> 4.
Funds; sums of money <investment monies>
Wrong! And, not only that, I love the way (4) defines
money as 'sums of money'. That's known as a Circular
These are wrong because they define 'cash', not
'money'. That's the same thing, is it? Well then, how
come there is always talk about: "... heading for a
cashless society"? And the benefits of it? I've never
heard any mention of: "... heading for a moneyless
society" in the Mainstream Media. As you will see, if you
read on, the 'moneyless society' is the one we need, and
(I believe) we are going to get - for the simple reason
that we can't go on for much longer under the absurd
and preposterous illusion of money.
And far too many people are waking up to that. There
are a number of very serious proposals for working
'moneyless societies', such as the Resource-based
Economy proposed by The Venus Project and Zeitgeist
Movement (Google them for more information).
My definition of 'money' is, I think you will find, a lot
more accurate. Here's me:
money: Conveniently transportable tokens of
Isn't that the same thing, then? Absolutely not! Let's
examine my definition.
Well, first of all, 'conveniently' and 'transportable' are
adjectives. Therefore all they do is to limit the scope of
the subject of the definition. Take 'red' as an example. If
I said: "All cars", then I would mean every single car on
the planet. If I added the adjective 'red' as: "All red
cars", I would not be talking about cars of a different
colour, I would only be referring to the red ones. But I
would still be talking about 'cars'.
So, the adjectives do nothing more than limit the
scope of the subject, which, in the case of 'money', is:
'tokens of Credit'.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Yes, 'cash' is nothing more than tokens. We have
already seen, by Common Sense, that the coins and
banknotes - the cash - is fundamentally worthless. It has
no more value, in reality, than tokens for a Fruit
Machine. Or Green Shield Stamps (if you can remember
those). Perhaps Supermarket Vouchers is a more up-to-
date example?
What is a 'token'? A token is something real,
something substantial in this 5-sense reality, something
that can be touched, held, felt … that stands in place of -
in other words represents - something that cannot
represent itself.
A table does not need a token to represent it. A table
is real, and can represent itself. A chair likewise. And so
The thing that cannot represent itself is 'credit'.
Because 'credit' is nothing more than an idea. A
concept. Imaginary. A belief.
A belief that a Shopkeeper has, such that if he swaps
some goods for a £10 note, then he can use that £10
note at a later date, to make a swap with someone else.
But this mechanism only works because everyone
concerned believes it. (And only because of that)
I say again: Because they believe it. And where are
beliefs kept? Yes, in your head. In your brain. In your
And that's the only place beliefs are kept.
So the idea that 'money' is real … is an illusion. A
Monetary System is nothing more than a Belief System.
That's why, throughout the world, Belief Systems can
be different. There was a time, not so long ago, when
the Germans believed in deutschmarks, and the French
believed in francs, and the British believed in pounds
At the time of writing the British still believe in pounds
sterling, while the French and Germans now believe in
Euros. This is only possible with a Belief System.
The British, French, Germans, Dutch, Italians, etc. all
still know that a table is a table, and a chair is always a
chair. And what to do with them. We don't need to
believe in tables & chairs for that to be the case.
So, what is a banknote, or a coin? Well British
banknotes give the game away, because they actually
contain a printed promise. It goes like this:
THE SUM OF …"… and then followed by the amount
written numerically (known as the 'denomination' of the
note, £5, £10, £20 for example).
(There is obviously not enough space for similar
inscriptions on coinage).
What does this mean? It's a promise. Thus a
banknote is a Promissory Note. A piece of paper
containing a promise. And bearing the signature of
whomsoever is making the promise.
Anyone in their right mind would call it an IOU!
So, the British are passing around IOUs, from the Bank
of England, 24/7!
Do we ever expect the Bank of England to pay up, to
make good, on their promise?
Actually, at least one person I know about, did try. The
Bank of England quickly showed her the door (and called
the Police!). Someone else I know tried the same thing
at Barclay's. Once again she was also shown the door
(which, by the way, was locked and bolted immediately
after she left!)
Well, if you think the Bank of England will make good
on their promise, then feel free to try. I very much doubt
you will succeed where others have failed, for the simple
reason that the Bank of England cannot fulfill on a Belief
The Promissory Notes the British move around 24/7
are nothing more than empty, meaningless, IOUs.
And they call it 'money'. And wars are fought over it.
People die, and are subjected to atrocities for it. People
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
commit suicide over it. In point of fact just about every
'cide' (genocide, patricide, homicide, suicide, etc.) is
committed in the name of empty, meaningless,
IOUs by any other name.
This would all stop on the day that what I've written
herein is recognised as the truth, and Common Sense.
Is it such a large step, by the way, to see how these
empty, meaningless, promises can be converted to
numbers in computer databases, and implants on plastic
Furthermore is it such a large step to imagine that we
could run a world quite well, without the need to sling
empty, meaningless, promises all over the shop?
After all, the Euro notes don't even bother to make the
promise, because the whole thing is so utterly worthless
and superfluous. I'm fairly sure that, if the Bank Of
England's notes said: "I PROMISE TO PAY THE BEARER
ON DEMAND 5 UNICORNS", and so on, people would
start to cotton on. By saying: "'Scuse me, but what the
hell is the good of 5 mythical creatures?" Well, of course,
the Bank of England's current promises are actually
mythical creatures.
People say: "Without money, there would be no
incentive for anyone to do anything". What a terribly
myopic thought!? Try sitting around, doing nothing, for
any period of time. I submit you would be climbing the
walls looking for something to do.
Something constructive to do.
Well, you need to eat, don't you? So, at the very least
you would need to: "Get up off your bum, and go get
some food". And the same for your children, etc. That
may not be overly constructive to the good of the
community in general, but it is an incentive. And it is an
incentive that does not need to be triggered by money.
(It's triggered by hunger)
Just about every example one can think of can be
thought through rationally, in much the same way. It just
needs to be thought about carefully, that's all. It is no
good half-thinking. Only whole-thinking will return the
correct conclusions.
Go back to the example of the Farmer, Miller & Baker.
Why does that example need to include the necessity to
hand around empty, meaningless, IOUs from the Bank of
England, for that example to work?
When all they actually need to do, is to say: "Sod it.
We'll just do it!" I think you'll find the reason is pretty
obvious. The Farmer, Miller & Baker are in a real
situation. Adding a component called 'method of
payments' is only adding beliefs to that reality. This
belief contributes nothing whatsoever to the actions
taken by the Farmer, Miller & Baker. They could farm,
mill & bake without any knowledge … other than
farming, milling & baking. Subtracting the beliefs from
the reality is subtracting zero from the overall equation.
Subtracting zero from either side of an equation leaves
the resulting balance unchanged.
What's the difference between: "I know it works. I can
see it works. I think/believe it works this way", and: "I
know it works. I can see it works"? Answer: "Nothing.
Both say exactly the same thing, in fact". It's just that,
in the former case, the added belief may - or may not -
be correct. But that doesn't matter, because it's only a
belief, anyway … and therefore totally discardable.
Duh! You don't need to barter, baby, you just need to
'do it' (honourably contribute)! Sheesh!
What right does some private banking cartel (the
Bank of England) have to say only its empty,
meaningless, promises are the ones to use? Why are its
empty, meaningless, promises so much better than
some empty, meaningless, promise of yours? Or better
than those real promises the Farmer, Miller and Baker
make to each other?
If the Farmer suddenly ups and says: "No, you can't
have any more wheat", then the Miller can say: "In that
case I can't make any flour, and the Baker can't make
any bread, and therefore you won't have any bread to
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
eat". That would not happen because it would be so
blindingly obvious. Common Sense.
Money is an illusion. Based on empty, meaningless,
promises from the Bank of England in the UK, and the
Federal Reserve (yet another private banking cartel) in
the US.
(If you are reading this somewhere else in the world,
don't worry … it's exactly the same where you are
located. The Grand Deception, the illusion of 'money', is
the same throughout the world). Who says so? Her
Majesty's Treasury say so. In reply to a Freedom of
Information Request I made. (See an Appendix for
I'll be returning to this subject later, when I discuss
Mind Control and Enslavement. Because the Monetary
System is one of the primary mechanisms for Mass Mind
Control and Enslavement.
However, in the meanwhile, here are a few things to
consider in odd moments, as you may read on in this
Think about this.
Light. Where does it come from? It doesn't take much
imagination to know that daylight comes from the Sun.
So, without going into to the deep science of the
situation, we can freely say that: "The Sun is the source
of all our daylight".
Heat. We can say a similar thing for heat that warms
our planet. It comes from the Sun.
Water. That comes from the sky, drops as rain, and
eventually evaporates back into the sky again. In a
cycle. But where did the original water come from? Once
again, no real science is involved in the answer. It has
been there since the planet was formed.
The point of this explanation is: "These things have an
ultimate source … for practical purposes, anyway".
And a little thought says that everything must come
from somewhere. Everything has to have an ultimate
source, for practical purposes.
And so it must be that money has an ultimate source,
does it not?
If so, what is that ultimate source? Have you ever
thought about it?
Does it grow on trees? Does it come from the Sun?
Does it drop like rainfall?
Well, no, it doesn't. Everyone understands that.
So where does it come from, then?
Ask anyone where their money comes from, and they
will generally reply: "I work, to earn it". So you can then
ask: "But who gives it to you?" and they will say: "The
Company I work for, of course!"
Then you can ask: "Where does the Company you
work for get it from, so that it has some to pay over to
you?" and they will say: "Well, they sell goods to
Consumers, or they provide services to Consumers …
and they charge for it. So that's how they get their
And so you can say: "Well, where do these Consumers
get their money from, so as to pay for these goods &
services?" and the answer will come back: "Well, they
work for other Companies … who pay them for the work
they do! Cor! Are you daft, or something?"
So now we are just going round and round, aren't we?
We have still not established the ultimate source of
where money comes from, in the first place.
Probing a little deeper, an answer might be: "My
Company gets it from a Bank, I suppose". So then it is
possible to ask: "Well, where does the Bank get it from,
And then you'll possibly get: "Well, I suppose the
Banks must make it … I don't know!"
So you can then say: "Well, if the Banks make it, then
why do they expect you – if you take out a loan – to pay
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
them back? I mean, if they can just make it anyway?
And why did they need a bailout of it, in late 2008? And
why did Banks go out of business, if they can just make
And you are very likely to end up with the retort:
"Well, I don't know! Ask them!"
To which the obvious rejoinder is: "Well, do you not
think it would help you to know? Because, if you did –
know where it came from, I mean – then maybe – just
maybe – you could go and get some … to help you over
any money problems you might have? Have you never
had any money problems? Most people have. Do you not
think that knowing where money actually comes from, in
the first place, might help you?"
The response will probably be: "I dunno".
And that's the point. Who, precisely, knows where
money actually comes from? In the first place?
Who knows how it gets into circulation?
So let's look around for the possible sources.
My next door neighbour? No … he's in the same
trouble as I am.
My employer? No … we've already been through that.
The Banks? Well, no … at least not most of them …
but there is the Bank of England, and that doesn't go out
of business, did not need a bailout, and its name is
printed on every banknote. So they are a distinct
possibility. Let's keep them in mind.
What about HM Revenue & Customs? No … they want
money, so they can't be the source of it.
The DVLA? No … they also want money, so they can't
be the source.
The Local Councils? No … they also want money.
The Government? Well, yes this is possible. But one of
the Government Agencies is called HM Revenue &
Customs, and they want money. So that's a bit strange,
isn't it? Let's also keep that in mind.
Now there is a Government Agency that never asks for
money. I wonder if there is something in that? The
Agency in question is located in Horse Guards Road,
London. It is called HM Treasury.
Have you ever received a demand from HM Treasury? I
haven't, in my entire life.
So how does HM Treasury operate, without demanding
money with menaces?
That's a question, surely?
And it can be shown that the Bank of England is also a
private Bank, just like RBS, HSBC, Barclay's, etc. So they
should be in the same position, needing a bailout.
But, what the privately-owned Bank of England has, in
its favour – which none of the others have – is the
ability to print money.
A privately-owned Bank, with the ability to print
money. That's an interesting situation to be in, of
But that's only printing it. It still doesn't explain how
these printed notes, and minted coins, actually get into
We know that someone does not stand in
Threadneedle Street, with a bucketful of it, and hand it
out to passers-by. We also know that they don't hire an
aircraft and bail it out, letting it float down to
whomsoever can catch it.
But we also know that we never receive demands from
HM Treasury, the Bank of England, nor the Royal Mint.
And we also know that we do receive demands from
just about everyone else.
So, I think, we have some clues to suggest that money
is created by HM Treasury, printed by the Bank of
England in accordance with instructions from HM
Treasury, and minted by the Royal Mint under similar
instructions from HM Treasury. And that it is released
into circulation via a mechanism we have not been told
about (as yet).
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Does anyone have a better idea?
Because money must come from somewhere, and I
think I have eliminated most of the other possibilities.
So now lets turn to the 'strangeness' of HM Revenue &
Customs. In conjunction with HM Treasury. They are both
'HM's, which stands for 'Her Majesty's', of course.
So, even if HM Treasury is not the ultimate source of
money, some 'HM' must be.
Let's assume it is HM Treasury. (After all, what else is
their job, then?).
So we would have HM Treasury making money, and
HM Revenue & Customs wanting money. So why can't
these two 'HM's just get together … and leave us
all alone?
Well, that's another question, isn't it?
And then we can add that one of the jobs of the US
Treasury, embodied in the Act creating it, was to 'issue
warrants for monies'. Or, to put it another way, to
provide authority for the creation of US currency.
And then, add to that, the UK Currency Act defines the
weights and measures for coins, and also provides for
the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apply an upper limit
as to how much currency can be authorised into
The biggest problem is that HM Treasury will not admit
to any substantial role in respect to the 'creation of
However, when asked point blank, HM Treasury
will not go on the record denying it.
So that's interesting as well, isn't it?
Why would they be so coy?
Listen: I'm sorry to bat on about this, but some
Government Agency must be creating 'money'. Thus, if
'money' is required to pay for the (say) maintenance of
roads, then surely there is nothing to stop the
appropriate agency that creates 'money' from creating
the 'money' to pay for the maintenance of roads. Is
I'm really sorry, but why bother you & I?
It's not a Government Agency creating 'money', you
say? OK, well, that still doesn't alter the essential point:
If 'money' is required, for the maintenance of roads, then
whoever is maintaining the roads should obtain the
'money' from whoever creates 'money'.
For crying out loud, there is still no need at all
to bother you & I. Is there?
It doesn't work like that? OK ... how DOES it work
then? Why do I need to get involved with Road Tax?
Pedestrians & cyclists use to roads all day and every
day. They are not bothered with these things.
How many more ways can I say the same thing? How
many more examples do I need to offer? Did you elect
your Government to look after the roads, or did you elect
it to make absurd and unrealistic demands on you? Did
you elect it to make the 'money', and then ask you for
Honey, they make the 'money'! Why do they want it
back in Road Tax, Sales Tax, Council Tax, Inheritance
Tax or TV Licencing, etc? Unless … unless … gosh-an'-
golly-gee … are YOU the one who makes all the 'money'?
'Coz that means everything in this little book is complete
rubbish! But never mind … listen, darling, if that's the
case: Can I have your address, please … because:
"DAAARLING! Where HAVE you been all my life? Yes, of
course I love you. Yes, of course I mean it! You are tall,
dark, handsome, debonair … you remind me of my
father, and all that. No, the money has nothing to do
with it … don't be silly!"
On the other hand, on the off chance it's not you who
is making all the 'money', then (Oh … poo! I thought I
was on to something there!) we are back to square one,
aren't we? And so, as a final rant in this Chapter, it might
be interesting to consider 'what goes away' when 'the
Belief System, the Illusion of Money, the totally
unnecessary Utter Absurdity of Money, goes away'.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
What does it take with it?
Stealing is the first thing. There is nothing to steal.
Hoarding is another thing. There is no point in hoarding,
any more than there is any point in stealing anything.
'Sell', 'buy', 'value', 'commerce', 'exchange', 'barter',
'interest', 'wages', 'salary', 'debt' no longer have any
meaning. And so on.
The Global Elite (see their own Chapter) are now seen
to be as worthless as they - in point of fact - always
were. Their Swiss Bank Accounts now count for nothing
Goodbye to the Stock Markets. Goodbye to the Banks.
Goodbye to the Loan Sharks. Goodbye to the Debt
Collectors. Goodbye to the Bailiffs, and the Accountants.
And the Economists. "Services no longer required". And
so on.
'Rich' now becomes 'rich in good friends'. 'Rich in
honour'. 'Rich in integrity'. And so on. Just like it always
should have been. Just the way Common Law dictates.
All these imponderables are wrapped up, 'i's dotted,
't's crossed, in the final Chapter Mass Mind Control &
Enslavement. But please don't skip to it. There's a lot
more in between. By the time you have read this book
all the way through, I think you will be in possession of a
complete set of the most probable answers to all these
questions. Answers that fit, what we all know to be true,
like the pieces of a perfect jigsaw puzzle. Including the
mechanism for releasing money into circulation in a
controlled manner, and why everyone concerned would
be so coy about the roles they play.
Chapter 3: Legalese
'm going to discuss the English version of Legalese.
Every nation on the planet will have its own version.
(For reasons which, I hope, will become obvious). The
same discussion and comments will apply. Because
there is no other way.
Legalese is the language of Statutes. It is assumed
that Statutes are 'the Law'. They are not, as you will see
if you keep reading. Statutes are discussed within their
own Chapter.
For now, I simply want to confine the discussion to
Legalese itself. To show that it is an illusion. Another arm
of the Grand Deception.
There is an old Roman Law maxim that states: "Let he
who will be deceived, be deceived".
That is so, so true.
What, exactly, is Legalese? Well, first of all it is a
language. It looks like English (in the British Isles), but it
is no more 'English' than is any Foreign Language.
French, for example. Or German. Or Croatian.
It is written by those who draw up Bills for Parliament
(and Congress). It is assessed by Committees. It is voted
on by Members of Parliament (or Congress). If agreed it
becomes an Act of Parliament (or Congress). It becomes
so-called 'law' when it receives the Royal (or
Presidential) Assent. At that point it becomes a Statute.
A Statute written in Legalese. A Statute written in a
Foreign Language.
Now, you may be forgiven for asking: "How can I be
expected to obey a rule written in a Foreign Language?
How can I even be expected to understand what I am
supposed to obey as an upright, law-abiding, citizen?"
I, personally, would forgive you for asking that. Those
who won't, are Members of your Government, the
Judiciary - in terms of Judges, Clerks, Solicitors, Lawyers,
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Barristers, and Policemen. And the vast majority of your
fellow Countrymen, quite probably including your own
family & friends. And also including the Media.
But I would forgive you, because you would be exactly
right. And so, I think, would any other sane, rational,
honest, honourable and decent Human Being. Really
anyone still capable of using even just a grain of
Common Sense.
Apart from being a Foreign Language (I'll explain why),
it also comprises a number of fictions. As we all know
'fiction' is not the truth. 'Fiction' is not the reality (I'll
explain this, as well)
Legalese is a Foreign Language because it re-defines
or expands the meanings of certain words. English
words. It does this for its own convenience (not yours,
that's for sure!). One good example (I'll give you a better
example in a minute) is the word 'understand'. Legalese
expands this to mean 'stand under' - specifically (as we
will see): "Stand under, i.e. consent to, Legalese". So
what does this mean? It means that if a Policeman, or
anyone in a Court, asks you: "Do you understand?", and
you say: "Yes", then you are agreeing to consent to the
application of Statutes drafted in a Foreign Language.
(Legalese is nothing if not thoroughly incestuous!).
Here's the real dooley: In Legalese the word 'person' is
re-defined by expansion. The word 'person' still means
what you and I would expect it to mean viz: a Human
Being; But in Legalese it is expanded to mean: '... any
grouping of people, any Partnership, any
(I think those who drafted this standard for their own
convenience, were assuming that they could move a
word defining a singular, into a plural … taking their cue
from the fact that some English words are like that.
'Sheep' and 'fish' are obvious examples. However, I'm
only guessing, and why they thought they could get
away with it doesn't matter anyway).
The idea was, of course, to give Corporations,
Companies & Societies the same or similar 'rights &
duties' as a Human Being. An utterly stupid idea, as I
hope you will appreciate, by the time you have read and
fully-comprehended this book.
So, let's use some Common Sense to look into the
sanity of expanding the definition of the word 'person'.
A Human Being has a head within which there is a
brain, within which there is - what we would call - a Mind.
And a Human Being is 'aware', is conscious, and has a
soul. A Human Being also has eyes, and ears, and limbs.
And so on.
A group of people, taken as a group, has none of these
things. The individuals that form the group do (of
course), but not the group - of itself i.e. when taken
as a 'legal entity' in it's own right. It does not
matter how much Legalese would like to grow arms &
legs on a group, it cannot happen. It is physically
A simple example is 'deciding to do something'. A
Human Being can work out what to do (using the brain),
and do it, using its limbs. A Corporation has to firstly, go
through the motions of making a collective decision, and
then get/persuade/task a Human Being (e.g. an
Authorised Company Representative) to actually do
whatever has been decided.
More specifically, signing a document. A Human Being
has limbs with which to grasp a pen, and a brain to
control the necessary hand movements, in order to
make his or her unique 'mark'. A Company has to fall
back on tasking a representative to make a 'mark' … on
behalf of the Company.
When it comes to liability for actions taken, a Human
Being can be fairly and squarely placed in the frame. In
the case of a Company, buck-passing is the order of the
day. Don't expect any Human Being, who is a part of any
Company, to own up to anything!
Consequently, by no stretch, would any sane
individual consider a single Human Being to be
equivalent to a Group.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
And that's where Legalese starts. It starts with insanity
and irrationality … and then steadily gets worse. It layers
fiction (calling a Company as 'person') upon fiction. It
creates what is known as a Legal Fiction Person from
each and every Human Being. It does this in order to be
able to fictionally equate a Human Being to a 'single-
individual-partnership-or-CORPORATION' for 'legal
This is done so that any adjudication in a Court de
facto (what that means is explained later) is One
CORPORATION .vs. Another CORPORATION. Very simply
because it is perfectly obvious that no adjudication is
possible between the reality of a Human being and the
fiction of a CORPORATION.
How can anyone ever adjudicate between a reality &
and an illusion? The reality, the Truth, would always win
against the fiction, the Untruth, hands down!
A Chapter in this book is devoted to Legal Fiction
It is also interesting to note that there is an excellent
video available, called The Corporation. This video not
only explains how and why CORPORATIONs all came
about, but goes further to compare the actions of any
CORPORATION to that of the real Human Being it
purports to impersonate.
The video goes into massive detail in order to explore
this concept. And, for that reason, it is highly
recommended viewing. And what does it conclude? It
concludes that, if a CORPORATION (any
CORPORATION) were a real person, it would be a
And, furthermore, the definitions change from time to
time. That's why Black's Law Dictionary is now in its 8th
Edition (at the time of writing).
Its 8th Edition of pure fantasy and absurdity.
You want some more? I'm reliably informed that if you
look up 'Human Being' the 4th Edition of Black's Law
Dictionary, it says: "See 'monster'". Not so, by the
time we get to the 8th Edition, of course. It's a moving
Of course it is perfectly possible to step back and use
a bit of Common Sense. The very fact that Law
Dictionaries are necessary, gives the biggest hint. In
English we already have dictionaries to define our
language, in terms of normal parlance. The Oxford
English is probably the best known, but there are many
others. They do not define the word 'person' as a
Because Legalese is a Foreign Language it needs its
own dictionary. If it were not a Foreign Language it
would not. Languages always need a dictionary. If we
could always rely on Oxford English then we would,
would we not? What would be the point of Oxford English
Legalese is an illusion. A fictional world created for
the benefit of mind control and enslavement. It is an
English look-alike, and no more than that. Because it
'looks like English', no-one complains.
But we should. We should all complain. We should all
say: "This is bloody ridiculous! How dare you impose
rules to be obeyed when they are written in a Foreign
language? Get outta here!" As you will see later, in the
Chapter discussing Promises & Contracts, the vast
majority of the so-called 'Legal Profession' have not the
slightest clue about all this. Which means that if you
understand the illusion of Legalese, then you can run
rings around them.
I've got an idea! Let's dump Legalese on the Rubbish
Tip of History, and stick to Oxford English, shall we?
Then we'd all know where we stood, wouldn't we?
I have seen many examples of letters from Solicitors,
Lawyers, and so-called 'Legal Scholars', which are a
complete mass of double-think. Under careful and
critical scrutiny just about anything they write can be
shown to be totally contradictory, and thoroughly
irrational. The reason for this is because they live in a
fictional world, and are always attempting to replace
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Common Sense with fiction. They achieve little other
than disappearing up their own hindquarters.
The benefit to you is that you can write plain
commonsense, and they will not understand! They will
not understand because Common Sense does not
compute in their fictional, illusory, world.
Because they do not understand they will resort to
ignoring what you said, and reply to the-question-they-
wanted-you-to-ask. And they will reply in their own way.
(How often do Politicians do that? How about like:
"Always"? It's the same old smoke & mirrors). What this
means is that they have 'not responded in substance' to
the points you made. They could not 'respond in
substance' because that would not compute with their
Since they have 'not responded in substance', they
have dishonoured, and you have not. In Law: "He who
dishonours, loses".
Generally speaking, when it comes down to brass
tacks, we have found that - for all their huffing & puffing
- they never actually go to Court. Primarily (we think)
this is because - at the end of the day - they know, deep
down, that your Common Sense trumps their Legalese.
Hands down.
One of the biggest questions to arise is: "What's the
difference between 'legal' and 'lawful'?" Well here is one
big clue. 'Legal' refers to the illusory world of Legalese.
'Lawful' means truly bound by Law (long established
customs & traditions), in the real, Common Sense, world.
The Law established over centuries, by consent
(Consensus facit legem in Latin – Consent makes Law in
English). There is much more about this later.
"Let he who will be deceived, be deceived". Don't be
Chapter 4: Religion
eligion is the third of the illusory triumvirate.
People wrongly equate 'spiritual' with 'religious'.
Whereas 'religion' is no such thing. Religion
comprises dogma. For example to tell you that you need
to be 'saved'. And how to be saved.
When, in point of fact, you need to be saved from
three things only: 'Money', 'Legalese', and 'Religion'.
The imposition of religious dogma is designed to
suppress your ability to use Common Sense. No? Well it
does. In order to follow a religion - any religion - you
have to be prepared to double-think, to a greater or
lesser degree.
Double-thinking is the antithesis of Common Sense,
and any critical thought processes based on Common
'Religion' is the third arm of the mind control and
enslavement paradigm. Be as religious as you want. But
don't forget that freedom is freedom. Even if you
become free, with the help of later material in this book,
is there any point in then surrendering any of your gains
to any religion?
Once you know what you are, you don't need anyone
else to tell you.
If religion is so empowering, why has no religious
person (to the best of my knowledge) ever written this
book? Or anything like it? Are you suggesting that plain
unvarnished Truths, contained within plain old Common
Sense, aren't worth preaching loud & clear from every
Gosh, no. Religious dogma is far more important, isn't
it? You have all the power necessary to save yourself &
your loved ones.
But no ... don't do that ... let Jesus do it.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Reading Zecharia Sitchin's book The 12th Planet
explains exactly how we all came to be here, and what
'God' is. Sitchin is an expert on the Biblical Old
Testament, is fluent in Hebrew, and can read the original
Hebrew versions of Ancient Texts. He explains how 'God'
occasionally moves into the plural – i.e. 'Gods' – by
referring to 'we' and 'our', etc.
These are possibly transcription mistakes from the
Truth contained in the Ancient Sumerian Tablets. Or they
could very well be deliberate mistakes, left in by the
Ancient Scribes (who were quite probably re-writing
history at sword-point), and left in by design, in order to
give later readers 'a clue that all was not exactly as
transcribed'. One does not know. One cannot know. But
Sitchin has picked them all up, and we all owe him a
debt of gratitude for that.
In the Chapter on Mass Mind Control & Enslavement I
explain the results of being created by these 'Gods' (the
Biblical Nefilim). And how we would have taken their
word for the way to live, and why we would have
emulated them in all respects.
Yes, I know Sitchin has been 'outed' as one of the
Reptilians. (The shape-shifters). In fact the information in
his books, known collectively as The Earth Chronicles,
could surely have only come from that kind of deep
knowledge. The information, the insights and the critical
thinking behind them, are far and away too consistent to
be purely intuitive. His ideas are imparted with
mathematical precision.
Sitchin is undoubtedly (in my mind at least) one of the
few who are on Humanity's side.
According to the Ancient Sumerian Tablets, 'taxation'
was rife in Ancient Sumer. 6,000 years ago.
Jesus (if he existed): "Threw the moneylenders out of
the Temple". According to the Bible he was once asked
about taxation. His reply was: "Render unto Caesar that
which is Caesar's, and to the Lord that which is the
It's a pity none of these people ever used a modicum
of Common Sense, pointing out that 'money' is an
So it's now time to stand up and see how we have all
been deceived for some 300,000 years. And claim our
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Chapter 5: Global Elite/Psychopaths
o we have three major illusions: Money, Legalese
and Religion. All three deliberately designed for
mass mind control and mass enslavement. So who
is running this show?
Well, the best answer anyone has yet come up with is:
The Global Elite. The Banksters. (But they also own
everything else, including all the 'big' Corporations, and
Governments, the media, and legal systems, etc).
Referring back to what was said earlier, details of all of
this have been exposed for at least 20 years by
researching writers such as David Icke, Jordan Maxwell,
William Cooper, and others. Others include Myron Fagan,
Benjamin Friedman, and Jack Bernstein, going back as
far as the 1960s. Even Charlie Chaplin could see
'something was very wrong'.
It is apparent to me that, while there has been much
discussion on just who, exactly, the Global Elite are -
naming names such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers,
Brofmans, Webbs, Windsors, etc. - it seems it has yet to
be explained just, exactly, what the Global Elite are, in
terms of their obvious 'lack of humanity'. And what, and
why, that is.
David Icke has referred to them as: "Having no
empathy". Which is true. They would not have created
these Grand Deceptions if they had been 'nice people to
do business with'.
Now, you'll probably resent knowing this, but you exist
in a prison-without-bars. A prison that has been carefully
constructed, over centuries, by those 'not very nice
people to do business with'.
Unlike a real prison - where you see the bars - you'll
firmly believe you are - basically - free. But,
unfortunately, you are not. As each day goes by, your
freedoms - many of which are essential for a decent and
Global Elite/Psychopaths
reasonable life - are being taken away from you by very
subtle stealth.
And this has been going on for a very long time.
Hopefully, when you have read to the end of this book,
you'll understand the prison, and will be able to see the
bars, and be in the position of breaking out of them,
using the enormous power you possess. Power you do
not realise you actually have.
In his book 1984 George Orwell said: "He who controls
the present, controls the past. He who controls the past,
controls the future".
To understand today, one must understand a certain
amount of history. To understand the possibilities for
future, one must understand today.
George Orwell also said: "Omission is the biggest form
of a lie". (One could, in point of fact, quote Orwell almost
constantly. For the very simple reason that, in the
1940s, he actually gave us an amazing number of clues,
through that book and his other masterpiece, Animal
'The past' means 'history'. How far back in history do
we need to go?
Well, in point of fact you can go back as far as you
wish. For the very simple reason that 'human nature' has
always been with us. And the lessons we must learn
derive from what happens when human nature is up
against a 'less-than-human nature'.
What do I mean by that? I'll simply quote ONE,
verifiable, medical/genetic statistic: "One in every 25
people are born psychopathic". That's a quote from
the studious works of Psychologist Andrew M.
Lobaczewski. See his book Political Ponerology: A
Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political
Purposes (1998).
Since there are 4 x 25s in every hundred, this means 4
people in every hundred, or 4% of the total population
are psychopathic. According to my arithmetic, and
taking the population of the United Kingdom as 60
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
million people, that means there are 2,400,000
psychopaths out there.
Do you think it might be a good idea to know
Does that mean 2.4 million 'axe murderers'? Well no,
not exactly, as you will see, but it does mean that there
is the potential for 2.4 million 'axe murderers'.
Psychopaths-in-society tend to be much more subtle.
(And get a heck of a lot further than axe murderers, as
we will see).
It all comes down to what a psychopath actually is. Put
simply it is a person who has no conscience. No
compassion toward others. No empathy towards others.
Unable to feel guilt, or shame.
How does this occur? It occurs because of the lack of a
gene in such a person's DNA. The gene that creates
'feelings towards others'.
But a psychopath retains 'feelings towards
themselves'. Although they don't feel guilt for any action
they may take, they do feel 'fear'. And they know what
would happen to them if they get caught. So they are
afraid of getting caught. 'Fear of getting caught' is, in
fact, the only thing that actually keeps them in check.
So, if the possibility of 'getting caught' can be
eliminated, then the psycho has free rein. And that,
fundamentally, is what has happened.
How has the possibility of getting caught been
eliminated? Money and blackmail. If you have enough
money, you can do anything. You can buy people off.
You can arrange circumstances that create the
possibilities for blackmail. You can arrange for 'character
assassination' in the media (because you own the
media!). You can arrange for actual assassinations. With
sufficient money behind you, you can do anything.
Back in the 18th century, Amshel Rothschild said: "Give
me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not
who makes the laws". Yes, the thing about these
psychos is they catch on a lot quicker than most of us.
Most people find the idea of a psycho hard to grasp at
Global Elite/Psychopaths
first sight. So it might be an idea to think about it in a
little depth.
A baby is born. The baby looks like all others i.e.
Winston Churchill. The baby learns to crawl, talk a bit,
and to toddle. There is very little to distinguish this small
person from any other.
It is only when this person becomes what we would
call 'a child' that any symptoms might be detectable.
And only then if we knew what we were looking for, and
that is far from easy (in fact may not be possible),
because all children can be naughty.
Picture a school playground. A child falls, or is
knocked, over. Other children rush up, and say: "Are you
all right?" or: "Can I help you up?", and so on.
The psychopathic child sees this, and thinks: "I don't
know why they do that. They aren't hurt. Why should
they care? I'm not hurt. I don't care". But, on the other
hand, not to be seen as the odd one out, the
psychopathic child learns to do the same. Not because
they care, but just because they don't want to be seen
as odd.
In short, a psycho learns 'how to emulate a
conscience' - by observing the reactions of others.
During teenage years, as knowledge accumulates, and
as situations come and go, the psycho could well be
tempted to say (to themselves): "You know, most people
are stupid. They have a problem. They are forever
looking out for others, when they should be looking out
for themselves. Yes, they have a problem. I don't have
that problem, I'm glad to say. I think they are inferior. I
think I was born 'superior'. Perhaps I'm one of that
'master race' they told me about in school. The ones the
Germans believed to exist, and fought WWII over".
And, gradually, it dawns on them: "I can use this to my
advantage! I know how to pretend, I've done that OK so
far. So if I carry on pretending to care, no-one will realise
that I can use my advantage, my superiority".
Consequent to all of this, they will generate - within
themselves - a burning ambition to 'get to the top of the
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
tree, by hook or by crook'. Letting nothing stand in their
way. Before long they will consider it their 'destiny'. And
they will justify this by saying to themselves: "Hey,
taking these people for a ride is good, because they
leave themselves open to it. They actually ASK for it!
They actually deserve it!"
In business, when up for promotion, they will use
every trick in the book - as long as they don't get caught
- to get the job on offer. If other people's lives are ruined
in the process … so what?
And so on. Surely I've said enough to paint the overall
Once in a position of 'power', it is then possible to
promote psychos to staff the hierarchy below. And
conjoin them, by various forms of blackmail, to provide
protection from 'getting caught'. This could be the
simple blackmail of: "You rely on me for your job, never
forget that". (That's very simple, but very powerful,
blackmail … is it not?).
Is it possible that such phrases as: "It's dog eat dog
out there" or: "There's no sentiment in business" and:
"If I didn't do it, someone else would" (and so on) could
come straight out of the mouths of such people? Is it
possible that such people could send thousands to fight,
kill, maim, bomb innocent men, women, children and
babies - in some foreign country - and they, themselves,
still get a good night's sleep? No shame. No guilt. No
responsibility for their actions. 'Justified' by their 'ability
to take the hard decisions'?
Even to be caught endlessly lying, and yet still smile
and carry on regardless? No shame. No guilt. (No
Does anyone see a connection here, between what
I've said and British Prime Ministers? And US Presidents?
And French Presidents? And German Chancellors? And
UN Secretary-Generals? And EU Commissioners? Russian
Presidents? In point of fact the 'leaders' of every nation
on Earth?
Or am I just plain old paranoid?
Global Elite/Psychopaths
Here is a quote from a Psychologist who fully admits to
never actually interviewing Tony B Liar, having just had
the (unpleasant) experience of analysing him via the TV
screen (this quote dates from about 2004, when I
received it in an e-mail): "I have worked with a lot of
psychopaths, and the one thing about them that is
consistent is that whatever they are doing, their eyes
rarely change. There is just a coldness there. You know,
when a healthy person smiles their eyes 'light up' or
conversely 'blaze' with anger. In all the pictures and TV
broadcasts I've seen of Tony B-Liar [sic.], his eyes are
always fixed - even when he's smiling as in the 'pictures
of the God' comment.
When a person starts saying that he consulted God
about starting a war that led to the killing of innocent
people as well as our own young servicemen, it's a sure
sign he is suffering from psychopathy. Unfortunately it's
not considered treatable under the Mental Health Act!
Blair must be locked up in a Special Hospital forthwith.
But some tribunal will probably let him out to kill again!"
Note what was said by the Psychologist. 'Psychopathy'
is the one major mental state for which the rest of
society cannot be protected under the Mental Health
Why did Tony B Liar make it so easy to collect your
DNA at every possible opportunity? It goes back to the
DNA, remember? DNA analysis can detect whether you
are a psycho like Tony, or not.
DNA has nothing whatsoever to do with catching
criminals, and Tony knew there are no terrorists to speak
of - apart from himself and his gang of psychos. Your
DNA is in your hair. Pick a stray hair from someone's
jacket - in a restaurant - and you have something that
can be left at a crime scene for the police to find.
How can that situation possibly work?
It can't.
Now let's summarise. Psychopaths have been around
since the dawn of time. Their 'condition' gives
themselves a driving ambition, to 'get to the top by hook
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
or by crook'. But what's the point of getting to the top?
There is only one point: To dominate. There is no point
in having 'power' over others unless it is wielded, which
provides the fuel for massive ego-massaging.
Quite why one should feel the driving desire to control
others is something I don't, personally, understand. I
don't understand the logic and rationale of their
mindset. I don't see the point of their mindset. I don't
see any ultimate point. I don't see how it can ever have
any ultimate point. But I fully understand that they have
that mindset.
Personally speaking, I think you should do your thing,
and I do my thing, and we just all get along amicably -
without me dominating you, or you dominating me. I can
see that idea stretching into infinity without introducing
rancour - rancour that would eventually generate
revolution and bloodshed.
Consequently the psychopathic mindset is utterly
myopic, in my humble opinion. But that has never
stopped them from being clever. Fiendishly clever, in
point of fact. And that did not stop them from playing a
very, very, long term game. A game that the initiating
psychos never expected to see the results of, but they
thought their descendents would.
This attitude is the source of the 'Divine Right of
Kings'. Which translates as: "We are superior because
we are uninhibited. We can make uninhibited,
dispassionate, decisions with your life and limb".
(Back in olden times of course the King also risked his
own life and limb. But that all goes away as soon as a
woman takes the throne i.e. Queen Elizabeth I, or
Queens Anne, Victoria, Elizabeth II. And nowadays the
Monarch only 'risks their children'. But that's only to
some extent. By pulling strings, the 'risks' are minimised
to almost nothing)
But, remember, it's all in the DNA. The 'compassion
gene' could return, to the bloodline, if marriages are not
very carefully arranged. Now do you understand why
these bloodlines are kept 'pure'? It is to ensure that this
Global Elite/Psychopaths
pesky gene doesn't return so as to interfere with the
'Divine Right of Kings'.
We know what happens if that pesky gene returns. If
someone from a psychopathic family, but in possession
of a 'better nature', makes it to 'the top', then they are
assassinated (JFK). And so is their brother (RFK). And
their son (JFK Jr.). And so that pesky gene is eliminated.
This also happens if a non-psychopathic Pope attains
that position. After 33 days, they are poisoned. Got to
keep that pesky gene under control!
So that's what we are dealing with. Does it all make a
lot more sense now? Does it explain why
demonstrations, letter-writing campaigns, petitions and
so forth - and elections - make not the slightest
difference? Because all of these are appealing to the
'better nature' of creatures that do not possess a 'better
As you will see, if you read on, your only defence is to
know your enemy, and put your foot down. Using the
immense power you possess. Power you do not realise
you have. The power to make decisions based on
Common Sense, and to put those decisions into effect.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Chapter 6: Promises & Contracts
f Human A makes a promise to Human B, is Human C
bound to honour that promise? We know this sort of
thing happens, certainly within a family. Mum
promises next-door neighbour that her son will come
round tomorrow and fix the leaking guttering.
Meanwhile her son has arranged something for himself
for tomorrow.
Get the picture? "Oh … Mum! I promised Steffie I
would take her out tomorrow! Shit! You always do this to
It doesn't work, does it? No … you can't go around
making other people's promises. You can only make your
own promises.
Common Sense.
So, what right does any Government have - to make
promises on your behalf?
Well … none really.
But there are exceptions. And I'll explain an obvious
one by example. (Please do not accuse me of
chauvinism. I write this example in the simplest way, so
as to make the situation clear. You can substitute sexes
as much as you wish. The result, the analogy, is
precisely the same)
A secretary will run an Appointments Book for her
boss. She will know his business inside and out, and will
take calls on his behalf. And, when clients call, she will
make appointments for him, and he will fulfill those
appointments. Because he trusts her, and she trusts
The essence of this equitable situation is that little
word 'trust'.
And, more importantly, this entire arrangement exists
because both the secretary and the boss have
Promises & Contracts
'consented' to it in the first place. He offered her the job,
and she consented to accept it.
'Consent' and 'trust' are essential for a situation where
one can make promises on behalf of someone else.
'Consent' and 'trust' are essential for equitable
Otherwise it is not possible to make promises on
behalf of someone else.
Common Sense?
If you don't trust your Government, then it has no right
to make promises on your behalf.
Common Sense?
If the Government makes treaties with the European
Union, then the Government is making promises with the
European Union.
Not you. You are making no promises. And you cannot
be held responsible and lawfully bound by any promises
the Government may make. Only the Government is
bound by the promises it makes.
Unless you consent to it, no-one has the right to make
promises on your behalf. No-one (unless you consent!)
You really need to understand this. It's just plain
Common Sense.
Don't moan you never got a Referendum. You always
have a Referendum! It's called Lawful Rebellion, as we
will see. (And you can do 90% of it from the comfort of
your armchair).
But we will come to that. Let's keep on track, and put
promises into context.
A Contract is: "A promise the Law will enforce". That's
the basic definition. But you may notice that is singular.
Which refers, therefore to a singular Contract. There are
such things but, for our purposes, they are not worth
dwelling upon.
For our purposes, the Contracts that are important are
those between two Parties - generally you and someone,
or something, else.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Therefore I will explain the Contract as: "A pair of
interdependent mutually exchanged promises the Law
will enforce", being the basic definition to examine.
For a Contract to be enforceable in Law, it must fulfill
certain commonsense criteria. There are four of them,
and they are designed to make sure the promises are
sufficiently explicit, such that neither Party can later
claim: "I wasn't told about that bit!"
These components are:
1. Full Disclosure: Which means that each Party
writes down exactly what their promise comprises, and
all the relevant circumstances, so as to put it into the
context they consider applicable. If one has any sense,
any necessary 'get outs' should be included within the
Full Disclosure.
2. Equal Considerations: A Contractual
Consideration is an 'item of value'. It may be money, or
it may be an item. Both Parties must consider the
exchange to be equal in value.
(As we have already seen, 'money' is an illusion, and is
nothing more than an empty, meaningless IOU.
Consequently most Contracts can be shown to fail in this
respect, if one has the will to do that. This is explained
later. One argument, when receiving a demand for
money is: "What do you want me to pay you with?
Meaningless, empty-promise, worthless Debt Notes? Or
do you want something of value, in which case you need
to ask for it").
Obviously for Considerations to be equal they cannot
change, once agreed. Thus any Contract employing
variable Interest Rates is null & void in Law. Accepting
the validity of variable Considerations, and not standing
up against them, is precisely how so many people
embroil themselves in debt.
And, in any case – as we will see when we re-consider
'money' in the Chapter on Mass Mind Control &
Enslavement, the funds to create 'Interest' forms no part
of our Monetary Belief System. Or, to put this another
way, 'Interest' is nowhere created, and consequently it is
Promises & Contracts
impossible to pay off all loans, and impossible for
everyone to stay out of bankruptcy. Those who stay out
of bankruptcy are doing so purely on the backs of those
who enter bankruptcy – purely because they were simply
the first to grab whatever was available. (Whether they
realise this or not).
Oh! And did I mention the real dooley? A lawful
Contractual Consideration must come entirely from
each Party's own resources. This is where just about
every 'supposed' Contract breaks down. For example, a
loan or mortgage will not have come from whoever
issued it. It will have come from thin air. This can be
shown to be the case by demanding the full accounting,
showing where the 'money' actually came from. The
answer will be: "Nowhere but keystrokes. The bank just
typed a few numbers into one of their computers".
The 'Banking', 'Loaning' and 'Credit' Systems are
totally illegitimate, in reality. They depend entirely for
their legitimacy on Governments saying: "This is OK for
banks to do, but for anyone else it is
And the reasons for this attitude are known, in the
vernacular, as 'kick-backs'. "You didn't give a kick-back?
Oh, then creating 'money' out of thin air is fraud!
Counterfeiting! You did give a kick-back? You gave us
the ability to just print 'money'? Oh, creating 'money'
out of nothing is perfectly legal, then!" That's the way it
works. But 'demanding the full accounting' does tend to
cause just a few little problems with that mechanism.
Simply because the full accounting doesn't, actually,
3. Lawful Terms and Conditions: Which,
fundamentally, means that there should be no mischief
in the proposed agreements.
4. Mutual Intent: Which means 'some manifestation
that each Party intended to Contract'. This could be
hand-written signature 'marks', or can be 'conduct'. In
other words if at least one of the Parties starts to do
what was promised. This is sometimes expressed as
'performance' - or, at least, 'the start of performance'.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
You have, probably without realising it, entered into
many Contracts in your life. And, as we shall see, most
of them are null and void in Law, because (even allowing
for the small print) they fail on at least one of the
components 1, 2, 3 or 4.
The most important thing to realise is that no 'small
print' can override the fundamental aspects a Contract
must fulfill in order to be lawful, and therefore
enforceable. 'Invalid small print' does not actually nullify
a Contract, but its provisions are irrelevant because they
are unenforceable in Law. Therefore any Contract that
relies upon unenforceable small print (for example
variable Interest Rates) is – to all intents and purposes –
null & void. But you have to say so. A Court will not
say it for you.
And this provides the necessary 'get-outs'. Ultimately,
at any rate. However, as we shall see, you have many
more get-outs before resorting to nullifying Contractual
Obligations. Nevertheless it is always a good idea to
keep these points in mind, and not to forget them. For
the simple reason that you will gain confidence by
knowing that - at the end of the day - you can actually
win any-which-way.
Previously I referred to your immense power. Part of
your power is this knowledge. And the fact that those
you deal with (I call them the Organic Robots) have
absolutely no understanding of this at all. They just
operate 'by rote'. And this includes the vast majority of
the so-called 'Legal Profession'. This enables you to run
rings around them.
There are a number of other points. One of the main
ones being that: "Adding something to the Contract
once it has started is not allowed". There are many
instances where this happens. A prime example of this is
'upping the Interest Rate'. No! No! No! That's a breach of
Contract, matey! You can't adjust the Considerations
once they have been agreed! Once agreed, they are
fixed. And it's no good writing them into the Contract in
the first place. If you write unlawful Conditions into a
Promises & Contracts
Contract, then those provisions are not enforceable.
Only the lawful Conditions are enforceable in Law.
But you have to say so. Otherwise they will walk
all over you.
But there are some very subtle ones as well. If, when
you buy something, the Terms & Conditions are inside
the box, then they are null & void. The Contract started
when you handed over the money to purchase the item.
At that point, if the Terms & Conditions were not made
absolutely clear to you (before you handed over the
money), then appraising you of them, in a booklet, inside
the box, is: "Too bloody late, mate!".
This is all absolute Common Sense, if you think about
it. Anything else defines a moving target, a rug that can
be pulled away from under you. Human Beings cannot
interact reasonably, sensibly and peacefully on that sort
of basis, can they? No-one would know where they
stood, would they?
And, that's the point. That's precisely why you never
know where you really stand. Because you don't know
the basics of how Contracts work. You assume you must
do what you are told. And you do. And that results in not
knowing where you stand.
If your Common Sense tells you something is wrong,
then it is telling you the truth. Something is wrong (very
wrong!). Hopefully (as I keep saying) by the time you
have read this book, you will know exactly what to do
about it.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Chapter 7: Honour, Dishonour & Noticing
t all comes down to this. In the Chapter on Taking I
explained that there is no dishonour in doing that in
order to survive in reasonable comfort. Dishonour
comes from just being thoroughly greedy.
On a day-to-day basis there is more than that, if you
decide you want to do something, as most people are
doing all the time.
If you feel that what you want to do affects no-one
else at all, then you just do it. I feel like making a cup of
tea. So I just do it. I don't ask anyone else.
But there are many things that could easily affect
someone else. And, I would guess, we would all think it
reasonable to be a little bit more cautious in those
circumstances. After all, we don't want repercussions, do
So how do you go about that? How do you do
something honourably?
The answer is to give anyone who may be affected
some notice. In other words you send them a Notice.
(You 'Notice' them).
Well, that's OK so far. You can write down what you
plan to do, explaining it in a letter. And send it to
whomsoever you feel may be affected by your plan.
And you tell them, in your letter: "Please let me know
if you object, giving me your reasons. Thank you very
And then, if you receive objections, you negotiate
amicably, to arrive at an arrangement that is acceptable
to all.
Well, that's easy enough, isn't it?
No? It's not that easy? What happens if - as normal -
they ignore you? So you don't receive any objections,
and you just go ahead, and then they object!?
Honour, Dishonour & Noticing
Ahh! Problem! Well, this can be taken care of, with
What you do, within the Notice you send, is to explain
that you are going to assume a reasonable time to
receive objections. Quite often this is 14 days, but it can
be longer or shorter depending on how you feel. You can
choose the period, of course, but it is only honourable to
be reasonable.
You say that, if you don't hear back after the time
period has elapsed, then you have the Right to assume
they don't object.
As a Human Being you do have that Natural,
Inalienable, Right.
If you do not get any response to your Notice, within
the time period you have stated, then you have the right
to assume 'acquiescence'. In other words 'tacit consent'
to your plan.
(It is always a good idea to send your Notice by
Registered Post, although the so-called 'Legal
Profession', and most Officious Bodies, employ a rule
that says: "A letter sent with a First Class stamp affixed
is good enough for service to be assumed". Quite how
they think they can get away with that is totally beyond
me. But then, as I said in the Chapter discussing
Legalese, the 'legal world' is an illusory world, devoid of
any rationality at all).
You can also send a reminder, giving a time period
extension. This would be looked upon more favourably
as more honourable, however (in my experience) a
response is still unlikely, if you didn't get one from the
original Notice.
This is generally because most people don't
understand what 'being honourable' is all about. The
assumption is that, if they need to object, they can do
that if you go ahead.
Wrong! Once you have Noticed them lawfully, they no
longer have any power of objection. Of course, you need
to know that yourself, and to stand on it. You may
receive very intimidating letters from someone's
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Solicitors. You simply need to write the appropriate
The reply should point out that you have acted
honourably, and supplied due Notice. (You would send
them a copy of your original Notice). You point out that
you allowed for objections, and received none in the set
timescale. You then point out that you have obtained, by
these honourable actions on your part: "Permanent
and irrevocable lawful estoppel by acquiescence".
That shuts them up. (Well, it would shut most people
up, wouldn't it? Well, I think it would make anyone blink
quite a few times, and take a few sharp intakes of
breath, at the very least).
Bear in mind a Solicitor will know what 'estoppel'
means. He or she won't know very much, but they will
know that. It is a lawful 'gag'. An injunction if you will.
One that you can create for yourself. It is designed to
say: "Look! Enough is enough! This cannot go on
forever. There has to be a cut-off, and this is it! The to-
ing and fro-ing stops here. The buck stops here. No
more! Cease! Desist! I have acted honourably, and
you/your Client have not. The Law says so. So you can
sod off, and you know you can".
Yes, it shuts them up all right. And. They. Do. Not.
Like. It. Up 'em!
As a sting in the tail, you can Notice the Solicitor that
further correspondence with him or her in the matter will
be charged at £500 (or £500,000 if you like … anything
you like … you set the rate) per letter. They do that, and
so can you. You can do this to anyone. (Debt Collecting
Agencies are good ones to be on the receiving end of
this sort of thing, as we will see later)
It's all just Common Sense; So don't be surprised if
'the line suddenly goes dead'.
Long Live Lawful Rebellion!
Societies & Statutes
Chapter 8: Societies & Statutes
referred to Statutes in the Chapter on Legalese. Now
I come to explain them in more detail. We are told we
live in a society. I stress: "We are told that". And no-
one argues because they assume they know what it
But - just a minute! Hold on there! There are things
called 'societies' that you don't live in. The Law Society,
for example. Do you live in The Law Society? I doubt it.
Really 'live in' should be: "Am an accredited Member of",
because Societies have Memberships, don't they?
Well, yes they do. Societies are actually defined in a
number of ways. Firstly a Name, secondly a Mission
Statement, thirdly a Set of Society Rules, and lastly a
Here's Chambers Online (wrong again!):
society noun (societies) 1 humankind as a
whole, or a part of it such as one nation,
considered as a single community. 2 a division of
humankind with common characteristics, eg of
nationality, race or religion. 3 an organized group
or association, meeting to share a common
interest or activity o I'm a member of the gliding
society. 4 a the rich and fashionable section of the
upper class; b the social scene of this class
section; c as adj o a society wedding. 5 formal
company o He prefers the society of women. 6
ecol a small plant community within a larger
(1) & (2) conflict, logically, with (3), (4), (5) and (6).
That's why it's wrong.
(3) is basically what 'a Society' is, in fact.
The essential point being the Membership aspect.
Societies need to be joined. Members have to apply for
Membership, and be accepted as Members.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Get the idea? When did you apply for Membership of
the Human Species?
No, the Human Species is not 'a Society'. It is
'Mankind', or 'the Human Species' or 'Homo Sapiens' …
make your choice … but 'a Society' it is not!
And don't let them fool you that it is. Even if they
manage to do that, don't forget the other thing about
Societies. You apply for Membership because you feel
the Mission Statement is something you support. And
you want to help.
But - if the Society starts off down a road you don't
agree with - you can always resign!
If the Human Species is 'a Society' … how can you
resign? Death is the only obvious resignation, but I think
that's just a little drastic, myself.
Personally I go for: "'Scuse me! I was never asked
whether or not I wanted to join. I don't, therefore,
consider I have joined … whatever anyone else may
think. I consider I have been thoroughly deceived,
throughout my entire life. I don't need to submit my
resignation, because I was only joined as a Member on
someone else's assumption in the first place. And that
doesn't count, as far as I'm concerned".
Now, a Statute is defined as 'A legislated rule of a
So how can a Statute apply to you, if you are not a
Member of the Society?
Answer: It can't. What is happening here resonates
back with the business of 'someone making promises on
someone else's behalf'.
No can do. No way, Jose!
You might be finding this all a bit tricky, but hold on
tight. An explanation is looming on the horizon. In fact it
is getting closer as you read. It might, just might, make
you stand up, rush to the door, open it, run into the
middle of the road, and shout (at the top of your voice):
Societies & Statutes
This is the missing piece of the jigsaw: The United
Kingdom is a Society. So is the united States of America.
And so are most of (what we call) 'countries' on this
We call them Countries. Because we never knew any
different. However a very long time ago, the Countries,
the Nations, were re-organised into CORPORATIONS, for
the convenience of the Global Elite.
They are listed on Dun & Bradstreet. On said website
you can obtain Credit Reports on them. Everything is
CORPORATONS. The Ministry of Justice is a
CORPORATION, HM Treasury is a CORPORATION. The
Police Force is a CORPORATION. (The UK Police have no
more authority than Securicor. Or Group4).
When the Police make an arrest, it has the authority of
a Citizen's Arrest. And nothing more. A Citizen's Arrest
backed up with 'numbers', 'muscle' and 'technology'.
But a Citizen's Arrest, all the same. We pay them to
protect us, using 'numbers', 'muscle' and 'technology',
to make Citizen's Arrests. That's their job. That's what
they swear to do by their Oaths of Service. That's all one
set of Human Beings could do … to other Human Beings.
If 'all are equal' (under the Law), what else could there
ever be?
Even the British Labour Party is the Trading Name of a
CORPORATION called 'ALASTAIR DARLING, MP' (at the
time of writing).
Also note that there is another CORPORATION, called
'MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT', and yet another called 'HM
Getting the idea?
So, what does this mean? It means that Statutes
passed by a CORPORATION called 'MEMBERS OF
PARLIAMENT' are the 'legislated rules' of the
CORPORATION known as 'THE UNITED KINGDOM
They are the Company Policy of the CORPORATION
known as 'THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION'.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
And, if you don't work for that CORPORATION - if you
are not a Member (i.e. employee) of that CORPORATION,
then the 'legislated rules' don't apply to you.
I'll repeat this, in order to drive it home. Statutes do
not apply to you, unless you are a Member of a
CORPORATION called 'THE UNITED KINGDOM
CORPORATION'. (These legislated rules being created by
the sub-CORPORATION, designed for that purpose, called
Are you a Member of THE UNITED KINGDOM
When did you apply? Was your Membership request
The answer is: Your parents applied when you were
born. Because they Registered your birth. And, in doing
so, a Legal Fiction Person was automatically created for
you as a Member of THE UNITED KINGDOM
CORPORATION. Legal Fiction Persons are described in
their own Chapter.
However, it is very doubtful that your parents realised
what they were actually doing at the time, and thought
they were under an obligation to do what they did. In the
same way that you may very well have done the same
thing in the case of your own children.
No recriminations, therefore.
And no recriminations really necessary - for the simple
reason that, Common Sense must tell you, Full
Disclosure never occurred at the time - otherwise no
Registrations would (I think it can be reasonably
assumed) ever have occurred. No-one in their right
mind, appraised of all the facts, would willingly hand
over their newborn to become an employee of a massive
conglomerate CORPORATION.
Any assumed Contract, between your parents and that
CORPORATION is null & void (in Law), due to lack of Full
Disclosure, lack of Equal Consideration, and lack of
Intent to Contract.
Societies & Statutes
Bingo! You are free, because you say you are
All you have to do is to remember: The Organic Robots
haven't a clue about all this, and they have loads of
'numbers' and loads of 'muscle'. They have brawn, but
no brains.
On the other hand you will tend to be dealing with only
one or two at any given time. Consequently the best
thing to do is to tie them up in knots ... before they get
the chance to reach for the 'muscle'.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Chapter 9: Common Law, The Law-of-the-Land
ow we are cooking on gas! This is where it all
starts and it all ends. What is Common Law? Well
it really doesn't matter what any dictionary says.
However let's have a quick look at what Osborn's
Concise Law Dictionary (10th Edition) says:
"That part of the law of England formulated,
developed and administered by the old common law
courts based originally on the common customs of the
country, and unwritten. It is opposed to equity (the body
of rules administered by the Court of Chancery); to
statute law (the law laid down in Acts of Parliament); to
special law (the law administered in special courts such
as ecclesiastical law and the law merchant); and to the
civil law (the law of Rome). It is "the commonsense of
the community, crystalised and formulated by our
forefathers". It is not local law, nor the result of
That's as good a definition as any. Because, in short,
Common Law 'is'.
It just 'is'.
It is there.
No ducking. No diving. No weaving. No way out.
Applicable to all. From the highest to the most lowly.
That's what the definition says.
But then, who wants a way out? Common Law
(commonsense) says the way to live peacefully is to:
1) Not breach the peace;
2) Cause no-one else any harm;
3) Cause no-one else any loss;
4) Not use mischief in your promises and
Personally speaking, I have no problem whatsoever
with that. In point of fact I fully welcome it as, I submit,
Common Law, The Law-of-the-Land
so would any sane, reasonable, and responsible Human
Common Law is the Law-of-the-Land. It is the Law
that has come about by means of the customs &
traditions of Land-Dwellers.
And, the point is, Parliament has absolutely no say in
Common Law. It is there, and they cannot touch it. In
point of fact, Parliament (and Congress) is actually
bound by it. Just like everyone else. (Not that they
realise that, of course. One of the biggest 'upsets' on the
horizon will come when enough people realise this, and
bring them to book for their gross negligence).
The only 'law' that Parliament can create (since the
Law-of-the-Land has already been created) is the Law-of-
Waters. Hence Statutes are the Law-of-Waters. And
Statutes need your consent, before they can be applied
to you, if you are located on dry land.
In this case you need to become a Member of the
UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, and for Legalese
Fictional purposes actually be prepared to be considered
as 'a ship on the ocean'. There is more detail about this
in the Chapter on the Law-of-Waters, which has its own
Chapter in this book.
Common Law = Common Sense. It has been
developed over centuries, within Case Law, to have - by
now - squeezed just about every drop of justice out of
just about every conceivable, fundamental, situation -
where Human Beings are involved and interact.
Advances in technology are irrelevant. Common Law
rests entirely on 'the Human Condition'. Has one
individual behaved honourably, or not? That sort of
It is based fair and square on the 'customs &
traditions' from the ancient past. Customs & traditions
that were evolved, in a codified manner, so as to create
peaceful co-existence all round.
Just look at the principles, above. What else is
necessary? Answer: Nothing. Stick to those principles,
and nothing else is necessary.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
It has been said: "Look into your heart. Use your
Common Sense to know what is right and what is wrong.
If what you want to do is fair, and just, then you can do
No amount of Common Law deviates from these
Only legislated Statutes aka Company Policy of THE
UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION or THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA CORPORATION (etc.), deviate from these
Any deviation is null and void.
But you have to say so. You have to understand what
is happening, and to firmly, and politely, stand your
ground. The Examples, in the Appendices of this book,
indicate ways of doing that.
I wrote about Notices (there is a Chapter on them).
And how you can 'put someone on Notice about your
intentions'. And how you can create an estoppel. What
you are actually doing is making Common Law.
If you take a Solemn Oath, you are making Common
Law. If you create an Affidavit, you are making Common
Law. Because, in either case, you are stating Your Truth -
as you see it. And you have the right to state Your Truth,
as you see it.
That's why Common Law is so ephemeral. It's
everywhere. Provided you do not deviate from the
principles - provided that you act with honour - you are
making Your Own Common Law!
You are saying: "This is My Custom. This is My
Tradition. And I will stick to these peaceful principles".
Common Sense … yet again!
After all, what is the Law, anyway? How does it come
Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the Law.
The consent of the overwhelming majority, whose one
primary desire is to live their lives in peace. In peaceful
co-existence with everyone else.
Common Law, The Law-of-the-Land
Free to do whatever it is they choose to do, provided
they do not adversely affect anyone else. Free to travel
at will. Free to express opinions. Free to exchange. And
so on. Freedom from imposed fictions & illusions.
Freedom from tyranny. Freedom from the domination of
the many by the few.
And those Common Sense desires were codified in
Common Law, as a protection of it.
And this was done many centuries ago. It formed the
basis of the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, the
French Constitution, and so on. It actually forms the
basis of every Constitution ever written. (Any
Constitution worth its salt, that is). There is an Appendix
dedicated to the Magna Carta 1215, and it is well worth
So the ideas are not new. In point of fact the ideas are
so old, we seem to have forgotten them. It is my sincere
hope that this book serves as an appropriate reminder.
Do you consent to live in peace? I hope you do,
otherwise this book is not for you.
Do you consent to pay for the use of your own
property, once purchased? Your dwelling (Council Tax),
your conveyance (Road Tax), your entertainment (TV
Licence)? Bearing in mind, of course, that none of these
impositions on your freedom actually fund whatever it is
they purport. That, in point of fact, they fund just about
everything else besides. Do you consent to aiding &
abetting War Crimes?
You don't? Well, in that case there is no Law by
Is there?
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Chapter 10: Notices, Invitations & Summonses
group these together because they are all,
essentially, the same thing. They are 'offers to
Contract'. You see, a Summons (for example) is not
something that should make your knees go to jelly. A
Summons is just a Notice that should be read as: "An
invitation to go to a place of business, at a certain time,
and on a certain date, in order to be made an offer for a
The service in question being the one of 'adjudication'.
'Arbitration' if you want to call it that. And you are
perfectly entitled to write back: "No thanks. Your
services are not required".
Whaaaaat!?! When you receive a Summons there will
be accompanying paperwork. You will be offered the
chance to plead guilty or not guilty, to the charge made
against you. Actually, as you will see in the appropriate
Chapter, the charge is not levelled at you - it is levelled
at your Legal Fiction Person.
Nevertheless, by pleading guilty or not guilty, you are
accepting the service of arbitration that is on offer, and
in doing so you are admitting responsibility for your
Legal Fiction Person.
However if, instead of pleading, you make it quite
clear that you are not the Legal Fiction Person, but are
actually a living, breathing, Human Being with a soul,
and live in the real world of Common Law, then you are
perfectly entitled to write back : "No thanks. Your
services are not required. Good day", as I explained,
You do this in the form of a Notice. Their Summons to
you was a Notice. You respond with a Notice of your
own. And, in the same way they would have put a time-
limit of the Summons (it may very well be the Court
Date), then you can put a time-limit, for the Court's
response, on your Notice back to them.
Notices, Invitations & Summonses
You would head your Notice something like: NOTICE
You would then write a letter explaining that you are a
Human Being, and would they please clarify the
situation, because the Summons was addressed to a
Legal Fiction Person, which you cannot accept as such,
but you wish to know how you, as a Human Being, have
dishonoured any lawful obligation on your part.
Remember: The charge against your Legal Fiction
Person will be based in the fictional and illusory world of
Legalese & Statutes. You need them to show which
Common Law Principle your Human Self has breached.
They will not be able to do this. The Court will probably
ignore your Notice, which will place itself (they,
themselves) in dishonour. It may be necessary to
actually go to the Court, at the date & time of the
Hearing, and to point out their own dishonour.
Fundamentally by claiming Common Law jurisdiction.
All is explained in the Chapter on Courts & Proceedings.
It is likely to be a very short Hearing. Probably about a
minute or so, before you walk out with an enormous
smile on your face. If you do it right. And that means
understanding everything in this book.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Chapter 11: Legal Fiction Person
he Legal Fiction Person is mentioned frequently in
this book. It is one of the basic irrationalities of
Legalese. But Legalese exists. Anything to do with
the Courts or the Police, in relation to Statutes, is
bound up in Legalese.
On a practical note it is no good just telling a Solicitor,
or a Magistrate or a Judge, or a Policeman that they live
in a fictional world of illusion.
They do. But their world is so ingrained they will not
believe you. They even find it impossible to recognise
their own double-think. Of course, one of the most
important things about double-think is that you can only
do it as long as you can't recognise you are doing it. (In
that sense it is self-fulfilling, aka self-supporting)
What you need to do is to know the score, and know
how to duck.
One of the primary components of knowing the score
is to know when something that drops on your doormat
is addressing you, or your Legal Fiction Person. If it is
addressed to you, Your Human Self, then you'll need to
deal with it, in order to avoid dishonour.
If it is addressed to your Legal Fiction Person, then
there are other ways of dealing. Primarily to place a
Universe between Your Human Self and your Legal
Fiction Person. (Sometimes called: "Tin-plating your own
So, there are three things you need to know:
1. What is a Legal Fiction Person, anyway?
2. How do you recognise your Legal Fiction Person
being addressed?
3. How do you tin-plate the backside of Your Human
Legal Fiction Person
First of all, a Legal Fiction Person is often referred to as
a STRAWMAN. The reason for this is that the letter
addressed to the STRAWMAN is, actually, clutching at a
straw. If you respond as people normally do - because
they do not recognise the situation - then the grasp at
the straw will succeed.
If you respond as explained in this book, the clutch at
the straw will come away empty-handed.
This is possibly one of the hardest concepts to grasp.
The use of the word 'person', in Legalese, is very subtle
and very clever. Simply because most Human Beings will
consider themselves to be 'a person'. And, of course, in
Oxford English, they are.
The best analogy I have heard is that the word 'person'
comes, originally, from the word 'persona'. And you need
to consider what a 'persona' actually is.
It is your outward manifestation presented to the 5-
sense world. It is what you present, as yourself, to the
world at any given time. It is very much tied to your
personality. (After all, the word 'person' is the stem of
the word 'personality').
It can be thought of as a mask. Or an overcoat. One or
more you can wear, when circumstances permit.
In wet weather your overcoat would need to be a
In cold weather your overcoat would need to be one
that keeps you warm, rather than just rainproof.
Do you get the idea?
In the circle of your family & friends your persona
would generally be friendly and kindly.
In the presence of an enemy your persona would be
Your persona depends on the circumstances you are
in, at any given time. However you, Your Self, are
exactly the same flesh & blood & soul irrespective of the
circumstances. You are always the same sovereign
Human Being, with a living soul.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
You are not your persona. You are you. You take on a
persona (wear a persona) according to circumstances.
You could also think of it as wearing different masks. (By
the way, you are not your Name, either. See the
Chapter on Names).
The clutch at the straw is attempting to make You,
Your Self, The Human Being, wear the Legal Fictional
Person 'overcoat' or 'mask'.
It is necessary to get you to wear this overcoat or
mask because that means you accept your role or
employment as a Member of THE UNITED KINGDOM
CORPORATION, to whom the Company Policy applies. (To
whom the Statutes apply).
As a free Human Being you can choose to wear this
mask, or not. If you understand what is really happening,
you would almost certainly not choose to do so. If you
don't wear the Legal Fiction Person mask then you are
not a Member of THE UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION,
and its rules don't apply to you. Its Company Policy has
no force of law upon you. You can just walk away.
That's why you are perfectly entitled to say: "No
thanks. Your services are not required. Good day", as I
explained in the Chapter on Notices, Invitations &
So how do you recognise a letter addressed to your
Legal Fiction Person?
Well, first of all, there is such a thing as a Legal Fiction
Status. Or 'Title', such as 'Mr.', 'Mrs.', 'Miss', 'Ms.', and
so on. These are fictional titles! They have no meaning
at all! They might be considered to be a politeness, but -
once you recognise what they actually do - they are a
long, long, way from being polite.
They are a long way from being polite, because they
create a Legal Fiction Person. A STRAWMAN. And when
present as the first line of the address on a Demand or
Summons, etc., they represent an attempt to
fraudulently shake you down. To extract money from
you, with menaces. And that's not what I call 'polite'.
Legal Fiction Person
This is the most common way of addressing a Legal
Fiction Person. It is generally accompanied by writing all
or a part of your name in CAPITALS.
Actually a 'Name' is a Legal Fiction as well. In order to
be free, you do not have a Name. Instead 'you respond
to what you are commonly called'. What 'you are
commonly called' can be written by placing colon (":")
after your Given Names (all Given Names hyphenated
together), and then writing your Family Name.
This book has been written by Veronica: Chapman (for
short) … as commonly called … or Veronica: of the
Chapman family (for long).
In practice, since this Lawful Rebellion is all so new to
the world, and the Organic Robots have yet to come to
terms with it, I do accept "Veronica Chapman" as
addressing My Human Self.
In other words I do not stamp my foot at the missing
colon. However I flatly reject 'Ms.' or 'Miss' prepended.
That's Legal Fiction Statusville.
However perhaps I should point out that this system of
writing 'what you are commonly called' - has no 'legal
basis'. It is just a convention that has been adopted by
those in Lawful Rebellion. Can we do that? Yes … of
course we can! Why the hell not? The fact that it has no
'legal basis' is good, because it separates us from the
illusory world of Legalese.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Chapter 12: Solicitors, Lawyers & Notaries
hat is the first duty of your Legal
Representative? To you, the Client? Gosh, no!
Wrong! The first duty of a Legal Representative
is to the Court. Then to the public. And then to you, the
So, if the Court barks, your Legal Representative
What is your relationship to the Court if you are legally
You are being re-presented to the Court
(represented in Court) as an 'imbecilic child'. It doesn't
matter what your actual age is, in years. As far as the
Court is concerned you are a 'ward of the Court'. You are
considered a 'child', and your Legal Representative is
the 'adult' who is looking after you.
And you are expected to pay for the privilege of being
viewed in this way.
Actually, it does all make sense. In the illusory world of
Legalese. You are - to all intents and purposes - a non-
comprehending creature (a child in essence), and you do
need an 'adult' looking after you. An adult who
understands Legalese, and therefore what is going on.
So, here is yet another reason for, firstly, representing
Your Self, and secondly standing on Common Law - thus
avoiding any contact with Legalese, and the 'legal'
world. And remaining within the real world of Common
Very few, if any, Solicitors and/or Lawyers are
prepared to defend you on Common Law principles. They
will tell you it is: "Baseless". That it has: "No legal
Of course it is perfectly true that it: "Has no legal
standing". Absolutely!
Solicitors, Lawyers & Notaries
But the point is that: "It has LAWFUL standing",
and that always trumps 'legal standing', so it is a zillion
miles from 'baseless'.
The Court system does not like this. It hates what it
calls Litigants-in-Person, because that upsets its apple
cart. They. Do. Not. Like. It. Up 'em!
How is this derived? Well consider the sections from
the Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) legal encyclopedia,
volume 7, section 4, in Figures 1 through 4.
To what or whom is an attorney's first duty? See
Figure 1.
What is the legal relationship between an attorney and
his/her client? See Figure 2.
Figure 1: The relationship between Legal
Representative & Client
Figure 2: The relationship between You & the Court.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Figure 3: A Ward of the Court.
Figure 4: A Litigant-in-Person.
What is a ward of the court? See Figure 3.
Do you need to challenge jurisdiction? Better see Figure
4, particularly the part that says: "... because if pleaded
by an attorney ...". It means you accept the
jurisdiction of the Court.
Veronica's Very Cunning 2-Step Plan for
Chapter 13: Veronica's Very Cunning 2-Step Plan
for Freedom
already mentioned this in the Foreword, but I need to
expand upon it. These steps are nothing more than
Common Sense. And that is the same as Common
Law. And most nations on this planet operate under
Common Law as a fundamental basis, particularly those
that - historically - were spawned from the British Isles
(e.g. the united States of America and Commonwealth
countries, left over from the days of the British Empire).
Step 1: You are free because you say you are free.
Because no-one else will. You have to think free 24/7,
be free 24/7 and act free 24/7.
If you don't do that, then you are faking it, and playing
with fire, and are likely to get your fingers burned.
Step 2: You have to ensure everyone else recognises
it, and treats you accordingly. This is the tricky bit. You
have to be prepared to lead by example. You have to
learn what freedom is - which means taking the full
responsibility for your words and deeds, such that you
peacefully co-exist with all other lifeforms as far as
possible. You have to think - seriously - about what that
You have to learn that breaching the peace is a serious
offence against all Common Sense, and (therefore)
Common Law. That causing harm or loss to another is
also against Common Sense and Common Law. That
employing mischief in your daily business is likewise
against Common Sense and Common Law. Anything that
deliberately provokes or causes rancour is contrary to
Common Sense and Common Law - and these, therefore,
are not only basic crimes, but the only crimes.
Those are the basics and, once you understand them,
everything else falls naturally into place.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
In point of fact Common Sense is worldwide ...
stemming from humanity itself. The exceptions are
strongly religious States who suppress Common Sense
with irrational dogma. It is hard to understand how those
poor souls can ever be free, but one must, I suppose,
never give up hope for them.
WWIII has been raging since the end of WWII. We were
led to believe that WWIII would be the ultimate Nuclear
War. Since we have been deceived in all other areas of
our lives, it is no surprise to find that we were deceived
in that respect as well. WWIII is an Information War. A
war for the control of your Mind. And the applied Mind
Control has been tremendously successful in that
respect, to the point where it has become ingrained.
The Freedom Movement is the antithesis of Mind
Control. The Freedom Movement says: "Step out of
being a Mind-Controlled Organic Robot, and start
thinking for yourself. Look into your heart. Listen to it. All
the answers are there". And that's all the Freedom
Movement says. The rest is just left to your Common
However this does not mean to say you have to take
everything on board all at the same time. There is plenty
of room for edging your way into Lawful Rebellion. For
example, you do not have to abandon your National
Insurance Number until you can make it on your own. It
would be stupid to do that. There is nothing to stop you
using it less and less, until - one day - you can say: "I
don't need that any more".
You can claim the Rights via a Notice of
Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right, and I
have included mine in an Appendix. This does not mean I
have to immediately execute the Rights I claimed. I can
leave them in abeyance for as long as I like. That's
entirely my own choice. Just because one may possess a
bicycle, doesn't mean one can't go to work in one's car.
(Especially if it is raining).
You might find it more effective to simply introduce
these ideas to as many friends as possible (rather than
anything else), by starting a local group of like-minded
Veronica's Very Cunning 2-Step Plan for
individuals. Then you may very well find that you can
arrange things in a way that is equitable to all. Apart
from spreading the word, this also helps to keep the
whole group more self-sufficient, removing reliance on
the corrupt State. In this way you'd have to get all your
ideas straight. There's nothing like explaining an idea for
straightening it out in your own mind.
All that is necessary is to hold on to the 2-Steps as
your ultimate goals. But you can implement them bit by
bit. Never take on any more than you can chew at any
one time. Do not try to run before you can walk. And you
must never let yourself become intimidated by
anyone or anything. If you know your Rights (your heart
will tell you what they are), you must stand your
ground. It does not matter what they say. They are
wrong. You must always remain reasonably polite, but
firm, and be prepared to 'say it like it is'. All that is really
important is to understand the techniques of showing
them they are wrong. You'll find those methodologies in
the Example Templates, included in an Appendix. This
may be difficult for those with partners who are not fully
behind you. In such cases it is probably better not to
start what cannot be finished.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Chapter 14: The Principles of the Application of
Common Law
t is imperative that you understand them. They are
really not hard, because they are based entirely on
the Common Sense of peaceful and equitable co-
Under Common Law crimes are, of course, possible.
These will have the following components:
1. A description of the Crime, being the act that was
criminal (e.g. murder, fraud, etc)
2. A party who was injured - suffered harm, or loss, or
was deceived by mischief. This must be a Human Being.
3. Someone who makes this claim. This must be a
Human Being. Because only a Human being has a Mind
with which to devise a claim. It cannot be 'THE COURT',
or 'THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE', etc., because
these are not Human Beings, and have no Mind with
which to devise the claim.
In summary, therefore, a crime comprises the ACT
COMMITTED, the INJURED PARTY, and the CLAIMANT.
In any circumstance, therefore, someone who is being
accused of anything at all, can reasonably ask: "What is
the CRIME, who makes the CLAIM, and who is the
And these questions will be unanswerable if no
Common Law transgression had occurred.
Perhaps it is also essential to point out that a CRIME
itself has two components, being the act itself, and that
the action was deliberate. This takes into account
genuinely accidental damage, which could not have
been reasonably foreseen. In other words, for a crime to
be proven, it has to be proved that the transgressor was
Guilty of Mind ('mens rea', in Law)
Contracts stem from Common Law. Contracts between
two Human Beings. And this is the crux of the 'Freeman
The Principles of the Application of Common
business'. And this is why Legalese attempts the
subterfuge of defining Partnerships as being equivalent
to Human Beings via the Legal Fiction Person construct.
Because, for a Contract to be lawfully-binding
(enforceable), it must comprise the four components
described in the Chapter on Promises & Contracts.
The only positive way to avoid entering into a lawfully-
binding Contract is to use the Intent component, by
stating, up front: "I do not consent" (in front of
witnesses). Although a better way, which requires no
witnesses, is to state it in a letter.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Chapter 15: Fundamental Established Axioms
hese are as simplified as I can make them, based
on the work of Robert-Arthur: Menard, Mary-
Elizabeth: Croft and (to some extent Winston
Shrout and Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst). A good 80% of it is
their work, tweaked a bit by re-writing, and removing the
unnecessary 'God' bits - thereby reducing it to absolute
1) 'Lawful' is what it is all about. 'Lawful' .vs.
'unlawful'. Never get trapped into discussing
'legal'/'illegal'. For example, if you receive back a
response, which does not address the substance of your
letter, then invariably it will be attempting to inform you
of some 'statutory obligation'. Some 'legal obligation'
you are assumed to have. (The Respondent will be
acting by rote, of course. Because that is the only world
inhabited by Organic Robots). You have no statutory or
legal obligations, unless you consent. Therefore it is
possible to respond along the following lines:
"If your counsel has been advising you on the basis of
the fictional world of Legalese and Statutes, then I
suggest that you should consider sacking him or her for
the perpetration of a fraud. For the simple reason that
they are being grossly negligent by ignoring the real
world of Common Law, as you will discover quite shortly,
should you continue to pursue this matter based in his
or her advice.
"I hereby give you Notice that further correspondence
in this matter will be charged at £500 per letter from
me. If your counsel advises you that I cannot do that,
then that would support my contention in the previous
"(Ask him if he does it? And ask him what gives him
the right to do it. The answer is: Common Law. Then get
him or her to re-advise you accordingly. To advise you,
for example, that you need to respond in substance, in
order to avoid dishonour. And make sure he or she
Fundamental Established Axioms
advises you that there is such a thing as a Counterclaim.
For harassment. And that I'm not afraid to use it)"
… is the sort of thing. The Solicitor or Lawyer would
then respond to the Client: "Well, I suppose, they may
have a point. It might, I suppose, be an idea to humour
them? Just in case? I have heard a bit about Common
Law, but I'm not terribly au fait with that side of things".
Send them a copy of this book(?)
2) In order to empower a representative, you must
have the power yourself. You cannot give to anyone
something you, yourself do not possess. You cannot give
them any more than you, yourself, possess.
Consequently you can look at anything any
representative does, and say: "I must be entitled to do
that myself, without - necessarily - empowering
someone else to do it for me".
A good example of this is Peace Officers. If you can
empower your representatives (your Government) to
create a Peace Force (they would call it a Police Force),
then you must have the power to create a Peace Force
of your own. After all, where does a People's
Government's power come from - if not from the People?
3) In a democracy, 'a majority' does not depend on
'large numbers'. A majority can be as low as one. And
that one must, of itself, (therefore) carry sufficient
empowerment to put any motion into practice. (The US
Supreme Court has 9 Members. A 5 - 4 majority carries
any ruling. That's 'democracy')
4) Consequent to Axiom 3, above, no Government has
more power than you do, yourself. The powers are
equal. The only difference is that your power is
Inalienable - it can't be taken away from you - whereas a
Government can be replaced by some other set of role
players. Consequently you are 'supreme'.
5) 'Requesting permission' is the act of a child.
'Licencing' is 'begging for permission' and 'submitting to
someone else's will'. Adults do not beg permission for
something they are lawfully entitled to do, and prepared
to take full responsibility for so doing. Anything for which
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
a licence can be granted must, by definition, be
fundamentally lawful (otherwise it would be incapable of
being licenced), and there is, therefore, absolutely no
need for an adult to 'ask such permission'. The act of
'obtaining a licence' is the act of throwing away a
fundamental Right, and substituting a (revocable)
privilege instead.
6) 'Registration' of anything transfers superior
ownership to the entity accepting the registration. Once
an item has been registered, you are no longer the
OWNER (even though you will still be paying for the
item), but instead you become the KEEPER. This includes
cars, houses, children (who become 'wards of the state'
by virtue of a birth registration), etc. ('regis ...' =
handing ownership to The Crown ... which, by the way, is
the British Crown in Temple Bar, and not Elizabeth II).
Not convinced? Perhaps you can think of it this way:
What is the benefit of registering anything?
Oh! It makes it 'official'! But what, precisely, does that
mean? Does registering:
1. Alter the size of anything?
2. Alter the shape of anything?
3. Alter the colour of anything?
4. Alter the value of anything?
No? Well … what does 'registration' do then? What
does 'making it official' do? For you, I mean. For you, the
'registrant'? Not sure? Well, it must do something,
because it is - apparently - so important. Surely there is
only one possible answer. 'Registering' transfers
Ownership. Away from you, and to whoever accepts the
registration. What else could it possibly do?
I repeat: "What else could it possibly do?" (Please
don't say: "I don't know", because you know as much as
anyone else).
What are your benefits from having 'registered
something'? The only one I can think of is 'freedom from
undue & unnecessary harassment'. But that's hardly a
benefit, surely? In the case of cars, for example, the
Fundamental Established Axioms
'benefit of registering your car is that you get regular
demands for the payment of Road Tax - because you are
the Keeper (check your V5, it calls you the Keeper), and
no longer the Owner'.
But it is still up to you to pay for everything, including
the MOT and all servicing costs. This is a 'benefit'? If this
is considered a 'benefit', then it sounds to me like
someone is using the wrong dictionary.
What is the benefit of registering a child? So that it can
be pumped full of toxic vaccinations while it cannot in
any way defend itself? At the time when it must trust
you most? (Check the ingredients of vaccines, they will
make your hair stand on end. Vaccinations do not work.
They are nothing more than toxic).
Registration so your child can be 'treated' by a General
Practitioner who is blindly following the rules laid down
by the British Medical Association to create nothing more
than 'consensus medicine'? Where each one does what
all the others do - rightly or wrongly - such that none of
them can be picked out and sued for harmful practices?
Meanwhile there are Holistic Practitioners who will offer
actual cures (without side effects, and as opposed to just
'treatments'). If any of this is news to you, check out the
WebSite of the Nurses Movement for Responsibility in
Medicine (www.nmrm.org) for more information.
And then, of course, there is the 'benefit' of
indoctrination from the age of 5 years. Sorry, I meant
'education'. Not indoctrination? Well, how much of the
contents of this book did you learn at school? Did you
learn about the Grand Deceptions of Money, Legalese &
Religion at school? Or did they just train you to be
nothing more than a compliant workhorse, as they did
After finishing (let's say) 'schooling', your child will go
out to work, trailing his or her National Insurance
Number all over the place. This allows your child to be
taxed to the hilt. Which is all a complete fraud as the
Chapters on Money and Mass Mind Control and
Enslavement fully explain.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Registration of cars and children have benefits?
Registration of your car means the Government owns
your car, and you are the Keeper. And you have all the
expenses. Registration of your child means the
Government owns your child, and you are the Guardian.
And you have all the expenses. (But yes, you still get all
the love … unless they decide to take your child away
from you … which they can, and do, sometimes on the
slightest pretext). Registration of your house means the
Government owns your house, and you are the Occupier.
And you have all the expenses. The Government can
take back your house if you don't leave it to a next of
kin. The Government doesn't care. It will get it one day.
In the meantime you fund all the upkeep.
7) When parts of the Magna Carta were 'transferred'
into Statutes what was actually happening was that
fundamental Rights were being transferred into
revocable privileges. Thus they were being watered
down. Diffused. Being rendered powerless. However the
Magna Carta Statute did not revoke the Magna Carta
Peace Treaty, signed by John with the Royal Seal in
1215. A Statute cannot do that. Thus whatever parts
were left out of the Magna Carta Statute (notably Article
61, creating the right & duty of Lawful Rebellion), and
whatever parts of the Magna Carta Statute have been
repealed, the entire original Magna Carta Peace Treaty
1215 stands in perpetuity as an irrevocable foundation
of the Common Law.
8) In all cases you are always being offered a
service - which includes 'benefits' - in the form of
privileges. You are always fully entitled to waive such
services, and of course you will also be waiving the
attendant benefits, as you so choose. Your choice is -
ultimately - to either assert your (inalienable) Rights, or
accept (revocable) privileges.
9) Law can give rise to a fiction, but a fiction cannot
give rise to Law. Consequently a Legal Fiction called THE
GOVERNMENT has no power to make Law. It is, in point
of fact, bound by Law (like everyone else, and
Fundamental Established Axioms
including all other Legal Fictions). PARLIAMENT is
another Legal Fiction entity. Statutes created by
Parliament are not, therefore, the Law. They are
'legislated rules for a Society' and only applicable to the
Members of that Society. Join a different Society, and
you would be bound by a different set of rules. (If this
were not the case it would be impossible to become, for
example, a Freemason and be bound by the rules of
Freemasonry). Statutes are nothing more than the
Company Policy of THE UNITED KINGDOM
CORPORATION, or THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, etc. (See 'Society', below)
10) Only a sovereign flesh and blood Human Being,
with a living soul, has a Mind. Only something with a
Mind is capable of devising a Claim. Legal Fictions are
soulless, and do not possess a distinct Mind. They
cannot, therefore, in Law, make a Claim.
11) Consequent to the foregoing, and since the
Judiciary in a Court de facto derives all its power from
colour-of-law/Statutes, then no Court de facto has any
power over you as a sovereign Human Being, in fact
(although, of course, they don't bother to tell you!). A
Court de jure is the only kind of court to which you are
subject under Common Law, and there are few of those
left (unless you insist that the Court operates de jure, by
demanding a Trial by Jury. But they will attempt to resist
that with every fibre in their 'corporate', soulless,
'bodies'). Courts de jure only tend to exist as the Higher
Courts, where (for example) murder trials take place.
Nevertheless the Magna Carta gives everyone the Right
to Trial By Jury – or: " ... by the law-of-the-Land ..." which
is Common Law, of course.
12) You, and your fellow Countrymen, constitute the
entire and total 'wealth' of your country. The resources
may be considered as assets, but without you & your
fellow Countrymen they are worthless. A field must be
ploughed, and seeded, before potatoes will grow. Once
grown they must be dug up, bagged, and transported
before they can do the worthwhile job of sustaining life.
Without the efforts of you, and your Countrymen,
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
nothing can happen, and your Country itself is a
worthless lump of soil.
13) A Society is, in essence, nothing more than a
grouping of like-minded souls, since it is defined as a
number of people joined by mutual consent to
deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. A
Society makes its own rules, and its Members are duty-
bound to follow them. Different Societies can exist,
having their own unique set of rules. One way of
'choking' the action of a Court de facto is to claim
Membership of a Society that only exists in Common Law
jurisdiction. The World Freeman Society (Google it) has
been set up precisely for this purpose.
14) Contractual Obligation. For any Contract to be
lawful it must comprise the following:
A) Full Disclosure by both Parties. Neither Party can
later claim 'you should have known' if it was not
specifically declared at the time of making the Contract.
B) Equal Considerations offered by both Parties, this
being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of
money, or an item of value, and must come from a
Party's own resources. Both Parties agree that their
Consideration is worth (to them) the other Party's
Consideration. The Considerations, once agreed, must
be fixed – otherwise they cannot remain 'equal'.
C) Lawful Terms & Conditions for the Contract, to
which both Parties agree. These should rest entirely on
Common Law.
D) Manifestations of Intent by both Parties, such as
'wet' (handwritten) signatures, or some conduct or
performance which shows 'Intent to Contract'.
Even though businesses and officials act as though
there is a lawful contract in place, 99 times out of 100
these rules have not been followed. (Maybe it is 999
times out of 1,000 - or even more!). Standing on these
four rules, requesting Proofs, is the simplest way of
stalemating just about every action that may be taken
against you. (See Axiom 16, below)
Fundamental Established Axioms
15. Agreement to Pay. Consequent to Axiom 14,
above, all 'payment demands', that could result in court
actions against you, can be stopped by 'conditionally
agreeing to pay the sum demanded', subject to Proofs
that the four rules were followed in the first place. (Make
sure you send this letter by registered post, heading it
Notice of Conditional Agreement and including
'Without Prejudice' in a suitable place). In almost all
cases no Proofs are possible (because the rules were
never followed lawfully).
However, by 'agreeing to pay' you have removed all
Controversy. Thus a court action, which is only there to
adjudicate on Controversy, cannot take place. If you
receive a Summons, you can write back (registered!)
with a copy of your Conditional Agreement to Pay,
subject to the Proofs being presented. The Court should
consider that any further action is 'frivolous', i.e. a
complete waste of its time, since there is no Controversy
on which it can adjudicate. (The Court may even
consider whoever applied to be in contempt). (See
Axiom 16, below)
16. "I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money. I took it
and spent it". No, you don't owe a damn thing! When
taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was
yours in the first place. You created the 'money' when
you signed the Loan or Credit Application. By doing so,
you gave them a Negotiable Instrument called 'the
money'. They cashed this in(*), and then used that to
loan you back your own money. You don't owe a damn
thing! They owe you - an apology at the very least - for
applying this confidence trick on you - and for chasing
you for something you already gave them!
(* Actually they just could have walked away with your
cash. But they didn't, because they are greedy, greedy,
greedy, greedy. They knew they could get you to pay
everything back, and also to pay them Interest on top of
that. Thus they had already been paid in full once,
when they cashed in on your money, they took a risk by
offering it back to you, and reckoned on being paid
twice or even more, via the Interest. Are you just
beginning to feel slightly less sympathetic? If not, I don't
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
know what else to say, except maybe to Google Money
as Debt, the superb animation by Paul Gringnon, which
explains the entire process step by step, and how it all
came about, historically).
17. 'Responsibility' .vs. 'Authority'. You can delegate
Authority, but you can only share Responsibility. In
other words, if you task (delegate) someone to do
something, you still retain the responsibility for getting it
done, and for anything that may happen as a result. If,
for example, a Police Officer carries out any order, given
by a superior, then that officer is personally responsible
for what may occur as a result, and all those up the
chain of command are considered accomplices, in
(That's what the Nuremberg Trials were all about).
Therefore it is important that, if you delegate
Authority, you delegate to the right individual or group
of individuals. You delegate to an individual who will
accomplish the task without come-backs. And who you
choose is your choice, and always remains your
18. A Solicitor or Lawyer has his or her first duty to
the Court & the public, not to the Client. In this
situation, in Court, they are considered to be an 'adult',
and the Client is considered to be 'a ward of the Court'. A
ward of the Court is considered to be a 'non-
comprehending child'. With good reason, if you think
about it. Actually the Client's status is, in essence, that
of an 'imbecilic child'. And, furthermore, because the
first duty is to the Court, and therefore its jurisdiction,
the 'imbecilic child' has immediately tacitly consented to
Statute Law jurisdiction in the Legalese world of illusion.
(Unless you get this totally straight with the Solicitor or
Lawyer at the outset. However you will go a long way
before finding a compliant one).
Chapter 16: Signatures
o not sign anything unless you intend to Contract.
This sounds obvious but it is not obvious. Not
signing anything includes letters of rebuttal.
The reason is simple. In this day and age
counterfeiting your Signature is perfectly possible. And it
happens. And has happened.
Obviously the counterfeiting mechanism will not be
perfect, but a Human's Signature Mark varies over time.
It is one thing to say, in Court: "That signature is a
forgery", but it is another thing to prove it, unless you
are prepared to pay the fees of a Handwriting Expert.
It may be that you can show, by means of other
correspondence, that you never had any intention to
Contract. A Court may, or may not, accept this
reasoning. The best thing to do is to not let anyone get a
specimen of your Signature.
There are a number of possible tricks. You could get a
friend to sign the bottom of a document. This would be a
sure way of proving a forgery and consequent perjury.
Another way suggested is to affix a stamp, and sign
over the top of it, thereby making it very hard to extract
that section of your actual Signature.
Another possibility is to print a complicated graphic as
a Signature Box, and make your mark inside it.
Another possibility is to use a Rubber Stamp with
some miscellaneous pattern on it.
Finally it is possible to simply not sign it.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Chapter 17: Courts & Proceedings
efore going any further it is necessary to explain
the Courts. There are two kinds, known as a 'Court
de jure' and a 'Court de facto'. 'De jure' means 'of
Justice', thus a Court de jure is a Court of Justice. 'De
facto' means 'of fact'. It is. It just 'is' (established). But
that's it. It is a private concern providing an arbitration
service. (Supposedly independent, but with the overall
desire - as do all private concerns - to simply make a
A Court of Justice will be operating under Common Law
(i.e. will have Common Law jurisdiction). Trials will take
place. In front of a Jury, whose verdict is sacrosanct. The
Judge is not allowed to sway the verdict of a Jury. If he or
she tries, then you would need to intercede. The Jury
may return a verdict of: "Not guilty" if they consider they
would have done the same thing in your shoes at the
time, irrespective of what 'the Law' might demand. The
Jury would need to be told this by you. These days, it is
unlikely that the Judge will explain this to the Jury (it is
all part of the Grand Deception, designed to suppress
justice in the form of Jury Trials). A Judge will generally
explain the law (as he or she sees it!) to the Jury, and
not point out that the true job of the Jury is actually to
make the Law, in the specific circumstances of the
case in hand. Courts de jure are very rare these days.
Only the Highest Courts function 'de jure' and, as I said,
they are rarely directed properly.
Generally speaking you will receive Summonses for
Courts de facto. You will get very little 'justice' in a Court
de facto. Its entire grounding is based on the illusion of
money. Hence the possibilities for corruption are in-built
and endless. What is a Court de facto? Nothing more
than a private Company, publicly trading. You will be
able to obtain a Credit Report on it, via Dun &
Courts & Proceedings
Back in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries these Courts
evolved as private businesses, offering the service of
supposed-impartial adjudication. For a fee. The idea was
to reduce controversies settled at sword-point. It was,
however, due to some very strange adjudications
(presumably based on backhanders … always the
possibility when 'fees' are involved, of course!) that
sparked off the ultimate confrontation, in 1215, at
Runnymede. There comes a point (does there not?)
where 'enough is enough'. I believe we are, yet again, at
such a point in the 21st century.
In a Court de facto there will be three (generally)
'adjudicators' sitting as a 'panel', or 'bench'. They will
either call themselves Magistrates or Judges (Judges in
the Higher Courts).
A Court de facto does not have Common Law
jurisdiction. It is only allowed to adjudicate on the basis
of Statutes (which are actually Maritime Law). It is,
therefore, an Admiralty Court, in fact. In such a Court
there will be a Hearing, not a Trial.
If, after having had correspondence with the Organic
Robots, they still persist in Court action, you have a
number of options. The Court will almost certainly be a
Court de facto. You will be able to tell by looking at what
you have been accused of breaching. If it is a Speeding
or Parking offence, then that will come from a Statute,
and not from Common Law.
If you harmed another Human Being, or caused them a
loss, or breached the peace, or are accused of
defrauding them, then the charge will probably be a
Common Law charge, and the best thing you could do
would be to fight it normally (plead guilty or not guilty,
and place your case in front of a Jury).
Anything else, including when accused of defrauding
(say) the State, or any of its Agencies, would be a charge
under Statute, and you can fight it by means of the
Example Templates given in the Appendices. And -
where necessary - ultimately claiming Common Law
jurisdiction (as explained below).
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
The steps to take are firstly to rebut the Summons.
This is discussed in the Chapter on Notices, Invitations &
Summonses - the methodology being to initially send
your own Notice back to the Court. They are unlikely to
respond in substance, which then places the Court
themselves in dishonour. And this is something you can
point out since, in Law: "He who dishonours, loses".
If it looks like they have ignored your Notice, then you
will need to fight.
The next step is then to send the Court copies of all
correspondence, pointing out that you have offered
Conditional Agreement, and thus you see no
Controversy. You also demand that all your
correspondence should be placed into the Magistrate's
or Judge's evidence, if the Hearing actually goes ahead.
You may get back a reply saying: "Case withdrawn".
This will happen only if whoever you are dealing with has
a grain of sense, and does not have a brain the size of a
Consequently you will not get that reply if they are all
being a stupid as each other. (Organic Robots can be like
that, especially in these Common Purpose days).
So it may, ultimately, be necessary to actually attend
the Hearing. Primarily to ensure that, if the Hearing goes
ahead, and your Common Law claim fails, then your
correspondence is read out.
You cannot afford to trust anyone other than yourself.
However, it still may not get to that. If you arrive a
half-hour before the time stated, then there will be an
Usher or Clerk outside the Court.
Explaining that you are only present in order to make
a Special Appearance, in order to establish
jurisdiction, because you will not be crossing the Bar,
into their ship(*), and will be: "Claiming Common
Law jurisdiction and will not be accepting any
offers of services, and will be waiving all the
benefits" is likely to send said person into a tizzy.
Especially if you draw attention to the correspondence
that you would use as your evidence.
Courts & Proceedings
(* It's an Admiralty Court!).
You are likely to be told that all of this: "Is baseless",
or: "Has no legal basis or standing". The response is
that: "I absolutely agree that it is legally baseless,
however it has ABSOLUTE LAWFUL standing" and is not,
therefore, in any way 'LAWFULLY baseless'. And that is
the important aspect. And the only important
If told the Magistrates & the Court have 'statutory
obligation' of any kind, the response is: "It may very well
be the case that your Company has some statutory
obligation as a part of its business practices. However,
as a Sovereign Human Being, I am under no obligation
whatsoever to accept any services any Company may
have on offer, and that includes the Adjudication Service
provided by your Company".
Obviously: "What do you mean, we are not a
Company!", is countered with: "Oh yes you are. A
private Company actively trading. Do you not even know
who, or what, you actually work for?"
You must always remain reasonably polite, but firm,
not be intimidated by anyone, or anything, and be
prepared to 'say it like it is'. (You may have to insist.
They. Don't. Like. It. Up 'em!)
The likelihood of this going any further is very small.
One likely possibility is that, after consultation with 'a
Superior', it has been decided to adjourn the Hearing.
(Note: This is before you have stepped into the
Courtroom). You could then ask for Travel Expenses, if
that's the case.
You are likely to get a letter, within a day or so, saying
the case has been withdrawn (they won't tell you why).
If you don't, then you may have to go through the
whole rigmarole again, on the Adjournment Date. If the
amount on the case is not large, then they have a large
incentive to just give up on you, as in: "What the hell?
We can't win every single one! And this one isn't going
to be very profitable".
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Yes, there is a 'wearing down' factor that is on your
Finally, however, you may actually end up in Court. In
the actual Hearing itself. When you hear your name, you
approach the outer reaches of the Court and say: "I am
here making a SPECIAL APPEARANCE in order to
ESTABLISH JURISDICTION. I claim my Inalienable Human
Right to Common Law jurisdiction, and DO NOT
CONSENT TO CONTRACT for any SERVICES you may
have on OFFER, and I WAIVE ALL THE BENEFITS".
Do not say anything else. If any question is put to you,
repeat the exact same mantra.
If you are told that you will be in Contempt of Court if
you repeat that mantra once more, then ask: "Would
that be CIVIL CONTEMPT, or CRIMINAL CONTEMPT?"
Then do not say any more, except to repeat that
second mantra if any question is put to you.
If they respond: "Civil", (the most likely) then ask:
"Where is the Contract? I have made no Contract with
you. I specifically stated that I refused all your
Contractual Offers".
They might then change it to: "Criminal", in which
case the response is: "What is the CRIME, who makes
the CLAIM, and who is the INJURED PARTY?"
They might just have a final go: "The Court (or Crown
Prosecution Service, or Ministry of Justice, or whatever)
makes the Claim", to which the response is: "You know
that only a Human Being can devise a Claim".
At this point the Court has completely run out of
possibilities, because there is no Injured Party, anyway.
If, on the other hand, the proceedings still continue,
make sure your correspondence is read into evidence.
If you eventually lose, then it was a total Kangaroo
Court, and they were 'totally out to get you, by hook or
by crook'. Whatever you would have done would have
had the same result. In this case you would need to
appeal via a Judicial Review or present a Case Stated, in
order to get the Kangaroo Decision quashed. The very
Courts & Proceedings
last thing to do is to give up. A Higher Court would
almost certainly quash it on a technicality.
A Freedom of Information Request was made to a
Magistrates Court in the High Peaks area. The question
was posed: "Are you a Court de jure, or a Court de
facto?" The answer received was: "We do not
understand the question".
So, in essence we have the fact that the Courts don't
even know what they are, and live in the Legalese world
of illusion.
Based on experience, and what has been said above,
one possibility might be a conversation with the Clerk or
Usher outside the Courtroom (please do not dismiss the
likelihood of this, it is more than likely and - anyway -
what is there to lose?):
"Excuse me, is this a Court de jure or a Court de
"I beg your pardon?"
"I asked if this was a Court de jure or a Court de
"I'm, sorry, I don't know what you mean"
"A Court of Justice, or a Court of Adjudication"
"Well, errr ... I suppose a Court of Justice"
"So will there be a Jury, then?"
"A Jury? No ... there won't be a Jury"
"How can it be a Court of Justice, then?"
"Errr ... well I suppose it must the other kind you
"A Court de facto? With Hearings instead of Trials?"
"Oh! Yes ... there will be a Hearing!"
"So it's a Court de facto, then?"
"Yes, that's the case"
"Well why did you tell me it was a Court of Justice,
then? Oh, well, never mind, in that case I refuse its offer
of the service of arbitration, and I waive all the benefits"
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
"I beg your pardon?"
"I don't consent to any Arbitration Service. I remain in
Common Law jurisdiction. I'm only subject to Courts de
jure. Like we all are if we realise it"
"What do you mean ... you are only subject to Courts
de jure?"
"What I said. So would you be so kind as to pay my
expenses for coming, since I'm here under false
pretences, £10 will suffice, and I'll be on my way"
"On your ... what do you mean 'false pretences'?"
"Well, what Common Law have I broken?"
"I don't understand ... I'll have to speak with my
Superior ..."
"Yes, that's a good idea. Maybe he knows what kind of
a court it is. I have to say that I find it a little alarming
that you sit there - doing what you do - and you didn't
even know what kind of court it was. I certainly hope
your Superior knows ..."
(Comes back)
"We don't need your consent to this Hearing ..."
"I beg your pardon ... did I hear you say you don't
need my consent?"
"Yes, we don't need your consent"
"How can that be?"
"Well, I don't really know ... that's what I've been
told ..."
"Then please be so kind as to go back to whoever told
you that and point out we are all equal under the Law-of-
the-Land, and if you don't need my consent, then I don't
need you to provide any Arbitration Service"
(Goes away to re-confer ... comes back)
"There seems to be a little problem. Your Hearing has
been adjourned for a month"
"Now I beg your pardon!"
"They've adjourned it for a month"
Courts & Proceedings
"To give themselves time to turn this into a Court de
jure? They can do that in just one month?"
"I don't know about that"
"Well, with all due respect, would you please be so
kind as to find out about that? After all, I'm here, the
court is here, you are here, your Superior is here, why
do we need an adjournment?"
"I'll go and find out"
"Yes, thank you"
(Goes away to re-confer ... yet again ... comes back)
You could very easily be looking at: "Case withdrawn".
There is nothing to stop you having this conversation
well before the date of the Hearing. Just go down to the
Court and ask the same questions, adjusting what you
say accordingly.
Solicitors, Lawyers and Notaries live entirely in the
world of illusory Legalese, and almost every sentence
they write can, under careful scrutiny, be shown that
they are double-thinking, and attempting to compute
fiction with fact, totally unsuccessfully. An example I
heard of was: "When you were born your parents gave
you a name. They registered your birth, and you are,
therefore, Mr. Blah Blah".
First of all the parents do not register the birth. The
Government Agency, known as The Registrar of Birth &
Deaths, registers the birth. The parents merely provide
the requisite information. The parents merely inform. So
strike that one out.
Secondly the Solicitor admits, in the first sentence,
that the subject was 'given' a Name, by the parents.
That indicates the Flesh & Blood, and the Name, are
obviously two totally different things that became
attached, following the birth. (There is more about this in
the Chapter on Names). So here the Solicitor is using
Common Sense, without realising it, and desperately
trying to draw the fictional conclusion in the second
sentence. He is thus completely contradicting himself.
Strike two out.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Furthermore, whenever asked to give or confirm your
Name and Date of Birth you are expressing hearsay in
Court. You only have your parent's and Birth Certificate's
word for those two things. You only 'know' these things
by hearsay. And hearsay evidence is not allowed in a
So, in essence we have the fact that Judges, Solicitors,
Lawyers and Notaries, etc., do not know what they
doing, and what they are talking about.
And we have a force of Policymen who do not
comprehend the immense difference between Common
Law (lawful) and Company Policy (legal).
Is it really any wonder there is so much trouble all
Hot off the press, August 2009.
At the time of publication it seems the word has gone
round to say there are some people who - when faced
with a Court Hearing - claim Common Law jurisdiction,
and will not enter the Court proper.
A number of incidents have given rise to this
assumption. For example, Defendants who remain in the
Public Gallery, saying: "I am here to make a Special
Appearance, in order to establish jurisdiction. I claim
Common Law jurisdiction and do not accept your offers
of adjudication services. And I waive all the benefits" …
are told: "You must come forward, and stand here, and
identify yourself correctly".
Why would this be? Why does one need to stand in a
'designated place' and 'identify themselves correctly'?
The answers are, of course, that the 'designated place'
is on board their 'ship'. And 'correct identification' means
'accepting responsibility as the Legal Fiction Person, by
virtue of admitting to the Legal Fiction Name on their
It can't really mean anything else.
If one chooses not to obey these instructions, it
appears that the Courts have been instructed to proceed
anyway, in absentia of the Legal Fiction Person being
Courts & Proceedings
present. After a short retirement (usually) the
Magistrates and the Clerk return and say: "Liable person
not present".
This is really good, isn't it? So much for 'justice', then!
Before the Hearing starts, the 'person' is already
condemned as 'liable'!
However this is a bit of a double-whammy - back on
the Clerk of the Court. Because, if one is sitting in the
Public Gallery, then one is certainly 'present in the
room'. Not present on the 'ship', of course, but present
in the room to hear what has been said.
Consequently it would be possible to respond: "In that
case, since I'm present to hear it, you have declared
that I, the Human Being, am not liable - any more than
any of you are liable. Thus, if anything untoward should
happen to me, for example any Common Law trespass
upon me, or my property, I can hold you all personally
responsible, can't I? You can sit in your fictional ship, but
I can hear you. The truth is that no liable person will
board your fictional ship, and will not accept your
fictional adjudication. Which is precisely what I have
already said by claiming Common Law jurisdiction. You
have no jurisdiction over me as a Human Being, and you
might as well admit it".
At the time of writing, we await their response to that.
To date no-one, who has been placed in that position,
has responded in that manner. This is due, in total, to
them not thinking about it on the spur of the moment.
However, it is nothing more than Common Sense.
After all, they are up against a serious problem, which
is that it is impossible adjudicate between Fictions
(Persons/Corporations) and Reality (Humans). It is only
possible to adjudicate between Fictions OR between
Humans. (Of course, in the former case, the adjudication
is: "Is this fiction more fictional than that fiction?").
One reaction we have seen is to 'call the police'. The
rebuttal to this is: "If you need to involve the police,
then you've lost the argument, haven't you? You are, in
effect, saying that 'might is right'. Is that not so? What
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
other reason could you possibly have? I'm not causing
any violence nor breaching any peace. The fact is you
are simply reaching for 'muscle', when the honest thing
would be to admit that you've lost the argument. You
are acting thoroughly dishonourably and disreputably,
and that is demonstrated by your own actions".
Hot off the press, September 2009.
While, on the one hand, the content of this book is
true, the 'powers that be' do not give up without a fight.
In the front line are the Organic Robots who simply
'operate by the book'. So here are some examples of
how to stop Kangaroo Courts.
Letters written to Organic Robots, based on the
Templates included in the Appendix, are 'outside the
realm of their Operation Manuals'. Therefore they simply
do not know what to do with your letters. So they ignore
them. In fact you'll discover, as you try Lawful Rebellion,
you will either be ignored, or responded to by repetition
of your so-called 'Statutory obligations'.
The point is here that by operating on the Freeman
Principles, as described in this book, you will have built
up all the evidence you actually need … IN LAW.
The trouble is that, when (eventually) 'invited to their
place of business in order to be made the offer of their
adjudication services' (i.e. Summonsed), you will be
railroaded into submission - if you do not know how to
guard against this happening.
Most Summonses will be to Hearings (Note: Not Trials)
that will take place in a Magistrate's Court. The
Magistrates are not trained in either 'legal' or 'lawful'.
The Clerk of the Court will have extensive 'LEGAL
training', and is often referred to as "The Magistrate's
Legal Advisor". However he or she will most probably
have long forgotten any 'LAWFUL training' (if s/he ever
had any) - in the desperate struggle to 'slap down as
many miscreants as possible' via the Conveyor Belt of
the Magistrates Court. So it would be possible to ask:
Courts & Proceedings
"Yes, I can see you have a Legal Advisor, but who is your
LAWFUL Advisor?"
A real example is that, of 178 Summonses issued for
one day, only 3 people turned up for their Hearing. And
this is what 'they' expect. And 'they' expect to deal with
the 175 (who were hoping that it would 'all go away if
they didn't turn up') by simply rubber-stamping the
claims made by the Plaintiffs (e.g. the Council, for
Council Tax).
(There is an argument that, if the mechanisms were
fair and above board, and everyone knew their Rights,
then more Defendants would turn up to challenge the
claims made against them. This is one of the reasons
why 'they' cannot afford for you to know your Rights.
Because you would destroy the Conveyor Belt).
So, what can you do to break the Conveyor Belt? Well,
the answer to that is to know how it operates, and to
throw spanners into the works, and uncover sufficient
grounds for an Appeal. There will be plenty of material to
choose from because, fundamentally, the Conveyor Belt
only works by cutting corners. So don't allow these
corners to be cut, and/or note whenever they are.
Here are some (real, I assure you) examples (as
witnessed by me, personally):
1. They will insist that you 'identify yourself correctly'.
This will take the form of you accepting your Legal
Fiction Name, Date of Birth, and your Address.
Even though you may state that you are: "XXX: of the
YYY family, as commonly called", they will normally
insist that they will refer to you by your Legal Fiction
Name. They will claim this is a 'courtesy' but, of
course, it immediately places you under their
jurisdiction if not constantly challenged. The way
around this is to ask: "How would you wish to be
addressed?" They will say: "You call me 'Your
Worship'". So you can say: "If that is your wish, then I
will address you as 'Your Worship', as a common
courtesy to you. Now, I expect you to reciprocate by
addressing me the way I wish, which is by calling me
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
XXX … and not 'Mr. YYY' … since I have already told
you I consider the latter to be discourteous".
Oh boy … are they in trouble now … because you have
brought them back to the bedrock of Common Law -
addressing you as a Human Being! And, not only that,
with all this argy-bargy going on, they could easily
forget to insist on confirmation of your Date of Birth
and Address!
When asked for your Date of Birth, you can say: "Is
hearsay allowed then?" They will say: "No". You can
then say: "I am only aware of my Date of Birth
because I was told by my parents, so consequently the
answer to that question is hearsay from me. You
would need to ask my parents, specifically my mother,
to confirm my Date of Birth".
They will be spitting blood.
But note … they will still continue. However you now
have grounds for an Appeal, because they continued
without properly identifying who they were proceeding
2. Another major stumbling block, for them, is to insist
that you take an Oath. This is generally a waste of
time because they won't let you say very much.
They will be very careful to choose your Oath in
accordance with your 'religion'. (One thing to try …
which has not been tried … is to say: "My religion is
very personal to me, and it is my business, not yours".
This would tend to give them a problem).
However, the 'biggie' is that - whatever Oath you take
… you will need to swear to: "… tell the truth, the
WHOLE truth … etc".
You can argue: "I cannot swear to tell the WHOLE
truth, because I do not know everything there is to
know. There is a Bible over there. If I knew the WHOLE
truth my name would be in it". (This has been done. It
Courts & Proceedings
They will overcome this by agreeing that 'the WHOLE'
truth is only that which concerns the matter at hand.
However this kind of filibustering makes them
annoyed, and therefore they make mistakes.
And, anyway, they will stop you from saying very
much because - as soon as you open your mouth to
defend yourself - they cannot let that happen! The
objective is to 'process you via the Conveyor Belt' …
not to let you defend yourself.
So you need to point this out, either in the Court, or
via an Appeal (if they still take no notice): "You have
insisted that I swear an Oath to tell the truth, and then
you stop me, running rough-shod over me, when ever
I try to do that in order to provide my defence. Not
allowing me the FULL opportunity to defend myself, as
I see fit, is grounds for an Appeal - irrespective of any
decision you may come to".
3. They may refuse to let you ask questions (cross-
examine) the claims made against you. I have seen
this happen. Uh-uh! Grounds for Appeal! It is your
Right, in Law, to cross-examine all claims made
against you.
All in all you will certainly end up with grounds for an
Appeal - on the basis that you were not allowed the
chance to defend yourself. (It was called a Hearing, but
no-one was 'listening'!) An Appeal costs £75 in the UK,
and is a pretty simple form to fill in.
It is, however, quite essential that your Appeal is
supported by as many Witness Statements as possible.
Have a couple of friends, taking notes, in the Public
An Appeal can get the judgment set aside, and the
case thrown back to the Magistrates Court. But the
second time they'll think twice about ignoring you.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Chapter 18: Liability & The Ultimate Sanctions
he vast majority of 'offences' (they are not actually
'offences', but 'Statute violations', of course)
involve 'money'. Specifically: "The non-payment of
The Chapter on Money explains how it does not exist
in reality, and is nothing more than a Belief System. For
this reason the most that can ever be extracted from
you is 'belief in something you value', in other words
your Credit Rating, or your Liberty.
While the Monetary System is king, a Credit Rating can
be assumed to have value. However, I have to say that,
in my own case, I paid off my Credit Card in the early
1980s (ACCESS Card, if you can remember them), and
cut it up. I did this because I realised I was on a hiding to
And I've never used a Credit Card since (even though
I've been constantly bombarded with junk mail offering
them to me).
But that's me. However, it does explain why I,
personally, have no idea what my Credit Rating is, and I
really don't care. It's not something I consider to have
any value. If I want something, I wait until I can afford it,
and buy it. It is as simple as that.
But that did not stop the Inland Revenue from placing
me in (what they called) 'Notional Debt', and proceeding
against me into bankruptcy (because I did not consider I
owed them anything). And it did not stop the Margaret
Thatcher Government from proceeding against me, and
placing me in prison for refusing to pay her Poll Tax.
So I write all this on the basis of two personal
experiences. Firstly, being made bankrupt and losing
any Credit Rating I had. And secondly, spending time in
prison and losing my Liberty for a while.
And, having actually experienced all that, I
firmly believe NONE of it would have happened if I
Liability & The Ultimate Sanctions
had known then, what I know now: The Freeman
Principles. I am absolutely positive I could have
stopped both actions against me, dead in their tracks. I
know what was said at the time, because I was there.
And I now know what I could have said, but didn't -
entirely due to lack of knowledge.
Even without this knowledge I did – in point of fact –
have two 'successes'. Guided purely by Common Sense I
fought both by simply not co-operating. The result was
that the Local Council never bothered me again
(because, I presume, they had come to realise it wasn't
worth the effort … after all I did tell them that on a
number of occasions), and the Inland Revenue never
bothered me again, for (I assume) the same, or similar,
reason. Which proves, to me at least, that when they
operate by rote they may win the battle, but they don't
win the war.
However, any procedure against you is always in two
1. To establish Liability, and make a corresponding
Court Order against you for the amount demanded;
2. Failure to pay the amount demanded, within the
stated timescale, invokes a new Summons to demand
that you be placed into bankruptcy, or into prison. Which
of these demands is made, depends on the
circumstances (the Statutes).
In the case of Council Tax, for example, they will
demand a prison sentence for non-payment. The
sanction being to take away your Liberty. This is
because it would be pointless making you bankrupt ...
because they would have no means of making any
further demands on you until the bankruptcy expires.
(And we can't have that, can we!). Until this
subsequent Hearing has taken place no prison
sentence has been passed on you, and so there is no
way you could actually be carted off to prison. There has
to be a sentence passed before they can do that.
In this case, which is a Civil Offence, you can extricate
yourself from the whole situation at any time by paying
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
up. Even if you get as far as prison. They will take the
length of the sentence, and divide it into the amount,
and come up with 'an amount per day incarcerated'. As
each incarcerated day passes, that amount is written off.
The remainder will always buy you out. On the last day
of your sentence it has all been written off, and you are
free once more. (There is no parole for a Civil Offence).
In the case of failure to pay, for example, Income Tax,
the likelihood is that they would go for bankruptcy. The
idea being that they can take your house, to pay off their
'Notional Debt' ('notional', because 'money' is an
illusion). They would tend not to worry about the fact
that they could not grab anything from you for a while
(i.e. until the bankruptcy has been discharged), on the
basis of creaming as much as possible this one-time.
'Long-sightedness' is not one of their stronger points.
(Otherwise they wouldn't be doing their job in the first
place!). If you co-operate with the Official Deceiver
(Receiver), then a bankruptcy is auto-discharged after 3
years. (But they won't bother to tell you, quite probably).
(It may even be 2 years by now).
However, the overall point here is the Second Phase.
Either the Incarceration Petition or the Bankruptcy
Petition. Nothing can happen to you until this Second
Phase has been successfully accomplished by
whomsoever is making the demand.
All too often people do not realise what is actually
going on, and what is happening, and that there are
these two, distinct, phases. And that both can be
challenged by Common Law jurisdiction. If the Liability
Petition is dismissed because the Court is 'de facto', and
does not have Common law jurisdiction, then the
Ultimate Sanction Phase cannot occur.
The Law-of-Waters
Chapter 19: The Law-of-Waters
n the Chapter on Common Law it was explained that
Common Law is the Law-of-the-Land. It is the only
Law-of-the-Land. And the only Law that needs to be
obeyed on dry land. It fully defines peaceful co-existence
within its principles. Nothing can go wrong where
everyone adheres to the Law-of-the-Land.
Nothing else is necessary. Adherence to Common Law
gives everyone total freedom, provided they remain
honourable, and is capable of coming down like a ton of
bricks on anyone who deviates from honourable,
peaceful, co-existence.
So, what the hell has Parliament been doing, then?
Since it was all sorted out in the 11th, 12th and 13th
What a bloody good question!
The answer is that, driven by the Banksters, it has
been very slowly, and in the most subtle manner,
ingraining the Grand Deceptions. It has been doing this
by fully-utilising the gullible nature of Mankind in
It could be argued that while the Law-of-the-Land sorts
out what happens on dry land, but what happens on
water? Don't we need a Law-of-Waters, to take account
of the high seas?
Common Sense should tell anyone that the answer is
possibly: "No". That the Common Law still works
perfectly well on the high seas, because it fundamentally
addresses the Human Condition (honour, dishonour, etc)
and Humans on the high seas should still remain
One the other hand there are such things a Pirates,
and Salvage, and also different Cultures, and so on. And
you can't reasonably expect Pirates to be honourable,
and you can't expect to impose your own Law-of-the-
Land on to some other culture's Law-of-their-Land. There
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
will be remarkable similarities, but there may be
Religious differences (which they have to contend with,
poor souls, and you do not).
So it is reasonable to assume that a Law-of-Waters -
which needs to be fully International, contending with
the aspirations of all different Cultures - is something
that needs to be created and mutually agreed.
Sure, that's all very fine & dandy. It's fine to create
some Law applicable on waters … but to impose that
same Law on dry land? Oh, come on! No-one would fall
for that one, would they?
Errr … well … yes, by subterfuge everyone fell for that
one, and can be most vociferous in supporting the
irrationality! Try explaining to a Policeman that he or she
swore, on Oath, to uphold the Law-of-the-Land. And, by
bleating on about Statutes, he or she is imposing the
Law-of-Waters on dry land. The fact that the Police have
a duty to understand this, and are grossly negligent if
they do not - actually committing serious crimes if they
do not - is something that passes completely under their
However before you, the Reader, get the impression
that I have an axe to grind with regard to Policemen, it
might be an idea to correct that assumption.
When in the course of their duties, they uphold the
Law-of-the-Land, in accordance with their Oath of
Service, they are acting as Peace Officers. In that role I
have as much admiration and respect for them as
anyone else. Someone needs to do that job. Someone,
some group, some force, needs to impose the Principles
of Common Law on those who choose to act outside its
boundaries. This is for my protection, as well as
everyone else.
It is only when they exceed their jurisdiction, and the
authority vested in them via their Oath of Service, that I
(and most, by Common Sense, I think) have a problem
with the way they act. Just the mere act of stopping and
questioning someone, without lawful excuse, is vastly
exceeding their Common Law jurisdiction, and that is
The Law-of-Waters
without considering their involvement in traffic (for
On the other hand they do things that I would not wish
to do. Picking up torn limbs resulting from road traffic
accidents, for example. I salute them, and all the
Emergency Services, in that respect.
Acting as Peace Officers is what they are paid to do. I
have no problem with that, and welcome it. Acting as
Company Policy Enforcement Officers (Policymen),
enforcing the Law-of-Waters on dry land, and not
realising it, and making absolutely no attempt to realise
it, is where they have no authority, no jurisdiction, and
are behaving in a grossly negligent manner.
That's where the problem arises for me. And
furthermore I suggest that, deep down within their
Common Sense, most people feel the same, without
actually being able to put their finger on it. So now you
When acting as Policymen, they are enforcing the
Company Rules of a Company you did not even realise
you were working for. No wonder you were confused!
Common Law provides the uninhibited Right to Travel.
Actually across National Boundaries without the need
for any kind of Passport, as it happens.
Common Law says the following are crimes: Injuring
someone, or causing them loss.
If you are travelling at 90 mph on a Motorway, and you
get from A to B, what injury have you caused? What loss
have you caused? What crime have you committed?
Answer: None.
Ah! Ah! Ah! The Policymen will say: "But you could
have hurt someone! So there! Can't have you possibly
hurting someone! Need to book you. Just doing our job!"
Firstly if you pick up a knife, to cut a sandwich, you
could easily hurt someone, if you dropped it. You could
hurt yourself, or someone standing near you. Has no-one
ever accidentally dropped something? No? Never
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
For crying out loud! Give over! The potential for harm
is ever present. 24/7! The potential. But, because most
of us actually know what we are doing, the potential
doesn't normally turn into a reality.
If the potential ever turns into reality, then we have,
indeed, committed a crime and the Law should, indeed,
be brought to bear on us. That's precisely what the Law-
of-the-Land is for! To rein in those who cause harm or
loss to others, due to irresponsibility.
But going from A to B at 90 mph is not irresponsible. If
it is, then going from A to B at 70 mph is almost as
irresponsible. What's the difference? 20 bloody mph!
Most people understand this by Common Sense. That's
why you can be doing 70 mph on a UK Motorway, and
cars whizz by you. No-one is particularly concerned. I'm
certainly not. People are just relying totally on their own
Common Sense, and basically saying: "Sod the stupidity
of Statutes".
It's a form of 'voting with your feet'. You always have
that vote.
(If this doesn't tell the UK Parliament, and its jobsworth
Policymen, 'something', I'm not sure what ever will.
Actually I think it does. None of the cameras seem to
work, and on a 4-hour journey recently, I did not see one
Statutes are the Company Policy of THE UNITED
KINGDOM CORPORATION. They are the Law-of-Waters
being applied on dry land. That's OK if you consent. But
not, if you don't! Various other names are the same
thing: Law Merchant, Commerce Law, Equity Law, Fleet
Law, Maritime Law … you-name-it Law … just various
speciality flavours of the Law-of-Waters.
In point of fact there are only two jurisdictions:
Common Law and the Uniform Commercial Code.
And they co-exist side-by-side. The Uniform Commercial
Code applies worldwide, and determines what happens
when transactions in Sales of Goods (or a Sales of the
The Law-of-Waters
Leases of Goods) takes place. That's it. 'Goods' must
be movable.
Consequently Real Estate transactions (they are not
'goods', because they are not movable), and all
Services fall under Common Law, the Law-of-the-Land.
Therefore the Service provided by the Courts and the
Police should be one of Peace Keeping under Common
Law principles, and nothing more.
It's pretty easy to see why this should come about.
The Law-of-Waters, as a Uniform Commercial Code
(worldwide) provides Trading Standards for Goods
moved between Nations … over intervening seaways.
But how on earth could Uniform Commercial Standards
be applied to Services, taking place on dry lands, but
split across a seaway? How can diners be located in
England, while the waiters (providing the Service) be
located in, say, France? The only thing applicable to the
manner in which those Services are provided, is the Law-
of-the-Land (the customs & traditions) within which the
restaurant, the diners, the kitchen staff and the waiters
are all located.
Returning to water's connotations for a moment, in
anticipation of our acquiescence to be duped, and to
remain duped, by the application of the Law-of-Waters
on dry land, many words in common usage have been
adopted. All have associations with water.
Banks = the two sides of a river, which contain the
flow of water, the current. Which lends itself to the word
'currency' to determine the flow of 'money'.
The idea that, when your mother's waters broke, you
came down the Birth Canal, and can therefore be
considered to be a small 'ship'. Because of this you were
given a Berth Certificate (although, to hide this, they
write it 'Birth', but the pronunciation is exactly the
same), because you can be considered to be a small ship
'at berth'. A 'berth' being the place where a ship is
If you are called into a Court, you will be expected to
stand in the Dock. A Dock is also another name for
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
where a ship is moored. The basic idea is that, if a ship is
impounded (in a Dock), then the Owner will appear to
sort the situation out. This is synonymous with you, as a
Human Being, being the Owner of your Legal Fiction
'ship'. And when you 'appear to sort the situation out'
they can have your body, and do what they like with it.
For example, cuff you and send you to prison, should
they decide there is a necessity to do that.
More 'water' association comes from the 'ship-
associated' words in our language: Citizenship,
Relationship, Courtship, Ladyship, Lordship, Worship
(Warship? Whoreship? Actually from Worthship ... but at
all seems to amount to the same thing, from what I have
seen), Ownership, etc.
There are just far too many co-incidences for these
water-associations to be accidental, or random in any
way. Indeed, even giving people the pseudo-title
'Officer', is indicative of a ship's personnel.
And that's the way it is.
Chapter 20: Names
ticks and stones may break my bones, but
names will never hurt me". So they say. If
only that were true and, by the time you
have read this Chapter, you will understand why I say
For the simple reason you are not your Name. Your
Name was 'given' to you … usually by your parents. But,
if you think hard about it, what - precisely - is a Name?
It is a word. Or, more specifically, a group of words. It
consists of the word you were 'given' by your parents
(they may have 'given' you more than one), and the
name of a family into which you were born i.e. your
Family Name.
These are nothing more than words. They can be
written on paper, and can be sounded by someone
speaking. If you hear your name spoken, or you see it
written, you assume you must respond to it. You
assume You, Your Human Self, Your Flesh & Blood, Your
Sovereign Soul … must respond to it. This is a mega-
Do you not see an enormous difference between Your
Human Self, Your Flesh & Blood, Your Sovereign Soul …
and some marks made on a piece of paper? Or sound
pressure waves in the air?
No? Well, let's have another go then. Have you ever
heard of a Deed Poll? I would guess you probably have.
What does it do? It allows you to change your Name. To
any collections of words you choose. You are saying:
"My Human Self, My Flesh & Blood, My Sovereign Living
Soul, will henceforth only respond to this new collection
of words, whether written or spoken".
That's what a Deed Poll does. And this could only
happen if it were possible to DETACH one set of words to
respond to (your original Name), and to ATTACH an
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
alternative set of words to which you henceforth respond
(your newly-chosen Name).
'Names' are attached! They are attached to flesh and
blood, purely for convenience.
Imagine a family with three children. The parents
decided not to bother to name them. So, when one child
is naughty, the parent shouts: "Stop doing that!" All
three would turn to look, to see which child the parent
was looking at. He or she would then have to say: "Do
you mean me?"
I think you will find that, a long, long, time ago (in a
far-off galaxy?) it was decided that - for convenience -
fleshes and bloods should be told "Listen: Whenever I,
or anyone else, says this word, I mean you. OK?" And
the child would - eventually - comprehend. Of course, it
isn't done like that in practice. It's done the same way
we do with domestic pets. Repetition. So they get used
to the sound. But the practical convenience, behind the
process, is exactly the same.
Why is this so important? Well, simply because your
Government thinks your Name is the same as You. (Well,
it probably doesn't really, but it always acts as though it
does, so you never figure out the difference. And it
certainly doesn't inform you of the difference. Did they
tell you this at school?).
Every letter you receive is addressed to YOUR NAME.
Get it? Addressed to your Name. Not to Your Human Self.
Because Human Selves are born 'nameless'. We are not
born with a Name tattooed on our foreheads, are we?
This is why your name is actually a Legal Fiction
Name. If anyone writes to you, or calls you, using that
Name, then you are perfectly entitled to ignore it, or
respond: "'Scuse me, are you talking to me? If you are,
then I'm commonly called dah-de-dah". In my case it's:
"'Scuse me, are you talking to me? If you are, then I'm
commonly called Veronica". And when they continue:
"Yes, Ms. Chapman, I …", I interrupt by saying: "I just
told you I'm commonly called Veronica. 'Ms. Chapman' is
a Legal Fiction. I am Human and real. I am not fictional,
legal or otherwise, as you must surely be able to see?"
Within their jurisdiction, they can only address your
Legal Fiction Name. So. They. Do. Not. Like. It. Up 'em!
Maybe you 'get it' now?
What's in a Name? Everything, baby! EVERYTHING!
Forced to carry an ID Card, You & Your Name are being
glued together. Forced to have a microchip implanted,
You and Your Name are one and the same thing.
And there is something else of considerable
importance. If, in a Court, you are asked to confirm your
Name (and Date of Birth), you cannot.
You cannot for the simple reason that any knowledge
you have is hearsay. You would be confirming only what
your parents told you. They could have lied about these
things, for all you know. Sure, they probably didn't, but
how do you know? Sure, you were around at the time …
but not in the position of understanding what was going
on! Hearsay is not allowed in a Court, and you can
remind them (politely!), explaining that the best you
could do would be to repeat, as hearsay, what your
parents told you.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Chapter 21: Orders
f you go into a shop that sells curtains, and place an
order for some curtains, do you expect to pay? The
answer is: "Yes". If you place an order with a Mail
Order firm, do you expect to pay commensurate with
receiving the goods? The answer is: "Yes".
An Order is chargeable! The amount to charge is
dependent on the one who carries out the order. The
Mail Order firm, and the shop, set their rates. You decide
whether or not you are prepared to pay that amount
before you place any order.
If someone gives you an order (e.g. a PCSO,
Policyman, or a Magistrate), you can say: "Is that an
order?". If the answer is: "No", then you can say: "In
that case I respectfully decline to provide that service".
If the answer is: "Yes", you can say: "In that case,
since an order is chargeable, I will charge you £50,000
for carrying it out. Are you prepared to pay?"
I leave you, dear Reader, to guess what the answer
will be. If they are silly enough to agree, in front of
witnesses, then you have a Lawful Contract with them (a
Lien). So, it is possible to remind them: "Based on the
fact that you are agreeing to a lawfully enforceable
Contract, would you like the chance to re-consider?"
(I think you'll find they generally tend to re-consider).
Laws, Regulations, Guidelines & Sovereignty
Chapter 22: Laws, Regulations, Guidelines &
'm the Legal Fiction, baby ... now here's the twist ...
I ... don't ... exist! (with apologies to the Bonzo Dogs,
featuring the late Viv Stanshall). Before going
anywhere in this morass, we need a few basics.
There are two fundamental kinds of 'Law': Natural and
Man-made. Let's characterise them. I think you might
agree there are three main characteristics in each case.
Natural Laws or the Laws of Nature, Science,
1) Mankind does not make them. Mankind
observes them & their effects, then enumerates
and evaluates them; in most cases being able to
devise mathematical formulae to express them,
utilise them and inter-utilise i.e. apply them.
Examples: The Law of Gravity (Newton's Laws),
Boyle's Law, Maxwell's Laws, Charles' Law, Ohm's
Law, etc.
2) They apply universally and unilaterally without
fear or favour.
3) There is no penalty for breaking them because
they cannot be broken.
Man-made Laws, Acts, Statutes, etc.
1) Mankind does make them. Mankind changes
them in accordance with its own desires, wishes,
needs, etc. Mankind can wipe them away (repeal
them) at the stroke of a pen.
2) They are applied by Courts of Law. They are
not applied equally because they always depend on
'judgment'. It is often said: "There is one law for the
rich and one law for the poor".
3) There is always a penalty for breaking them
because they can be broken if one is prepared to
accept the consequences.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Stated that way I submit it is possible to see that the
two kinds are exact opposites. Each characteristic is
the exact inverse of the other.
And yet we use the same word – 'Law' – to describe
them both!
So what happens? The latter become psychologically
imbued with the characteristics of the former!
So: "I've got to pay it …because it's the Law" takes on
the same characteristics as: "If I jump off this cliff I will
fall downwards".
Actually, in summary, the most important difference
between the two is a simple word: 'consent'.
If you jump off the cliff you will fall downwards. The
falling does not require your consent. It will happen. Your
consent is whether or not you actually jump – or whether
or not you are standing on the edge of the cliff at all.
In the second case ("I've got to pay …") your consent
is very much required. You have to consent to reach for
your chequebook and fill in a cheque – and post it, etc.
However, the essential point being made here is that
even if you do not consent to write that cheque, your
consent is still needed in all stages of: "What may
happen if the bill is not paid".
Your 'consent' is built-in as an essential to the system
of Man-made Laws, Statues, etc. Your consent is
irrelevant to the Laws of Nature.
The Law of Gravity is set in tablets of stone, and
operates whether someone has written it down or not.
You will have been led to believe, throughout your entire
life, that Statutes are equally set in tablets of stone.
They are not. They are nothing more than Company
Policy written down using ink on paper.
The trick, the Grand Deception, is to create the Legal
Fiction Person for you, and to address everything
'statutory or officious' to that fiction, using a Legal
Fiction Name … which is sufficiently similar to what you
would naturally respond (i.e. to "What you are
commonly called"). Thereafter you have become tricked
Laws, Regulations, Guidelines & Sovereignty
into accepting a role in this: "All the world's a stage, and
we are just players of bit parts".
To do this they get you to pretend to be what you are
not. But they call this 'thing' something you will naturally
assume that you are. And they know that you will
naturally make this assumption. And they utterly rely on
it. Only a system that is utterly evil and thoroughly
corrupt - without any possibility of redemption - could
have dreamed up this dooley, which is fully described in
the Chapters devoted to Legalese and to the Legal
Fiction Person.
From the point of view of you, yourself, the Human
Being with the living soul, Man-made Laws or Statutes
can be treated as guidance and nothing more. They are
not Laws. They are Regulations. As far as you are
concerned they can be considered to be Guidelines …
but that's only if you choose to consider them that way.
It is perfectly possible to reject any or all of them, as not
having your consent.
And this leads to the idea of 'sovereignty'.
We often hear that: "All are created equal" – and, of
course, we are. Any baby arrives (basically) the same
way, and has the exact same needs. It doesn't matter
whether you are born in the Queen's Hospital or in a
Traveller's Van.
But, what does: "All are created equal" translate to? In
practice? How can everyone be created equal?
The only way is by some standardised mechanism.
This is usually stated as: "In the image of the Creator",
which implies that each created individual is a clone
from the same model. Even if you don't believe in a
Creator (as I don't – I believe in a Universal Life Force,
Universal Consciousness – you can call it God if you like),
it still amounts to the same thing – just using different
Of course: "All are created equal", thus no-one should
be treated differently from anyone else.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
But I am not you, and you are not me. (That's
arguable, actually, if we are all derived from One
So that's a big difference. But there is a big similarity:
We are individually responsible for our individual actions.
And that's one of the basic tenets of life.
And the only way that I can be responsible for my own
actions, and – at the same time – you be responsible for
your own actions is if we are both sovereign
individuals, and equal in all cases ("In the same
I'm sorry if I lost you. Think of it this way. You say your
Country is 'sovereign'. What does that mean? It means it
is equal to all other countries. It means it has the right to
govern itself, without external interference. Your country
considers itself to be equal to all other countries.
The same applies to you. Why not? A 'country' is only
a collection of individuals who, together, make up the
You must be as sovereign as your Country. And so
must everyone else in your Country. Otherwise how can
your Country be sovereign? Where does your Country's
sovereignty come from, then?
FACT: You are a sovereign Human Being by birth,
because your spirit is sovereign. You are responsible
for your own actions – certainly after the 'age of
You have two choices: You can take your sovereignty,
and wield it. Or you can, by consent, give it away. So
now we are back to 'consent'. And we are also back to
'person' because – by consenting to wear the Legal
Fiction Person overcoat, you tacitly accept the
jurisdiction of any Statute Law/Regulation/Guideline you
may be accused of violating.
The Hive Mind
Chapter 23: The Hive Mind
e must get out of the habit of falling into the
'Hive Mind Trap' constantly and consistently.
Almost, it seems, with every breath we take.
Perhaps one of the best ways of expressing the Hive
Mind is by example. When asked: "Why do you do
that?", a Hived Mind response is: "It's what we do now.
That's the way we do it". End of story. End of
conversation. End of discussion. End of argument.
No … it's not the end of the discussion! Nothing like!
The original question is not answered by that response.
However, it is generally the only answer you'll get from
some Organic Robot who has a Hive Mind.
In other words that's a Hive Mind answer.
But there are also Hive Mind questions. For example:
"How do we do this officially?", is that kind of question.
The question should have been: "What's the best way
to do this honourably?"
I mean, what has 'officially' got to do with anything?
The Hive Mind is ingrained into our psyche due to the
indoctrination we suffer during childhood. It comes from
our parents and schooling. It comes from these sources
because they were similarly indoctrinated - as opposed
to being properly educated - during their own
"What would the neighbours think?" was a perennial
favourite of my own mother. It I used to tell her: "I don't
give a shit what they think. That's their problem, not
(I can only presume I was born a rebel).
I hated school … due to its Hive Mind attitude.
Although I couldn't put my finger on it at the time. I just
knew it was all wrong 'somehow'.
A Builder can make a house. A house cannot make a
Builder. The Builder is 'above' the house.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
A Human Being can make a Law. The Law cannot
make a Human Being. The Human Being is 'above' the
Law. It has to be that way. And the Law has already
been made. Centuries ago. Although there were
attempts beforehand, a major boost, to codify it
properly, occurred in 1215.
When we are in Hive Mind mode we are not 'above'
anything. Our mentality is 'below' the situation. We are
looking upwards, and wondering: "How to do this
officially?" We are looking for 'guidance from above'.
The correct attitude is to use our Common Sense, and
to take an honourable course of action. Then our
mentality is right where is should be: Above the
situation at hand.
I'm often told that many people want 'to be led'. This
argument can - to some extent - be countered by
wondering whether or not their childhood indoctrination
has left them in that state? And whether or not, if they
had been educated instead of indoctrinated during that
period of their lives, perhaps they would not want to let
the Government (and it propaganda arm, called 'The
Media') do all their thinking for them?
But I'm obviously out on a limb with that answer.
Simply because I'm unable to prove it, of course. My
Common Sense tells me … but that's all.
But my Common Sense also tells me that - even if the
vast majority would not want to be led by the nose had
they been properly educated - then there is still the
possibility that some would want it that way.
OK. Fine. Let them be sheep, and led by the nose - by
some nannying Big Brother-style Government.
But don't include me in that, sunshine! Because I don't
accept being treated as a 'lowest common denominator'.
And, I believe, there are millions of us who object to
being treated like that.
And we have a voice.
And that's what this book is all about.
Without Prejudice
Chapter 24: Without Prejudice
ou will find that letters considered to be 'of
importance' may include the words: "Without
Prejudice" somewhere prominent, either at the top
or the bottom. And you can use this yourself on
correspondence you create.
What, actually, does this mean?
Well, it doesn't mean that whoever writes it is 'not
prejudiced against the addressee'. And it is important to
know this, if you decide to use it yourself. In Court, you
may very well be asked to explain what it means, and if
you say: "It means I'm not prejudiced against anyone",
they will know you don't know what you are talking
about, and what you are really doing. So it's a very good
idea to know exactly what it means, and exactly what it
does, before employing this technique. Or, conversely,
what it means if you receive a letter that says: "Without
What it means is:
1. The Sender of the correspondence is reserving all
Rights, and nothing in that correspondence should, or
could, be taken to give up any Rights. (The things that
are not being 'prejudiced' are one's Natural Inalienable
Rights). It means that the Sender openly stating: "Not to
be bound by any Contract unknowingly entered into, and
only bound by those that meet the four criteria of Full
Disclosure, Equal Considerations, Lawful Terms &
Conditions, and Manifested Intent to Contract".
2. It - therefore - means that the correspondence
cannot be entered into Court evidence without the
permission of the Creator. So you can send anyone a
letter, saying whatever you like. If you add: "Without
Prejudice", then that letter cannot be used against you
in Court, unless you agree. (Obviously you can always
submit your own correspondence into evidence … that's
always yours to submit if you choose … you just can't
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
submit theirs - if either side had written: "Without
Prejudice", see blow).
3. And the same thing for them, of course. But there
is more. Once either Party has used: "Without
Prejudice", all further correspondence, from either
side, in the current matter, is protected by the
original "Without Prejudice" - whether it is employed
from then onwards (in further correspondence) or not.
So how does one use it, then?
Actually there is a very strong argument for not using
it. If one is sure of one's position, and making strong,
assertive, statements (which is the Freeman-on-the-Land
way of writing), then one's Natural Inalienable Rights will
be being asserted. And this needs no protection from
any future Court case.
Quite the opposite, of course. Normally you would
want what you said to the other Party to form a major
part of your defence against them.
Thus, in that scenario, if you are sure of yourself (as
you should be!) there is no point in using: "Without
But then, there's nothing you can do to stop them
using it. And then all your correspondence, from then
onwards becomes, 'protected' (see (3), above) - as well
as all theirs.
But this still does not alter the fact that you could
submit your own correspondence into evidence and, if
they chose to hide theirs, your statements would stand
un-rebutted. Which would put you in a very powerful
I suppose it's a bit like a game of Poker. But a
Freeman-on-the-Land doesn't need to be bluffing, and
therefore doesn't need to hide his or her cards - as long
as they understand the game, and know what they are
Mass Mind Control & Enslavement
Chapter 25: Mass Mind Control & Enslavement
revious Chapters have explained the triumvirate of
the Grand Deception, namely Money, Legalese and
Religion. And it is all fundamentally bound up with
the illusion of 'money'.
Have you ever asked yourself: "Where does money
come from, in the first place?"
You have? Well, congratulations! What was your
I'll tell you what mine was. I decided that everything
must have an ultimate source. My Common Sense told
me that. I knew you could obtain money by working for
some Company, as a salary or wages, and I knew you
could also obtain money by selling things. I didn't think I
was very far out on a limb with these thoughts.
But then I thought: "Well, yes to all that … but where
did it come from originally?"
Now most people would say: "The Bank of England.
The Royal Mint. They make it, don't they? Daft question,
So I thought: "Well, is it such a daft question? I mean
how do they put it into circulation? Do they hire a plane,
and drop it from the sky? Well, I've never heard of that.
Does someone stand with a bucketful of it, in
Threadneedle Street, and throw it up in the air, for
anyone to catch? Well, no, I've never heard of that
I decided that there must by a 'system'. A mechanism.
A controlling mechanism.
Am I bonkers? (Don't you dare answer that!)
Well, I decided that I wasn't quite ready for the
Looney-Bin just yet. (Even though, by the way, I was
actually born in one. In Sedgefield, in County Durham,
during WWII. No, my mother wasn't mad. She had been
evacuated to there. From out of London)
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
So I continued thinking. And I looked around. And I saw
Banks. And I saw them going cap-in-hand for bailouts.
And I saw some Banks and Building Societies going tits-
up. And I thought: "If they go belly up, then they can't
be the source, because - if they were – going belly-up
wouldn't happen".
So I decided I didn't have the answer to my puzzle.
And I was left with a few serious (in my view)
questions, which were:
1. How is 'money' created?
2. Who, or what, authorises it?
3. How is 'an amount of it' created?
4. How does it get into circulation?
I thought, for a moment, that I'd bitten off more than I
could chew. But then I remembered what is supposed to
be a Government Agency (but actually isn't!) called 'Her
Majesty's Treasury'.
So I did a Freedom of Information Request to HM
Treasury, asking them if they could kindly help me
answer these questions.
And, to cut a long story short, they very kindly replied.
And I have obtained four responses from them, which I
include in an Appendix. The responses I obtained have
been very helpful (in many ways), but not one has
actually answered any of my four questions.
Well, you might suggest: "That's probably because
they don't know, Veronica!"
And, I suppose, that is possible. But, if HM Treasury
don't know, then who does? Does 'money' just appear by
magic, then? (They say it doesn't grow on trees, but
obviously that's where all the banknotes actually start
their lives).
But here's another important facet. In one of the
letters I sent to HM Treasury, I explained exactly what I
understood the answers to my questions were. (Never
ask a question unless you know the answer, otherwise
you never know whether or not the answer you are given
Mass Mind Control & Enslavement
is bullshit). And I asked them to please confirm or deny
my understanding. And, do you know what? They did not
confirm - BUT DID NOT DENY - my understanding!
And denial would have been so easy. All they had to
do was to say: "No, sorry, but you are wrong". But they
You can check out the entire correspondence in the
appropriate Appendix. You will see that HM Treasury did
impart some very useful nuggets. Such as the fact that
'money' has not been backed by any precious metal
since 1931. (In other words my lifetime, and probably
And that currency is fiat, i.e. 'it has no intrinsic value'.
And that the best you can ever do is to swap a tenner for
two fivers, and so on. And that the issuance of 'money'
(from wherever the ultimate source lies) is limited by
Government Statute called The Currency Act.
Yes 'limited' … but on who, which Authority, is this
limitation placed? That's the question!
What were the answers I gave to HM Treasury, that
they did not deny?
I asked the questions in this way:
1. What, precise, mechanism causes the release
of 'some amount'? It must require some authority.
Whose authority?
2. What defines 'the amount'?
3. How does this created money 'get into
I self-answered those questions, back to HM
Treasury, in this way:
Now we know the answer to (3) above is not that
it is dropped from an airplane. Nor is it just because
a Bank may up and demand it (otherwise Banks
and Building Societies would not go out of
business ... and what gives them a priority right to
make such a demand, anyway?). (Although, of
course, the recent bailouts were, precisely,
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
'because the Banks demanded it'. But this is very
unusual, as I'm sure you will agree. Hence all the
If you want me to suggest answers for your
consideration, answers that get to the heart of the
matter, and may therefore explain to you what I
consider to be the heart of the matter, then my
considered understandings would be:
1. The precise mechanism for the creation of
money is based on a Promissory Note, an IOU,
signed by ANY individual when applying for a loan,
mortgage, or equivalent. A 'promise to pay back'.
(But, as you have already said, 'money is fiat, it has
no value' ... so the 'pay back' is an empty
promise ... just like the empty promise on a
banknote itself)
2. The amount is the amount of the loan.
3. It is moved into circulation by making the
amount available to whoever made the promise as
a credit to an account on which s/he can draw
Obviously, as you have explained, there are
Statutory Limits placed on this mechanism, such
that it doesn't run off into infinity. For example by
raising Interest Rates such that the Promissory
Notes generated by Loan Applications (1) become
HM Treasury did not deny these answers. They ignored
So what the hell does this mean?
It means that you apply for a loan of some kind. This
could be a straight monetary loan, or a Credit Card, or a
mortgage. Anything similar.
You make an application, by filling out an Application
Form. You think it is an Application Form, asking the
Loan Shark (commonly called a Bank, Bankster, Credit
Company, Loan Company, Building Society … you get
the picture) to lend you some of their own money.
Mass Mind Control & Enslavement
You think this because everyone else thinks the same
thing. Even most of the Organic Robots who work for the
Loan Sharks, processing applications, think that's what's
But, it isn't.
When you sign the Loan Application, you are - in point
of fact - actually signing a cheque (a Bill of
Exchange). A cheque drawn on an Account you did not
realise you had. It is an Account that is automatically
created, in the name of your Legal Fiction Person, when
your birth was registered by your parents.
It is, fundamentally, a 'notional' Account. Really just
numbers on a ledger (a computer database, these days).
The Account Number is somehow tied to your National
Insurance Number and your Birth Certificate Number,
and is named by taking your name in all capitals. Thus
mine is VERONICA CHAPMAN, for example.
You send this cheque to the Loan Sharks, and they rub
their hands in glee! Because you have made some
'money' for them! They then send this cheque to HM
Treasury, or some Government Department 'known only
to them'. (It is this knowledge, that is obviously sort-of
secret that enables a Loan Shark to start up in business.
My Freedom of Information Request was designed to
extract that secret, but I was just stone-walled, because
I'm not a Loan Shark. But notice … my answers were not
The 'source of all money creation' will take the cheque
and 'cash' it. 'Cashing it' comprises 'Authorising credit to
the Bearer of the cheque'.
So the Loan Shark is credited with the amount you
signed for. If you applied for £50,000 then he is 'up' by
Lovely jubbly! Clap hands … walk away with your
money (if he wanted to!). He could send you back a
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
letter saying: "Oh, sorry. Your Loan Application failed,
after all!"
And you would be none the wiser.
But he knows, if he always did that, people would stop
applying for loans. Because there would be no point.
And he also knows if he moves that £50,000 into a
Personal Account you can drawn on, then you will draw
on it. And spend it. And you will think you have to pay it
back (because everyone thinks that!), and you will also
assume that you have to pay an additional amount
called 'interest' (because everyone thinks that!)
And he knows that, in this latter situation, bearing in
mind the way Compound Interest works, he is likely to
end up with being paid TWICE (at the very least)!
Being paid twice for money you made!
Lovely, lovely, jubbly!
He steals something from you in the first place,
and gets you to pay it back with Interest.
Oh boy! What are the words I'm looking for? I have a
big problem finding the words, because fraud, theft,
grand larceny just do not do the situation justice, in my
humble opinion.
But that's not even where it ends. Oh yes ... there's
lots more to come.
First of all, within that mechanism, even if it were not
utterly fraudulent, there is only the mechanism for
'creating' the £50,000.
There is no mechanism at all for creating the
There is no mechanism for creating Interest. Which
means that, under the current fraud, all loans could
never, ever, be paid off! It is impossible! And that
situation creates the dog-eat-dog so-called 'civilisation',
which we all know only too well. Because we have to live
in it, 24/7.
Mass Mind Control & Enslavement
Only utter psychopaths, such as I described in the
Chapter on the Global Elite, could have designed this,
surely? You would need to be inhuman, surely?
But there is more.
Think about it.
You have a Government Agency 'creating money'. (It
doesn't matter which one it is … it ain't you, that's for
sure!). You have another Government Agency 'wanting
money'. In the UK these two Agencies are HM Treasury
and HM Revenue & Customs. In the united States this
would be the US Treasury and the IRS.
Now, why can't HM Revenue & Customs, if they 'want
money', get it directly from HM Treasury, who can 'make
money'? 'Make as much money' as HM Revenue &
Customs would ever need?
Why bother you & I?
I can only think of one possible, plausible, reason:
"Money has to pass through us in order to keep our
noses to the grindstone. In short, to keep us enslaved. It
also has to pass through the Loan Sharks because the
Global Elite own them, and that's how they obtain their
massive wealth. And they own the Governments, thus
they can ensure the legislation that enables these rip-
offs. Generally without the knowledge of Joe Bloggs".
To keep us in the prison-without-bars.
So now what is a bailout? Oh, it's pretty simple isn't it?
And why there is so much angst involved. A bailout is
the creation of money without directly enslaving
anyone to 'pay it back + interest'! That's the reason
for the angst.
But there is one more final thing to say. While the
Loan Sharks are getting you & I to pay back – to them –
the 'money' we, ourselves, created … please note:
They don't have any need (in turn) to pay it back
to where they got it from … i.e. the Treasury.
Oh lovely, lovely, lovely, lovely jubbly!!
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Now, perhaps, you can understand why this Chapter
was called Mass Mind Control and Enslavement?
I hope so. I've done my best to explain.
Why am I so convinced my answers are correct, and
that this system operates the way I have explained?
Because there is no other way. There is no other way
to apply domination and mass mind-control over the
entire planet. No other way such that even a dullard
could not see through.
Every scrap of practical evidence we have supports
this contention. Every prevarication we encounter
universally supports this contention. Every media article
is universally designed to hide this contention. Every
book of Law, Accountancy, or Economics likewise. Every
cognitive dissonance, from every Organic Robot,
supports this contention. And our own Common Sense
literally screams this contention.
Well, it does to me, at any rate.
Think about it. I have explained how Money &
Legalese (supported by Religions) are massive illusions.
Merely Belief Systems that could be jettisoned at the
snap of finger and thumb. But, if that were the case,
then domination and enslavement would no longer be
On the other hand, the set-up of these Belief Systems
was based on pandering to innate greed. It is very easy
to see how the concept of 'money' could have been
slipped into the universal psyche, based on: "You
worked hard for that, you should have some return" and:
"This system is so much easier, more convenient, and
more flexible than bartering. All we have to do is to set
some standards".
Constantly supported, at every turn, by psychologies
whose design basis was 'greed' (Roman Empire - greed
for domination? Feudal System - greed of the Nobility
and the Monarchs?)
Never once did anyone (of importance) (apparently)
say: "I have to take, because I'm alive. But all I need is
all I need. I don't need any more, thanks. It is
Mass Mind Control & Enslavement
dishonourable to take more than I need. I don't need to
be greedy. I firmly believe we should all think that way.
The only reward I will ever need is simply the honour of
contributing selflessly to the good of one and all. And I
think that should be the only reward anyone ever needs.
Don't need 'money'. Don't need 'legal'. Don't need
'religion'. Don't need illusions!"
Back in the relatively uncivilised days, when it all
started, it is easy to see how people could be fooled.
There was a time when they believed wholeheartedly in
a God who made the Sun, and made it revolve around
the (flat) Earth. And they never questioned these things.
So why should they question 'the introduction of a
Monetary System for their convenience'?
You would, and still do, need to take a step back and
realise there is no dishonour in taking, and think about
the Farmer, Miller, and Baker example, before it is
possible to see the hoodwinking. You also have to
understand the psychology of sicko psychopaths, who
would actually want to create these illusions. You have
to do this before the audacity of it ever has the slightest
chance of dawning upon you.
And, even then, you would still need to answer why
you even asked the question: "What makes you so sure,
Veronica, that your answers are right?" The fact that this
latter question even crosses your mind shows how
ingrained the whole system of illusions has become.
You have to remember that we were made by sicko
psychos, in the first place. The Annunaki (the Biblical
Elohim/Nefilim). And their own half, of their creation,
implanted the sickness of greed within us, so they knew
exactly how to pander to it. We took our example from
them. We knew no better. We copied their appalling
example. We saw the way they behaved, and copied it,
on the assumption that was the way to behave. We were
told they were Gods - what chance did we actually have
to know any better?
We can know better because of one thing. We are also
half human. And, wherever 'human' came from, it came
with compassion, conscience, empathy. It came with
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Common Sense. We have that, and they don't. We have
a 'better nature', and they don't. That allows us to
unravel their carefully constructed illusions, which I hope
I have done in some small part.
Nevertheless the reality they have constructed, in
order to maintain their domination, is immense and very,
very, thorough.
But there is a way out. The Examples in this book show
that. It comprises what is called Lawful Rebellion. It's a
sort of 'lawful Judo', where you take the momentum of
the attacker and use it against them, in your own
defence, by adding dollops of Common Sense.
It is pointless telling me you have 'democracy'
available to sort anything out, because your 'democracy'
doesn't work. It doesn't work because those who attain
the 'highest positions' all work for the same Masters (the
Global Elite). It doesn't matter to the Global Elite
whether the current Prime Minister is Tony B Liar,
Gordon Brown, David Cameron (or whoever – at the time
of writing), anymore than it makes any difference
whether the US President is a DIMocrat or a RepuliCON.
The only thing anyone has at their disposal is not a
useless 'democratic vote', but Lawful Rebellion - used to
its most potent effect. The vast majority of which can
be done from your armchair, sitting in front of
your computer, and writing letters in your own
defence. The more people that do this, and to
stand up for themselves & their loved ones, the
I'm sure you'll get the idea from these Examples. If not
then you can join in the Forums that have been setup up
at forum.fmotl.com.
The only reason why 'they' get away with any of this,
is simple: People just do not know their Rights.
Rights that many of our forefathers gave their lives to
It seems to me (at least) we need to do three things:
1. Learn or re-discover them;
Mass Mind Control & Enslavement
2. Use them at all times;
3. Teach them to our children, so they never get
lost or forgotten ever again.
Like them, you are a magnificent part of all that is, all
that ever was, and all that ever will be. And it's long past
time you claimed your freedom to be what you truly are.
It's a lot more than just a seven-letter word.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
othing I have written herein incites or induces
violence of any kind. Nor any form of racial
hatred. In point of fact, quite the contrary. All I've
done is used Common Sense to point out the obvious,
and documented methods by which perfectly peaceful,
and perfectly lawful, rebellion can be achieved - entirely
within the Law-of-the-Land.
And nowhere have I even suggested that anyone
should break the Law-of-the-Land … or even Statutes for
that matter. Once again, quite to the contrary.
And the Magna Carta 1215 says quite clearly, in Article
61, that it is the Inalienable Natural Right and Duty of
each and every one of us to rebel with lawful excuse, as
ever it may become necessary.
The content of this book indicates that such necessity
is upon us, in my humble opinion.
I am fully prepared to go toe-to-toe with any Judge,
Magistrate, Lawyer, Solicitor, Policyman, General,
Admiral, Politician, King, Queen - indeed anyone - and
stand on the Common Sense I have documented.
This is not bluff.
I am not bluffing.
And I am not afraid of you.
Yes … you know who I mean. But, of course, you would
never do that, would you?
Go toe-to-toe openly?
You would use your undoubted 'muscle', supplied by
your meticulously-created Mind-Controlled Organic
Robots, to lock me away without discussion. Or you
would make sure I somehow disappeared. 'Character
assassination'/'actual assassination' … you don't care …
as long as the Truth remains covered up. 'Suicide' is
your favourite one, of course. That and 'Strange
accidents, when the CCTV just didn't happen to be
You are snivelling, psychopathic cowards - and that's
the way you act. That's the way you have to act. That's
the way you've always acted, since the beginning of
time. Because your actions could never withstand any
scrutiny in the light of day. The 'hand' has to be kept
'hidden', doesn't it?
You disgust me, to the root of my soul. But do I hate
you? No, not at all. I just want you locked up, away from
decent people, to have a very long life – and the
opportunity to consider all the evil and corruption you
have perpetrated upon decent souls. I want to give you
as long as possible to think about all that. In a real
prison. With real bars. So there's no mistaking the
situation: "It's not corruption that's the problem. It's the
acceptance of corruption that's the problem" said Pat
Rattigan in 2004.
And anyone who reads this book will know what you
are. If anything happens to me, as it has done to others
who have revealed Truths, then what I have said
becomes Truth anyway.
But then left to stand as it is, the blinding obviousness
of what I've written is, frankly, rather hard to rebut, is it
Bit of a problem, then.
And you do, after all, have an awful lot to lose.
But, for me: "Freedom's just another word for nothing
left to lose", as Kris Kristofferson once wrote.
Sue me. Prove you are not a psychopath. Let's have
your DNA examined by a Court … even a de facto one.
You have no clothes! You Emperors have no
clothes! The bits of blue cloth you wear, with
metallic trinkets attached, the wigs you don, the
trappings & robes you wear … still leave you as
naked as the day that you were born!
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
(If I ever say anything different, 'it will be the drugs
talking'. The ones your Robots will have used, without
my permission or my consent).
Templates & Usage Disclaimer
Appendix A: Templates & Usage Disclaimer
isclaimer: You are playing with fire. And
you know what happens if you do that,
without knowing exactly what you are
doing. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that
you have read this book from end to end before
attempting to rebut any legal action taken against
you. And, furthermore, you do it in accordance
with the information herein entirely at your own
risk. The techniques explained herein will not,
necessarily work in any case if you have already
been through Court Proceedings because, at that
point, you will have tacitly agreed to be the Legal
Fiction Person.
All the information contained in this book is
used entirely at your own discretion. In no way
should anything be read herein other than to
encourage you to consider possibilities. And to
use your Common Sense to understand the
deceptive world in which you live. There is no
encouragement or incitement to take any actions
of any kind.
The Templates can be found on the Internet, on the
links given below. This is the best way to present them,
because of their 'dynamic' nature. They can be used for
more than one circumstance, for example if more than
one Legal Fiction Person is involved i.e. 'Mr. & Mrs.'.
Furthermore certain prefixing can be invoked -
depending on circumstances
The responses to them will either be 'standard' -
generally to repeat Statutes in return (fundamentally
they have no idea what you are talking about, and
respond by rote).
Where necessary the Templates include the condition
of 'estoppel by acquiescence', and so this should be
pointed out in the reply, specifically:
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
(a) No response to the Human Self has been
forthcoming (response was still addressed to Legal
Fiction Person), and this is the last time you will reply
pointing this out;
(b) No response in substance has been forthcoming;
(c) Thus 'permanent and irrevocable lawful
estoppel by acquiescence' has been gained, due to
their dishonour;
(d) Your original Conditional Agreement removed all
Controversy, and thus removed the possibility of Court
Action on their part;
(e) Notice that henceforth a charge of £500 will be
levied for letters sent that appertain to the matter in
hand (where a communication is addressed to your
Human Self). Correspondence continued to be addressed
to your Legal Fiction Person will be returned unopened,
marked: "No Legal Fictions dwell here. Only Human
Beings. Try La-La Land";
These things tend to tie them up on knots. If they still
persist, let them. You've already won, so why should you
care what they do? You can write back and tell them that
you've already won so, whatever they do – they've
already lost. Point out that, if they go to Court, their case
will be dismissed, and that you will make a Counterclaim
for harassment in the sum of £50,000 for all the
UNLAWFUL stress you have suffered. (Make sure you
always do this from what you are commonly called, and
not the Legal Fiction Name they addressed, "Without
Prejudice", etc. The Templates make sure of all this).
The best thing is not to open letters addressed to your
Legal Fiction Person, but to return them unopened, as
explained above. Phone calls: Don't admit to your name,
and DO NOT quote the "first line of your address". Give
them absolutely nothing (not even the time of
day, if possible).
Have I actually done this myself? Yes. On a number of
occasions. What happened to me? Nothing ... as yet.
Except the chance to write this book.
It is felt that the Templates should be self-explanatory.
Templates & Usage Disclaimer
I have been asked: "Which template do I use:?". The
answer to that is: "The templates are the 2nd Phase.
The 1st Phase is to stop paying. You will then receive a
letter, which you will need to rebut. You will then know
which Rebuttal Template to use".
The only Templates presented herein are those that
have been proven to work. However, while they start the
'rebuttal ball rolling', they do not - necessarily - stop the
process immediately. It is often necessary to follow up,
explaining the difference between 'legal' and 'lawful'
(their response will always be in the 'legal sense'), and
pointing out that the 'lack of response in substance' has
gained the estoppel, explained above.
Type templates.fmotl.com into your Browser to
obtain personalised rebuttal letters for the following
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Debt Collection Agency Rebuttal.
This Template is available in dynamic form via
templates.fmotl.com. Below is a generalised sample,
where ?N? are numbers to be replaced by the following:
?1? = Your Address Line 1
?2? = Your Address Line 2
?3? = Your Address Line 3
?4? = Your Address Line 4
?5? = Your Address Line 5
?6? = Your Address Line 6
?7? = Your PostCode
?8? = Your Letter Date
?9? = DCA Reference Number
?10? = DCA Reference Date
?11? = DCA Address Line 1
?12? = DCA Address Line 2
?13? = DCA Address Line 3
?14? = DCA Address Line 4
?15? = DCA Address Line 5
?16? = DCA Address Line 6
?17? = Your Given Name
?18? = Your Family Name
DO NOT SIGN IT. There is no need. 'They' often
do not sign anything written to you, so why give
them a Signature to forge? Send it 'registered'.
Templates & Usage Disclaimer
In care of:
Near: [?7?]
Re: ?9?, dated ?10?.
Notice of Request To Cease Harrassment.
Dear Sirs,
Please read the following notice thoroughly and
carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you.
It means what it says.
I refer to your letter dated ?10?.
As you are a third party intervener in this matter
acting without authority, I DO NOT give you permission
to interfere in my commercial affairs as you have no
legal standing. I do not have a contract with you and any
permission that you believe you may have from me is
hereby withdrawn. If you believe that you have power of
attorney to act on my behalf you are hereby fired, and
any consent that you believe you may have, tacit or
otherwise, is hereby withdrawn.
I am familiar with the terms of Section 40 of the
Administration of Justice Act 1970, and the Protection
from Harassment Act 1997. And I believe, should you
continue in contacting me after my request for you to
cease your activity, that you will be guilty of harassment
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
and blackmail, and you will be in breach of these acts,
and you will be reported to the relevant bodies.
I am well aware of Section 40, sub-section (3) which
you may consider entitles you to proceed. However upon
full commercial liability and penalty of perjury you will
need to supply the following Proofs of Claims:
1. Proof of Claim that your actions are reasonable.
2. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is due,
or believed by you to be due to you, and not to some
other party.
3a. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is to
yourself by providing sight of the appropriate contract,
3b. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part to
persons for whom you act by providing sight of the
appropriate contract.
4. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part
protects you from any future loss.
5. Proof of Claim that any obligation on my part is
enforcement of a legal process on a Human Being under
Common Law jurisdiction, who cannot possibly have
such liability under said jurisdiction.
You would of course need to provide these Proofs,
including showing the full and audited accounting, if you
chose to go to law.
Please also note that if you contact me by telephone,
after a formal request not to, you will also be in breach
of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949) and, as such, I will
report you to both Trading Standards and The Office of
Fair Trading. And take further note that continued
telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call
may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of
the Communications Act 2003.
Finally, you do not, nor have you ever had, my
permission to use or process my personal data in any
way, and so pursuant to the Data Protection Act 1998, I
hereby demand that you cease use of any and all data
with regard to me, and that you immediately destroy all
Templates & Usage Disclaimer
of my data held on your records. Failure to do so will
result in a report being submitted to The Information
Commissioner for Data Protection breaches.
You will be deemed to have been served notice of my
request and I will deem it served three (3) days from the
date of this letter. This has been sent by recorded
delivery. I am advising you that any communications
from you including but not limited to letters, phone calls
and text messages received after this date will be
recorded/noted with the intention of them being used as
Do not contact me again.
Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,
?17?: of the ?18? family
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Inalienable Rights
Please address all future correspondence in the matter
to a direct Human Self, namely ?17?: of the ?18? family,
as commonly called.
Encl: Original paperwork as received.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Charge or Demand Rebuttal (incl. Fixed Penalty
This Template is available in dynamic form via
templates.fmotl.com. Below is a generalised sample,
where ?N? are numbers to be replaced by the following:
?1? = Your Address Line 1
?2? = Your Address Line 2
?3? = Your Address Line 3
?4? = Your Address Line 4
?5? = Your Address Line 5
?6? = Your Address Line 6
?7? = Your PostCode
?8? = Your Letter Date
?9? = Charge/Demand Reference Number
?10? = Charge/Demand Reference Date
?11? = Charge/Demand Address Line 1
?12? = Charge/Demand Address Line 2
?13? = Charge/Demand Address Line 3
?14? = Charge/Demand Address Line 4
?15? = Charge/Demand Address Line 5
?16? = Charge/Demand Address Line 6
?17? = Your Given Name
?18? = Your Family Name
?19? = The Legal Fiction Name, exactly as printed
in the Demand.
?20? = The Amount Demanded
This has been organised for a Fixed Penalty Charge.
This same (or similar) wording could be used for any
Demand in general.
DO NOT SIGN IT. There is no need. 'They' often
do not sign anything written to you, so why give
them a Signature to forge? Send it 'registered'.
Templates & Usage Disclaimer
In care of:
Near: [?7?]
Re: ?9?, dated ?10?.
Notice of Discharge of Outstanding Fixed
Penalty Charge and Request for Clarification.
Dear Sirs,
Please read the following notice thoroughly and
carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you.
It means what it says.
The reason why you need to read carefully is simple. I
am offering conditional agreement. This removes
controversy, and means that you no longer have any
ultimate recourse to a court of law in this matter,
because there is no controversy upon which it could
adjudicate. You always have the option of dragging
these conditions into a court of law only to be told that
they are, indeed, perfectly lawful. That is, of course,
always your prerogative should you decide to waste your
For this reason it is important that you consider and
respond to the offer in substance. The 'nearest official
form' will not suffice, and consequently is likely to be
ignored by myself without any dishonour on my part.
On the other hand there is a time-limit on the
agreement being offered. It is reasonable, and if it runs
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
out then you and all associated parties are in default,
removing any and all lawful excuse on your part for
proceeding in this matter.
For these reasons it is recommended that you
carefully consider this notice and respond in substance,
which means actually addressing the points raised
You have apparently made allegations of unacceptable
conduct on my part.
You have apparently made demands upon me.
I do not understand those apparent demands and
therefore cannot lawfully fulfill them. I seek clarification
of your document so that I may act according to the law
and maintain my entire body of inalienable Natural
Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so
completely and in good faith within 7 (seven) days will
be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal
or other parties abandon all demands upon me.
I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am
legal fiction 'person' ?19? and that I owe £?20? for
services rendered by your company, upon proof of claim
of all of the following:
1. Upon proof of claim that I am a person, and not a
human being.
2. Upon proof of claim that you know what a 'person'
actually is, in legal terms.
3. Upon proof of claim that you know the difference
between a 'human being' and a 'person', legally
4. Upon proof of claim that you know the difference
between 'legal' and a 'lawful'.
5. Upon proof of claim that I am legal fiction 'person' ?
19?, being the entity to which your paperwork was
addressed, and not ?17?: of the ?18? family, as
commonly called.
Templates & Usage Disclaimer
6. Upon proof of claim that the charge was the result
of a lawful investigation unmarred by prejudice.
7. Upon proof of claim that I am a member of the
society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you
are enforcing.
8. Upon proof of claim that I showed you some sort of
9 Upon proof of claim that there is a nameable society
that I belong to and that the laws covered within any
alleged transgressions state that they apply to me within
that named society.
Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,
?17?: of the ?18? family
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Inalienable Rights
Please address all future correspondence in the matter
to a direct Human Self, namely ?17?: of the ?18? family,
as commonly called.
Encl: Original paperwork as received.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Court de facto Summons Rebuttal.
This Template is available in dynamic form via
templates.fmotl.com. Below is a generalised sample,
where ?N? are numbers to be replaced by the following:
?1? = Your Address Line 1
?2? = Your Address Line 2
?3? = Your Address Line 3
?4? = Your Address Line 4
?5? = Your Address Line 5
?6? = Your Address Line 6
?7? = Your PostCode
?8? = Your Letter Date
?9? = Summons Reference Number
?10? = Summons Reference Date
?11? = Court Name/Address Line 1
?12? = Court Address Line 2
?13? = Court Address Line 3
?14? = Court Address Line 4
?15? = Court Address Line 5
?16? = Court Address Line 6
?17? = Your Given Name
?18? = Your Family Name
?19? = The Legal Fiction Name, exactly as printed
in the Summons.
DO NOT SIGN IT. There is no need. 'They' often
do not sign anything written to you, so why give
them a Signature to forge? Send it 'registered'.
Templates & Usage Disclaimer
In care of:
Near: [?7?]
Re: ?9?, dated ?10?.
Notice of Request for Clarification of Paperwork
The Clerk of the Court
Dear Sirs,
The enclosed paperwork was delivered to the address
at which I dwell.
It was addressed in the name ?19?.
I have been led to believe this signifies that the
paperwork was addressed to a legal fiction known as a
PERSON, which is, in point of fact, the name of some
I would be most grateful if you would kindly confirm or
deny my understanding in this respect.
As a sovereign Human Being, with a living soul, and
consequently (as I understand it) under Common Law
jurisdiction (i.e. the law-of-the-land, as opposed to
Corporate or Statute Law, namely the law-of-the-sea), I
am not entirely sure why I have received this paperwork,
and would be grateful for any clarification in this matter.
I have no wish to dishonour any valid and lawful
obligation on my part.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Article 45 of the Magna Carta 1215 states quite
clearly: "We will appoint as justices, constables,
sheriffs, or bailiffs only those who know the law of
the realm and who wish to observe it well", and
this cannot be repealed or voided in any way because it
pre-dates all Parliaments, and furthermore the document
itself says so in other Articles. And said document bears
the Royal Seal. In consequence of this I assume you can
clarify, in lay terms, the points raised herein.
According to Dun & Bradstreet there is a registered
company known as ?11?. Since it is possible to obtain a
D&B Credit Report on said company, it seems
reasonable to assume that it is in business, actively
trading, and offering services. Please confirm that your
good selves have no connection with said Trading
Company, and that said paperwork was not an issuance
from it, being merely an offer to provide a service.
Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,
?17?: of the ?18? family
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Inalienable Rights
Please address all future correspondence in the matter
to a direct Human Self, namely ?17?: of the ?18? family,
as commonly called.
Encl: Original paperwork as received.
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
Appendix B: Freedom of Information interactions
with HM Treasury
here is a Website that provides for UK Freedom of
Information Requests, called
WhatDoTheyKnow.com. I made the following
Freedom of Information Request to HM Treasury on 3rd
February, 2009:
Dear Sir or Madam,
Under the Freedom of Information Act I
would like an answer to the following
How, precisely, is money created?
For your information I have been given to
understand that it is created by means of
Promissory Notes. In more detail, when a
human being signs a 'promise to pay' (known
colloquially as an IOU), which can stand until
the end of time. And that the human being's
signature on that promise renders said
promise lawful.
Can you please be so kind as to confirm or
deny my understanding and, if necessary,
correct my understanding?
Thank you.
Yours faithfully, … etc.
I was told that they did not need to answer such
questions under the Freedom of Information Act. That
they were only required to pull numbers from their
databases, in response to requests for such numbers.
However, as a kindness to me, they would respond as
they were able.
A copy of their response is Figures B1 & B2.
Paul Morran had not answered my question, but did
supply, in Paragraph 7, sentence 2, the answer: "You are
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
correct in essence that this amounts to an IOU". And
there were some nuggets of information in Paragraph 5,
for example, sentence 3: "Modern 'currency' is known as
'fiat' money; it is artificially created, has no value in
itself …".
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
Figure B1: First response from HM Treasury (1st Page).
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Figure B2: First response from HM Treasury (2nd Page).
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
Rather than bog up the Freedom of Information
website, I decided to take Paul Morran up on this offer to
contact him further. So I sent the following e-mail:
Dear Sirs,
I recently submitted a Freedom of
Information request that can be read via this
It was responded to very courteously by
your colleague Mr. Paul Morran.
However the fundamental question was
only answered by default. Nevertheless that
default answer is now the law-of-the-land, in
other words now becomes a part of
established Common Law.
Based on that situation, and under Common
Law courtesy, I am now writing to you for
further - more detailed - answers in the form
of specific clarifications.
Please remain assured that I do not wish to
'pull rank'. That is, by being a Member of the
Public. A Human Being who, by virtue of my
supreme and absolute power, colludes with
others of the same rank to provide your
ultimate authorisation for existence as 'HM
You may consider that your authorisation
derives from empowerment by Government
Statute. That is fair enough, but who
empowers the Government? The Queen?
Wrong answer, because who empowers the
There is only one answer. Those with the
power to do that. Which is us, the Human
Beings who populate this Country of ours.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
We empower the Queen via the Coronation
Oath. We empower the Government by
You cannot give someone, or even some
'body' (such as a group of representatives),
more than you, yourself, possess.
Consequently no-one can empower either the
Monarch, or the Government (or HM
Treasury) with more power than they,
themselves, possess.
All this is just saying one thing: If I ask a
question with due courtesy, I have the
inalienable Right to have it answered
courteously, IN FULL, on pain of perjury and
full commercial liability, and IN TRUTH (as far
as is practicable).
You have extended Common Law courtesy
until now. And I have responded as
courteously as was (I think) possible. And I
sincerely hope that will continue.
So now I ask you ('money' is henceforth in
quotes as defined by Mr. Morran in his
original answer):
1) Who authorises the creation of 'money'?
Upon whose signature (or signatures) is it
created? 2) For what reason is AN AMOUNT
created? 3) Do you hold a Live Birth Trust (or
some such) for each individual who is alive? If
so, is the Reference Number the same as a
National Insurance Number, and is any such
account 'named' to the legal fiction PERSON
of that individual? And, furthermore, if this is
the case, is the associated Human Being
Prime Creditor on the account?
There may be more questions, depending
on your truthful answers, which I trust can be
responded to within a matter of a few days at
the very most.
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
If there is any reason why you cannot give
answers, then please be so kind as to direct
me to a source of them.
I thank you in anticipation,
Sincerely, without ill-will, frivolity or
Veronica: of the Chapman family as
commonly called, a live Human being with a
living soul. "Veronica: Chapman", for short
(there is no "Ms.", "Miss" or "Mrs.", because
those are legal fiction PERSONS and not my
Human Self. Only my Human Self has (a) a
Mind with which to devise these questions
and interpret/comprehend the answers and
(b) Eyes with which to read the answers)
And I received back the letter shown in Figures
I analysed this response as follows:
My requests seem to find their way back to Paul:
of the Morran family. He is turning into being one of
my favourite people of all time.
Notice he addresses me as Veronica: of the
Chapman family! But what does his response
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Figure B3: Second response for HM Treasury (1st Page).
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
Figure B4: Second response from HM Treasury (2nd
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Well, first of all we are being directed to the
Currency Act 1983. At the time of writing I have not
looked at this, but certainly will. (Now been
looked at ... see below)
More importantly, in my view, we now have it in
writing that: "currency is issued in response to
And: "If demand exceeded availability, users
would be constrained to make greater use of
cheques and electronic transfers". Very curious way
of saying something? Because what, exactly, is it
actually saying?
Finally Paul: Morran goes on to deny the
existence of Live Birth Trusts, and any connection
with one's National Insurance Number.
An interesting response, all told, but it begs so
many questions:
1. "currency is issued in response to
demand"? Whose demand? Maybe this is covered
in the Currency Act?
2. "If demand exceeded availability, users
would be constrained to make greater use of
cheques and electronic transfers". If demand
exceeded availability? Whose demand ... see
above. 'Availability' ... whaaaaat? Paul has
already told us that: 'money has no value'. 'The
availability of something without value' means
what? 'Money' is nothing more than an idea, a
belief. The availability of beliefs is infinite.
3. 'users'? Is that us? I assume so. But that is
not, necessarily the case. It could easily mean just
Banks, Building Societies, etc. Those who directly
interface with HM Treasury. I'm not sure what this
4. And: "these users would be constrained
to make greater use of cheques and
electronic transfers"? To do what? To pass
'money' around, but what money? Where is it
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
coming from (to be passed around under
All in all, this seems to be totally circular. Well,
almost. I think progress is being made, slowly but
I can't see how anything here actually contradicts
anything else I've said, except that we are having
Live Birth Trusts dismissed. I find the latter so hard
to believe. Accounting and bookkeeping practices
absolutely scream some kind of mechanism like
that, tied to the National Insurance Number. They
could not possibly run a free-for-all system. It is
against the ingrained robotic nature of any
Accountant. Accounts must add up. Otherwise
Accountants have no 'profession' to speak of.
And why, in that case, is our National Insurance
Number demanded left, right, centre, on all 'official
paperwork', and a considerable amount of 'private',
or 'non-official', paperwork?
And, subsequently, after reading most of
the Currency Act:
This just seems to deal with the standards for
minting, etc.
(As if it makes any difference to a Belief System.
An Idea. An Illusion)
Notice ... there it is again: 'bank notes' means
notes of the Bank payable to bearer on
demand. Totally circular. Chasing the roots of
'money' will have you running round in circles. You
might as well chase rainbows or unicorns, which is
the same thing. Everyone would get the actual idea
if the banknote said: "I promise to pay the Bearer
on demand 5 unicorns". Which would be just as
true as what it actually says.
However there was one bit I laughed at: "(2) For
the purposes of this section, the limit is £13,500
million or such other amount as may from time to
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
time be specified in a direction given by the
Yea ... tell that to Gordon Brown.
So. No. We still don't know the answers to the
questions I asked. These are:
1. How is 'money' created? (How is the
belief manifested in the form of Tokens?) 2.
For what reason is 'an amount' created? 3.
Who looks at that reason, decides it is valid,
and therefore authorises the creation of 'an
amount'? 4. How is 'an amount that has been
created passed into circulation'? Who is it
passed to, and why?
And the answers are contained within this book.
Because there is no other way.
Why am I so concerned about this? Is it because I
want buckets of it?
Actually no, that's not the reason at all. I would
like to see us get rid of it once and for all.
The reason I'm so concerned is because I don't
like having the michael taken out of me. That's
the reason. And I don't see why the michael should
be taken out of everyone else, either. That's the
And I don't see why people of all shapes, sizes
and ages should be bombed, shot, maimed, killed,
tortured, put through excruciating agonies,
enslaved in the most draconian manner ... all based
on a mickey-take. That's the main reason.
So I sent another e-mail. This is what I said:
Dear Paul: of the Morran family,
I cannot thank you enough for the
responses you have already made. I don't
know whether or not you are irritated by my
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
persistence. I hope not, because the
questions I've asked affect yourself, your
family, your friends, and everyone else.
I fully appreciate that you have strived
manfully to answer the questions I have
raised in the past.
But we still have not got to the heart of the
Thank you for the reference to the Currency
Act 1983, but - by my reading - that only
defines the standards for coinage and
banknotes such as to be acceptable legal
tender, and does not really answer my
May we please start again?
May I please ask you the following
"Is HM Treasury the SOLE authority that
regulates the issuance of 'an amount' INTO
CIRCULATION at any point in time?" (This
does not mean the production of coins and/or
banknotes that represent 'money'. You have
already answered that as the Royal Mint and
the Bank of England, respectively)
What I'm trying to get to is: Who tells the
Royal Mint to issue a certain number of
coins? Who tells the Bank of England to issue
a certain number of banknotes? Who ... if not
HM Treasury?
Best + thanking you in anticipation +
apologies if you find this irritating,
Veronica: of the Chapman family.
The response I received is Figures B5 & B6.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Figure B5: Third response for HM Treasury (1st Page).
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
Figure B6: Third response from HM Treasury (2nd Page).
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
I decided it was time to pull out all the stops, so
I sent the following e-mail:
Dear Paul,
Thank you once again for your kind
You say, in (5) you are disappointed at my
statement about 'not yet having got to the
heart of the matter' and that you have to
consider the resources available to answer
me. I understand that, of course. However I
do write on behalf of not just myself. All the
information you have provided is valuable, in
my humble opinion. And many others are
watching this correspondence which is - after
all - public information, of course.
I would say that your answers have,
actually, moved the situation a little closer to
the heart of the matter each time, and some
progress has been made.
OK. Well, in (5) you say that you do not
understand what the heart of the matter is
for me. May I then please try to explain, as
far as I am able?
The heart of the matter, what I'm trying to
get to, was actually in my very first FoI
And I suggested an answer, and requested
confirmation or denial.
I suggested that money was created on the
basis of Promissory Notes. And, in your first
response, you said that this was true "in
essence". But you did not say it was true "in
fact". Which is different.
So, the heart of the matter is this:
1. What, precise, mechanism causes the
release of 'some amount'? It must require
some authority. Whose authority?
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
2. What defines 'the amount'?
3. How does this created money 'get into
Now we know the answer to (3) above is
not that it is dropped from an airplane. Nor is
it just because a bank may up and demand it
(otherwise banks and building societies
would not go out of business ... and what
gives them a priority right to make such a
demand, anyway?). (Although, of course, the
recent bailouts were, precisely, 'because the
banks demanded it'. But this is very unusual,
as I'm sure you will agree. Hence all the
If you want me to suggest answers for your
consideration, answers that get to the heart
of the matter, and may therefore explain to
you what I consider to be the heart of the
matter, then my considered understandings
would be:
1. The precise mechanism for the creation
of money is based on a Promissory Note, an
IOU, signed by ANY individual when applying
for a loan, mortgage, or equivalent. A
'promise to pay back'. (But, as you have
already said, 'money is fiat, it has no value' ...
so the 'pay back' is an empty promise ... just
like the empty promise on a banknote itself)
2. The amount is the amount of the loan.
3. It is moved into circulation by making the
amount available to whoever made the
promise as a credit to an account on which
s/he can draw upon. (Obviously, as you have
explained, there are Statutory limits placed
on this mechanism, such that it doesn't run
off into infinity. For example by raising
Interest Rates such that the Promissory
Notes generated by loan applications (1)
become fewer)
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Now that is what I consider to be the heart
of the matter. That's what I asked. Those are
my understood answers.
Am I right or am I wrong?
Have I made my standpoint clear?
Kind regards + thanks for your kind
Veronica: of the Chapman family
I received the response shown as Figure B7.
I decided to partially give up (although not
completely), and sent back on passing shot:
Dear Paul: of the Morran family,
Thank you for your e-mail.
I specifically gave you the answers to the
questions I actually asked, in terms of
confirmation or denial. I did not wish to do
that, because I did not wish to be accused of
putting words into your mouth, preferring
instead to rely on your intellectual honesty.
But, as our correspondence progressed, you
left me no choice.
You did not deny my suggested answers.
But, of course, you did not confirm them
either. I leave you to consider whether or not
intellectual honesty reined supreme.
Anyway, I will assume you have done your
best in very trying circumstances (i.e.
'someone like me'), and so I will just say
thank you for the information you did
The link to the Bank of England you
supplied, goes to a page that mainly
comprises Sponsorship Adverts and
information about Interest Rates. I know I
mentioned Interest Rates in my previous e-
mail, but that was only in the nature of an
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
I care not one jot about any Rates of
Interest, and did not ask any questions about
them. Simply because the mechanism for
creating money does not create sufficient to
cover any Interest at all.
This leaves the entire economy (in total) in
perpetual, never-ending, 'can-never-be-paid-
off' debt - as I'm sure you can understand.
Or, perhaps you can tell me how the monies
to create the Interest are produced? Well, no,
because you refuse to confirm how the
Principal is even created ... so I won't even
bother to ask.
You hoped to 'allay my fears'. Did I give the
impression I was fearful in any way? If so,
then I humbly apologise. That was never my
intent. I care not one jot about counterfeiting
either. With respect, I think that is the Bank
of England's problem, not mine. Any
perceived value that results from
counterfeiting activities is only the same as
the perceived value of the banknotes
themselves. And you have already told me
the banknotes themselves are intrinsically
worthless. Consequently those notes issued
by the Bank of England have as much worth
as counterfeit banknotes, do they not? So
why is counterfeiting a problem?
No need to answer that last question
because the only difference is that
counterfeit notes are not issued under
'authority'. But whose authority ... that's the
question. Which specific person provides, or
specific persons provide, the authority? Do
they work for HM Treasury? What are their
names & Official Titles? And how do they
decide how much fiat paper to authorise at
any one time? And why? On what basis is
authority for issuance granted? That's what I
asked - over an over again.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
But it's quite plain those questions must
remain officially unanswered.
Except that we know. That's how we knew
what questions to ask, of course. Not
confirmed ... but NOT denied.
I doubt you have heard the last of this
because, as you so rightly say, others are
catching on. For some reason they (a)
Understand what I'm getting at and (b) Seem
to think my questions are reasonable, and
should be fully answered in detail.
Regards + thanks for your help, anyway,
Veronica: of the Chapman family.
What is the result of all this? Well, we have a flat
denial that a 'Live Birth Trust Account' exists. But we
have no denial that it is not called by some other name:
'Exemption Account', or 'Redemption Account' are
two suggestions. We have a flat denial that this is tied to
National Insurance Numbers, but we have no denial that
it may be linked to Birth Certificate Numbers.
We have no denials because we have not asked these
questions, in the appropriate way, is my best guess.
We have been given reasonable suspicion that the
questions need to be asked in a specific way, otherwise
denial is obviously possible. If you use the wrong name,
then the fact that it does not exist is perfectly deniable.
We have no explanation for the fact that our National
Insurance Numbers are required on just about every
scrap of Officious Paperwork. We are left to wonder why
that should be.
And we have not had a denial that my suggested
answers to: "How money is created" were in any way
incorrect. And denial would have been a piece of cake.
All it would have amounted to was: "I can confirm that
you are wrong".
So, there it sits. At the time of writing. But, as
Freemanship opens out, the answers will, I firmly
believe, have to be forthcoming. The questions I have
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
asked strike right into the heart of the illusion. One must
expect a certain amount of resistance.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Figure B7: Fourth response from HM Treasury
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
But then, none of this should be a surprise. It appears
that a genuinely-concerned MP, by the name of Stokes,
had a go at trying to find out something, along similar
lines, back in the 1940s. He did not succeed either. All
he received were smarmy, devious, dismissive,
Here's some Hansard on and around this
HC Deb 22 October 1940 vol 365 c942W 942W
§ Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the President of the Board of
Trade whether the formation by the Government of the
United Kingdom Corporation is only a war-time measure;
and will he give assurance that the corporation will be
wound up immediately after hostilities cease, so that the
export trade may flow through its normal peace-time
§ Mr. Johnstone: The corporation was formed with a view
to meeting difficulties in overseas trade which are due to
conditions arising out of the war. It is impossible to
foresee the conditions that will obtain when hostilities
cease and, therefore, I cannot say whether at that date
it will be desirable to terminate the activities of the
corporation. These activities do not, I think, disturb the
normal channels of trade but I can assure my hon. Friend
that His Majesty's Government have every desire that
trade should be freed from war-time restrictions and be
conducted in a normal manner at the earliest possible
HC Deb 18 April 1944 vol 399 cc39-42W 40W
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
§ Mr. Parker :asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he
will give a list of the names of the present directors of
the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation, together
with a list of other directorships which they hold.
§ Sir J. Anderson: The list of directors of the United
Kingdom Commercial Corporation and of other
directorships held by them is as follows:
[Please note: Many, if not all, of these people
are now dead. The interesting part, for research
purposes, is the Companies involved]
Sir Francis Joseph, Bt., K.B.E., D.L. (Acting Chairman)
Directorships held:
Settle Speakman and Company Limited.
Mossfield Colliery Limited.
Bignall Hill Colliery Company Limited.
Stirrup and Pye Limited.
Fenton Collieries Limited.
Stafford Coal and Iron Company Limited.
Timber and Wood (Merseyside) Limited.
A. & S. Henry and Company Limited.
Blaw-Knox Limited.
London Midland and Scottish Railway Company
Birmingham Railway Carriage and Wagon Company
Midland Bank Limited.
Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Company
Rio Tinto Company Limited.
Birmingham Small Arms Company Limited.
Birmingham Canal Navigations.
Dundalk, Newry and Greenore Railway Company.
Mr. A. Chester Beatty Directorships held:
American Metal Company Limited.
Boart Products, Limited.
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
Consolidated African Selection Trust Limited.
Consolidated Diamond Mines of South West Africa
Mufulira Copper Mines Limited.
Northern Rhodesia Power Corporation Limited.
Rhodesian Selection Trust Limited.
Roan Antelope Copper Mines Limited.
Selection Trust Limited.
Seltrust Investments Limited.
Sierra Leone Selection Trust Limited.
Trepea Mines Limited.
Union Corporation Limited.
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Portugal)
Selection Manufacturing Company Limited.
Central Mining and Investment Corporation Limited.
Karamiat Estates Limited.
Mr. G. A. McEwen Directorships held:
Co-operative Wholesale Society Limited.
Chinese Purchasing Agency.
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Spain)
*Lord Swinton, Minister Resident in West Africa, still
retains the post of Chairman of the Corporation.
Sir Frank Nixon Directorships held:
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Spain)
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Portugal)
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Ethiopia)
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Egypt)
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Eritrea)
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Iran)
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Iraq)
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Palestine)
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Sudan)
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Syria and
Lebanon) Ltd.
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (East
Africa) Limited.
Mr. J. H. Hambro Directorships held:
Hambros Bank, Limited.
Hambro Trust, Limited.
Ashdown Investment Trust, Limited.
British and Continental Banking Company, Limited.
John Dickinson and Company, Limited.
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Spain),
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Portugal),
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Ethiopia),
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (East
Africa), Limited.
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Egypt),
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Eritrea),
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Iran),
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Iraq),
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation
(Palestine), Limited.
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Sudan),
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Syria and
Lebanon), Limited.
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
Mr. C. P. Lister Directorships held:
R. A. Lister and Company, Limited.
Blackstone and Company, Limited.
S.A. R. A. Lister et Cie.
Mr. L. C. Paton Directorships held:
Harrisons and Crosfield (Canada), Limited.
Harrisons and Crosfield (Borneo), Limited.
Harrisons, Barker and Company, Limited.
Wilkinson Rubber Linatex, Limited.
Wilkinson Sales Corporation (Canada), Limited.
British Borneo Timber Company, Limited.
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Portugal),
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Spain),
Captain J. A. Leighton Directorships held:
Stelp and Leighton, Limited.
J. H. Wackerbarth and Company, Limited.
Southampton Steamship Company.
Crete Shipping Company.
Sark Motorships, Limited.
Guernsey, Alderney and Sark Steamship Company.
R. C. Hardman Sons, Limited.
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Portugal),
Lionel Edwards, Limited, Calcutta, India and any
associated or subsidiary companies registered in India,
Burma or Ceylon, and including the name "Lionel
Edwards" in their title.
United Kingdom Commercial Corporation (Spain),
Mr. E. J. Shearer Directorships held:
Molyneux et Cie, Limited.
Survey and General Loan Company, Limited.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Mr. A. D. Campbell Directorships held:
Forbes, Campbell and Company, Limited.
George and R. Dewhurst, Limited.
Manchester Ship Canal Company.
Waring and Gillow (19312), Limited.
Martins Bank (Manchester Branch).
Manchester Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. E. H. Lever Directorships held:
Richard Thomas and Company, Limited.
Glasbrook Brothers, Limited.
Clayton Tin Plate Company, Limited.
Gravesend Steel and Tinplate Company, Limited.
H. F. Spencer and Company, Limited.
Lancaster's Steam Coal Collieries, Limited.
Monks, Hall and Company, Limited.
New Sharlston Collieries Company, Limited.
R.T. Metal Productions, Limited.
Richard Nevill and Company, Limited.
S. J. Burrell Prior, Limited.
South Wales Tinplate Corporation, Limited.
Swansea Navigation Collieries, Limited.
W. Gilbertson and Company, Limited.
Whitehead Thomas Bar and Strip Company, Limited.
New Money (Creation)
HC Deb 18 April 1944 vol 399 cc30-1 30
§ 58. Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether he will in future have recourse to the creation of
new money without interest instead of adding to the
volume of bank advances to the Treasury as this would
be no more inflationary and would cost the country less.
§ Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir.
§ Mr. Stokes: Will the Chancellor explain why it is
preferable in the national interest to create new money
with interest rather than create new money without?
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
§ Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend knows very well that I
do not accept his monetary theories. He really cannot
expect me to argue the matter with him at Question
New Money
HC Deb 27 April 1944 vol 399 cc924-5 924
§ Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how
he keeps check of the amount of new money created.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I
do not find it necessary to attempt any such record as
my hon. Friend suggests.
§ Mr. Stokes: But that is not an answer to my Question.
Am I to understand from the Chancellor that he keeps no
check on the amount of new money brought into
§ Sir J. Anderson: I keep no such check as my hon. Friend
seems to have in mind. If he will study the White Paper,
published on Tuesday—which he will find a veritable
mine of information—perhaps he will then be good
enough to indicate to me just what practical purpose he
thinks such a record or check as he has in mind would
§ Mr. Stokes: But is the Chancellor aware that competent
authorities are of the opinion that something in the order
of £1,500,000,000 has been created by the banks since
the war began, at little cost to the banks and at great
cost to the community? Does he not think it is his
responsibility to see how much new money has been
created? Surely it b a matter of business.
§ Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend referred to "competent
authorities," but I am aware that the question of who is a
competent authority is also a matter of opinion.
Government Stock (Interest Payments)
HC Deb 11 May 1944 vol 399 cc2086-7 2087
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
§ Mr. Graham White: asked the Financial Secretary to the
Treasury if consideration has been given to the
desirability of saving labour and paper by making
arrangements for the payment of interest on 2½ per
cent. Consols and other Trustee Securities by half-yearly
instead of quarterly payments.
§ Mr. Assheton: Yes, Sir. As regards Government stocks
on which dividends are paid quarterly, it has been
established that in view of the limited amount of debt
involved, no appreciable saving of labour or paper would
be achieved by the suggested alteration. The
arrangement has definite advantages, for certain classes
of investors. A change of practice would require
amendment of the law, and I do not think that a case
has been made for it.
Freedom of Information interactions with HM
International Monetary Fund (Joint Statement)
HC Deb 16 May 1944 vol 400 c31 31
§ Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether the British experts who collaborated in drawing
up the Joint Statement by experts on the establishment
of an International Monetary Fund were Treasury
officials; and, if not, from what organisations were they
§ Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. Apart from Lord Keynes, the
United Kingdom experts who collaborated in drawing up
the Joint Statement were permanent Treasury officials
and whole-time temporary officials who have been in the
service of the Government throughout the war.
§ Mr. Stokes: Can the Chancellor assure the House that
the whole-time temporary servants who have been in
the employment of the Treasury for the period of the
war are not drawn either from commercial or banking
§ Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir, I do not think I could give such
an assurance as that.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Appendix C: Magna Carta 1215
his is the Magna Carta 1215. The original one. It
contains within it wording to the effect that it
cannot be superseded. It stands behind all other
Law, specifically Statute Law. The reason is simply that
there was no such thing as 'Parliament' when this Treaty
was enacted between the Nobility (at the time) and the
Monarch (at the time – King John).
As a consequence any Parliamentary Statute is bound
by it. Any Statute that attempts to supersede it is null &
void in Law. This renders all Parliamentary Statutes
either (a) Null & void or (b) Ineffective - since they can
only quote Common Law anyway, and it is pointless to
enforce something that is already in force as Law.
And this renders each and every one of the 111,000-
plus Statutes, enacted on the basis of implementing EU
Directives, as totally pointless wastes of time & effort.
All you have to do is know. And stand up for
yourself. You have an 'EU Referendum'. 24 hours
per day, 7 days per week.
Some of the most important sections of the Great
Charter have been highlighted in bold italics:
John, by the grace of God, king of England,
lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and
Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the
archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons,
justiciars, foresters, sheriffs, stewards,
servants, and to all his bailiffs and faithful
subjects, greeting. Know that we, out of
reverence for God and for the salvation of our
soul and those of all our ancestors and heirs,
for the honour of God and the exaltation of
holy church, and for the reform of our realm,
on the advice of our venerable fathers,
Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of
all England and cardinal of the holy Roman
Magna Carta 1215
church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William of
London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath
and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of
Worcester, William of Coventry and Benedict
of Rochester, bishops, of master Pandulf,
subdeacon and member of the household of
the lord pope, of brother Aymeric, master of
the order of Knights Templar in England, and
of the noble men William Marshal earl of
Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William
earl of Warenne, William earl of Arundel, Alan
of Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin fitz
Gerold, Peter fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh
seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew
fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset,
Philip de Aubeney, Robert of Ropsley, John
Marshal, John fitz Hugh, and others, our
faithful subjects: [1] In the first place have
granted to God, and by this our present
charter confirmed for us and our heirs for ever
that the English church shall be free, and shall
have its rights undiminished and its liberties
unimpaired; and it is our will that it be thus
observed; which is evident from the fact that,
before the quarrel between us and our barons
began, we willingly and spontaneously
granted and by our charter confirmed the
freedom of elections which is reckoned most
important and very essential to the English
church, and obtained confirmation of it from
the lord pope Innocent III; the which we will
observe and we wish our heirs to observe it in
good faith for ever.
We have also granted to all free men of
our kingdom, for ourselves and our heirs
for ever, all the liberties written below,
to be had and held by them and their
heirs, of us and our heirs for ever:
[2] If any of our earls or barons or others
holding of us in chief by knight service dies,
and at his death his heir be of full age and owe
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
relief he shall have his inheritance on payment
of the old relief, namely the heir or heirs of an
earl £ 100 for a whole earl's barony, the heir
or heirs of a baron £100 for a whole barony,
the heir or heirs of a knight 100s, at most, for
a whole knight's fee; and he who owes less
shall give less according to the ancient usage
of fiefs.
[3] If, however, the heir of any such be under
age and a ward, he shall have his inheritance
when he comes of age without paying relief
and without making fine.
[4] The guardian of the land of such an heir
who is under age shall take from the land of
the heir no more than reasonable revenues,
reasonable customary dues and reasonable
services and that without destruction and
waste of men or goods; and if we commit the
wardship of the land of any such to a sheriff,
or to any other who is answerable to us for its
revenues, and he destroys or wastes what he
has wardship of, we will take compensation
from him and the land shall be committed to
two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who
shall be answerable for the revenues to us or
to him to whom we have assigned them; and if
we give or sell to anyone the wardship of any
such land and he causes destruction or waste
therein, he shall lose that wardship, and it
shall be transferred to two lawful and discreet
men of that fief, who shall similarly be
answerable to us as is aforesaid.
[5] Moreover, so long as he has the wardship
of the land, the guardian shall keep in repair
the houses, parks, preserves, ponds, mills and
other things pertaining to the land out of the
revenues from it; and he shall restore to the
heir when he comes of age his land fully
stocked with ploughs and the means of
husbandry according to what the season of
Magna Carta 1215
husbandry requires and the revenues of the
land can reasonably bear.
[6] Heirs shall be married without
disparagement, yet so that before the
marriage is contracted those nearest in blood
to the heir shall have notice.
[7] A widow shall have her marriage
portion and inheritance forthwith and
without difficulty after the death of her
husband; nor shall she pay anything to
have her dower or her marriage portion
or the inheritance which she and her
husband held on the day of her
husband's death; and she may remain in
her husband's house for forty days after
his death, within which time her dower
shall be assigned to her.
[8] No widow shall be forced to marry so long
as she wishes to live without a husband,
provided that she gives security not to marry
without our consent if she holds of us, or
without the consent of her lord of whom she
holds, if she holds of another.
[9] Neither we nor our bailiffs will seize for any
debt any land or rent, so long as the chattels
of the debtor are sufficient to repay the debt;
nor will those who have gone surety for the
debtor be distrained so long as the principal
debtor is himself able to pay the debt; and if
the principal debtor fails to pay the debt,
having nothing wherewith to pay it, then shall
the sureties answer for the debt; and they
shall, if they wish, have the lands and rents of
the debtor until they are reimbursed for the
debt which they have paid for him, unless the
principal debtor can show that he has
discharged his obligation in the matter to the
said sureties.
[10] If anyone who has borrowed from the
Jews any sum, great or small, dies before it is
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
repaid, the debt shall not bear interest as long
as the heir is under age, of whomsoever he
holds; and if the debt falls into our hands, we
will not take anything except the principal
mentioned in the bond.
[11] And if anyone dies indebted to the Jews,
his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing
of that debt; and if the dead man leaves
children who are under age, they shall be
provided with necessaries befitting the holding
of the deceased; and the debt shall be paid
out of the residue, reserving, however, service
due to lords of the land; debts owing to others
than Jews shall be dealt with in like manner.
[12] No scutage or aid shall be imposed in our
kingdom unless by common counsel of our
kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for
making our eldest son a knight, and for once
marrying our eldest daughter, and for these
only a reasonable aid shall be levied. Be it
done in like manner concerning aids from the
city of London.
[13] And the city of London shall have all
its ancient liberties and free customs as
well by land as by water. Furthermore,
we will and grant that all other cities,
boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all
their liberties and free customs.
[14] And to obtain the common counsel of the
kingdom about the assessing of an aid (except
in the three cases aforesaid) or of a scutage,
we will cause to be summoned the
archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and
greater barons, individually by our letters--
and, in addition, we will cause to be
summoned generally through our sheriffs and
bailiffs all those holding of us in chief--for a
fixed date, namely, after the expiry of at least
forty days, and to a fixed place; and in all
letters of such summons we will specify the
Magna Carta 1215
reason for the summons. And when the
summons has thus been made, the business
shall proceed on the day appointed, according
to the counsel of those present, though not all
have come who were summoned.
[15] We will not in future grant any one the
right to take an aid from his free men, except
for ransoming his person, for making his
eldest son a knight and for once marrying his
eldest daughter, and for these only a
reasonable aid shall be levied.
[16] No one shall be compelled to do greater
service for a knight's fee or for any other free
holding than is due from it.
[17] Common pleas shall not follow our court,
but shall be held in some fixed place.
[18] Recognitions of novel disseisin, of mort
d'ancester, and of darrein presentment, shall
not be held elsewhere than in the counties to
which they relate, and in this manner--we, or,
if we should be out of the realm, our chief
justiciar, will send two justices through each
county four times a year, who, with four
knights of each county chosen by the county,
shall hold the said assizes in the county and
on the day and in the place of meeting of the
county court.
[19] And if the said assizes cannot all be held
on the day of the county court, there shall stay
behind as many of the knights and freeholders
who were present at the county court on that
day as are necessary for the sufficient making
of judgments, according to the amount of
business to be done.
[20] A free man shall not be amerced for
a trivial offence except in accordance
with the degree of the offence, and for a
grave offence he shall be amerced in
accordance with its gravity, yet saving
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
his way of living; and a merchant in the
same way, saving his stock-in-trade; and
a villein shall be amerced in the same
way, saving his means of livelihood--if
they have fallen into our mercy: and
none of the aforesaid amercements shall
be imposed except by the oath of good
men of the neighbourhood.
[21] Earls and barons shall not be amerced
except by their peers, and only in accordance
with the degree of the offence.
[22] No clerk shall be amerced in respect of
his lay holding except after the manner of the
others aforesaid and not according to the
amount of his ecclesiastical benefice.
[23] No vill or individual shall be compelled to
make bridges at river banks, except those who
from of old are legally bound to do so.
[24] No sheriff, constable, coroners, or others
of our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our crown.
[25] All counties, hundreds, wapentakes and
trithings shall be at the old rents without any
additional payment, exept our demesne
[26] If anyone holding a lay fief of us dies and
our sheriff or bailiff shows our letters patent of
summons for a debt that the deceased owed
us, it shall be lawful for our sheriff or bailiff to
attach and make a list of chattels of the
deceased found upon the lay fief to the value
of that debt under the supervision of law-
worthy men, provided that none of the
chattels shall be removed until the debt which
is manifest has been paid to us in full; and the
residue shall be left to the executors for
carrying out the will of the deceased. And if
nothing is owing to us from him, all the
chattels shall accrue to the deceased, saving
Magna Carta 1215
to his wife and children their reasonable
[27] If any free man dies without leaving a
will, his chattels shall be distributed by his
nearest kinsfolk and friends under the
supervision of the church, saving to every one
the debts which the deceased owed him.
[28] No constable or other bailiff of ours shall
take anyone's corn or other chattels unless he
pays on the spot in cash for them or can delay
payment by arrangement with the seller.
[29] No constable shall compel any knight to
give money instead of castle-guard if he is
willing to do the guard himself or through
another good man, if for some good reason he
cannot do it himself; and if we lead or send
him on military service, he shall be excused
guard in proportion to the time that because
of us he has been on service.
[30] No sheriff, or bailiff of ours, or
anyone else shall take the horses or
carts of any free man for transport work
save with the agreement of that
[31] Neither we nor our bailiffs will take, for
castles or other works of ours, timber which is
not ours, except with the agreement of him
whose timber it is.
[32] We will not hold for more than a year and
a day the lands of those convicted of felony,
and then the lands shall be handed over to the
lords of the fiefs.
[33] Henceforth all fish-weirs shall be cleared
completely from the Thames and the Medway
and throughout all England, except along the
sea coast.
[34] The writ called Praecipe shall not in
future be issued to anyone in respect of any
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
holding whereby a free man may lose his
[35] Let there be one measure for wine
throughout our kingdom, and one measure for
ale, and one measure for corn, namely "the
London quarter"; and one width for cloths
whether dyed, russet or halberget, namely two
ells within the selvedges. Let it be the same
with weights as with measures.
[36] Nothing shall be given or taken in future
for the writ of inquisition of life or limbs:
instead it shall be granted free of charge and
not refused.
[37] If anyone holds of us by fee-farm, by
socage, or by burgage, and holds land of
another by knight service, we will not, by
reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage,
have the wardship of his heir or of land of his
that is of the fief of the other; nor will we have
custody of the fee-farm, socage, or burgage,
unless such fee-farm owes knight service. We
will not have custody of anyone's heir or land
which he holds of another by knight service by
reason of any petty serjeanty which he holds
of us by the service of rendering to us knives
or arrows or the like.
[38] In future no official shall place a
man on trial upon his own un-supported
statement, without producing credible
witnesses to the truth of it.
[39] No free man shall be seized or
imprisoned, or stripped of his rights and
possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or
deprived of his standing in any other
way, nor will we proceed with force
against him, or send others to do so,
except by the lawful judgement of his
equals or by the law of the land.
Magna Carta 1215
[40] To no one will we sell, to no one
deny or delay right or justice.
[41] All merchants shall be able to go out of
and come into England safely and securely
and stay and travel throughout England, as
well by land as by water, for buying and
selling by the ancient and right customs free
from all evil tolls, except in time of war and if
they are of the land that is at war with us. And
if such are found in our land at the beginning
of a war, they shall be attached, without injury
to their persons or goods, until we, or our chief
justiciar, know how merchants of our land are
treated who were found in the land at war with
us when war broke out, and if ours are safe
there, the others shall be safe in our land.
[42] It shall be lawful in future for anyone,
without prejudicing the allegiance due to us,
to leave our kingdom and return safely and
securely by land and water, save, in the public
interest, for a short period in time of war--
except for those imprisoned or outlawed in
accordance with the law of the kingdom and
natives of a land that is at war with us and
merchants (who shall be treated as aforesaid).
[43] If anyone who holds of some escheat
such as the honour of Wallingford,
Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other
escheats which are in our hands and are
baronies dies, his heir shall give no other relief
and do no other service to us than he would
have done to the baron if that barony had
been in the baron's hands; and we will hold it
in the same manner in which the baron held it.
[44] Men who live outside the forest need not
henceforth come before our justices of the
forest upon a general summons, unless they
are impleaded or are sureties for any person
or persons who are attached for forest
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
[45] We will appoint as justices,
constables, sheriffs, or other officials,
only men that know the law of the realm
and are minded to keep it well
[46] All barons who have founded abbeys for
which they have charters of the kings of
England or ancient tenure shall have the
custody of them during vacancies, as they
ought to have.
[47] All forests that have been made forest in
our time shall be immediately disafforested;
and so be it done with riverbanks that have
been made preserves by us in our time.
[48] All evil customs connected with forests
and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs
and their officials, riverbanks and their
wardens shall immediately be inquired into in
each county by twelve sworn knights of the
same county who are to be chosen by good
men of the same county, and within forty days
of the completion of the inquiry shall be
utterly abolished by them so as never to be
restored, provided that we, or our justiciar if
we are not in England, know of it first.
[49] We will immediately return all hostages
and charters given to us by Englishmen, as
security for peace or faithful service.
[50] We will remove completely from office
the relations of Gerard de Athée so that in
future they shall have no office in England,
namely Engelard de Cigogné, Peter and Guy
and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de Cigogné,
Geoffrey de Martigny and his brothers, Philip
Marc and his brothers and his nephew
Geoffrey, and all their following.
[51] As soon as peace is restored, we will
remove from the kingdom all foreign knights,
cross-bowmen, serjeants, and mercenaries,
Magna Carta 1215
who have come with horses and arms to the
detriment of the kingdom.
[52] If anyone has been disseised of or
kept out of his lands, castles, franchises
or his right by us without the legal
judgment of his peers, we will
immediately restore them to him: and if a
dispute arises over this, then let it be decided
by the judgment of the twenty-five barons who
are mentioned below in the clause for securing
the peace: for all the things, however, which
anyone has been disseised or kept out of
without the lawful judgment of his peers by
king Henry, our father, or by king Richard, our
brother, which we have in our hand or are held
by others, to whom we are bound to warrant
them, we will have the usual period of respite
of crusaders, excepting those things about
which a plea was started or an inquest made
by our command before we took the cross;
when however we return from our pilgrimage,
or if by any chance we do not go on it, we will
at once do full justice therein.
[53] We will have the same respite, and in the
same manner, in the doing of justice in the
matter of the disafforesting or retaining of the
forests which Henry our father or Richard our
brother afforested, and in the matter of the
wardship of lands which are of the fief of
another, wardships of which sort we have
hitherto had by reason of a fief which anyone
held of us by knight service, and in the matter
of abbeys founded on the fief of another, not
on a fief of our own, in which the lord of the
fief claims he has a right; and when we have
returned, or if we do not set out on our
pilgrimage, we will at once do full justice to
those who complain of these things.
[54] No one shall be arrested or imprisoned
upon the appeal of a woman for the death of
anyone except her husband.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
[55] All fines made with us unjustly and
against the law of the land, and all
amercements imposed unjustly and
against the law of the land, shall be
entirely remitted, or else let them be
settled by the judgment of the twenty-
five barons who are mentioned below in
the clause for securing the peace [See
Article 61], or by the judgment of the
majority of the same, along with the aforesaid
Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can
be present, and such others as he may wish to
associate with himself for this purpose, and if
he cannot be present the business shall
nevertheless proceed without him, provided
that if any one or more of the aforesaid
twenty-five barons are in a like suit, they shall
be removed from the judgment of the case in
question, and others chosen, sworn and put in
their place by the rest of the same twenty-five
for this case only.
[56] If we have disseised or kept out
Welshmen from lands or liberties or other
things without the legal judgment of their
peers in England or in Wales, they shall be
immediately restored to them; and if a dispute
arises over this, then let it be decided in the
March by the judgment of their peers--for
holdings in England according to the law of
England, for holdings in Wales according to
the law of Wales, and for holdings in the March
according to the law of the March. Welshmen
shall do the same to us and ours.
[57] For all the things, however, which any
Welshman was disseised of or kept out of
without the lawful judgment of his peers by
king Henry, our father, or king Richard, our
brother, which we have in our hand or which
are held by others, to whom we are bound to
warrant them, we will have the usual period of
respite of crusaders, excepting those things
Magna Carta 1215
about which a plea was started or an inquest
made by our command before we took the
cross; when however we return, or if by any
chance we do not set out on our pilgrimage,
we will at once do full justice to them in
accordance with the laws of the Welsh and the
foresaid regions.
[58] We will give back at once the son of
Llywelyn and all the hostages from Wales and
the charters that were handed over to us as
security for peace.
[59] We will act toward Alexander, king of the
Scots, concerning the return of his sisters and
hostages and concerning his franchises and
his right in the same manner in which we act
towards our other barons of England, unless it
ought to be otherwise by the charters which
we have from William his father, formerly king
of the Scots, and this shall be determined by
the judgment of his peers in our court.
[60] All these aforesaid customs and liberties
which we have granted to be observed in our
kingdom as far as it pertains to us towards our
men, all of our kingdom, clerks as well as
laymen, shall observe as far as it pertains to
them towards their men.
[61] [Lawful Rebellion] Since, moreover, for
God and the betterment of our kingdom and
for the better allaying of the discord that has
arisen between us and our barons we have
granted all these things aforesaid, wishing
them to enjoy the use of them unimpaired and
unshaken for ever, we give and grant them
the under-written security, namely, that the
barons shall choose any twenty-five barons of
the kingdom they wish, who must with all their
might observe, hold and cause to be observed,
the peace and liberties which we have granted
and confirmed to them by this present charter
of ours, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
bailiffs or any one of our servants offend in
any way against anyone or transgress any of
the articles of the peace or the security and
the offence be notified to four of the aforesaid
twenty-five barons, those four barons shall
come to us, or to our justiciar if we are out of
the kingdom, and, laying the transgression
before us, shall petition us to have that
transgression corrected without delay. And if
we do not correct the transgression, or if
we are out of the kingdom, if our
justiciar does not correct it, within forty
days, reckoning from the time it was
brought to our notice or to that of our
justiciar if we were out of the kingdom,
the aforesaid four barons shall refer that
case to the rest of the twenty-five
barons and those twenty-five barons
together with the community of the
whole land shall distrain and distress us
in every way they can, namely, by
seizing castles, lands, possessions, and
in such other ways as they can, saving
our person and the persons of our queen
and our children, until, in their opinion,
amends have been made; and when
amends have been made, they shall obey
us as they did before. And let anyone in the
land who wishes take an oath to obey the
orders of the said twenty-five barons for the
execution of all the aforesaid matters, and
with them to distress us as much as he can,
and we publicly and freely give anyone leave
to take the oath who wishes to take it and we
will never prohibit anyone from taking it.
Indeed, all those in the land who are unwilling
of themselves and of their own accord to take
an oath to the twenty-five barons to help them
to distrain and distress us, we will make them
take the oath as aforesaid at our command.
And if any of the twenty-five barons dies or
leaves the country or is in any other way
Magna Carta 1215
prevented from carrying out the things
aforesaid, the rest of the aforesaid twenty-five
barons shall choose as they think fit another
one in his place, and he shall take the oath
like the rest. In all matters the execution of
which is committed to these twenty-five
barons, if it should happen that these twenty-
five are present yet disagree among
themselves about anything, or if some of
those summoned will not or cannot be
present, that shall be held as fixed and
established which the majority of those
present ordained or commanded, exactly as if
all the twenty-five had consented to it; and the
said twenty-five shall swear that they will
faithfully observe all the things aforesaid and
will do all they can to get them observed. And
we will procure nothing from anyone,
either personally or through anyone else,
whereby any of these concessions and
liberties might be revoked or diminished;
and if any such thing is procured, let it
be void and null, and we will never use it
either personally or through another.
[62] And we have fully remitted and pardoned
to everyone all the ill-will, indignation and
rancour that have arisen between us and our
men, clergy and laity, from the time of the
quarrel. Furthermore, we have fully remitted
to all, clergy and laity, and as far as pertains
to us have completely forgiven, all trespasses
occasioned by the same quarrel between
Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign and
the restoration of peace. And, besides, we
have caused to be made for them letters
testimonial patent of the lord Stephen
archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry
archbishop of Dublin and of the
aforementioned bishops and of master Pandulf
about this security and the aforementioned
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
[63] Wherefore we wish and firmly enjoin that
the English church shall be free, and that the
men in our kingdom shall have and hold
all the aforesaid liberties, rights and
concessions well and peacefully, freely
and quietly, fully and completely, for
themselves and their heirs from us and
our heirs, in all matters and in all places
for ever, as is aforesaid. An oath,
moreover, has been taken, as well on our
part as on the part of the barons, that all
these things aforesaid shall be observed
in good faith and without evil
disposition. Witness the above-
mentioned and many others. Given by
our hand in the meadow which is called
Runnymede between Windsor and
Staines on the fifteenth day of June, in
the seventeenth year of our reign.
Notice of Understanding and Intent and
Claim of Right
Appendix D: Notice of Understanding and Intent
and Claim of Right
ou can make your own Law. Law that applies only
to you. It is (basically) an Affidavit and an Oath
combined. A Statement of Truth ... as you see it.
Provided it is not objected to, in the manner described in
the Chapter on Noticing, then it becomes Your Truth.
Even though you may be wrong. Remember: If you
were wrong then it should have received objections
within the stated time period.
Quite obviously you cannot claim Rights that are
otherwise unavailable to you under Common Law. You
cannot, for example, claim the Right to breach the
peace, murder someone, or defraud someone. However
what you can do is to state specific instances of what
you consider the Truth to be ... in your specific case.
You do this by stating what you understand the
situation to be. You then state, categorically, your
intention to live in peaceful co-existence with everyone
else. You then make claims based on that.
You provide this Notice to whomsoever you think
needs to know. You can use the maxim of: "Service to
Principal is considered service to Agent, and service to
Agent is considered service to Principal". This means
that, in any organisation, one hand is responsible for
telling the other hand what is going on.
I now include (below) my own, which was sent to the
UK Home Office in March, 2009. I did not get any
response, and thus received no objections in the time
Of course, they were just ignoring me ... as if I didn't
count. However the test will come should anything
untoward happen to me.
Each clause is numbered. I did this in order to resolve
any objections easily. I included a Fee Schedule for any
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
transgressions against me. I used 'terms of
imprisonment', but could have set 'monetary amounts'.
The terms of imprisonment can be anything I choose,
and any monetary amounts likewise. I did not set
monetary amounts for the simple reason that 'money' is
an illusion.
This was sent with an appropriate covering letter
explaining the need to create any necessary 'services to
Agents'. My NOUICOR (as it is called for short) is on the
following pages. It should be noted that I do not have to
exercise all the Claims I have made. They can be left in
abeyance for as long as I determine the need to leave
them unused. These are My Claims. My Rights. I can
utilise them in whatever way I choose, and as I see fit.
Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of
I, Veronica: of the Chapman family, hereinafter
known as Veronica: Chapman, a flesh and blood
human being in possession of a sovereign and
individual spirit, a living soul, do hereby make Oath
and state the following is My Truth and My Law:
[010] Whereas it is my understanding that in terms
of earthly existence there is no species more
supreme than a living, breathing, imaginative
human being blessed with a living soul, and
[020] Whereas it is my understanding that it is
impossible to distinguish one soul from any other,
and therefore all souls must at all times and in all
situations be considered equal in all respects in any
fair, just and reasonable context, and
[030] Whereas it is my understanding that anything
and everything must in practice derive from the
aforesaid axioms, and
[040] Whereas it is my understanding that any
numerical grouping of such souls can be referred to
as 'people', and
[050] Whereas it is my understanding that a society
is, in essence, nothing more than a grouping of like-
minded souls since it is defined as a number of
Notice of Understanding and Intent and
Claim of Right
people joined by mutual consent to deliberate,
determine and act for a common goal, and
[060] Whereas it is my understanding a statute is
defined as a legislated rule of a society, and
[070] Whereas it is my understanding a legislated
rule of a society can be given the force of law to act
upon, or lawfully bind, all members of that society,
[080] Whereas it is my understanding if a living
soul chooses by free will not to be a member of any
society then statutes created by said society do not
bind that soul to said statute law, and
[090] Whereas it is my understanding a living soul
who chooses by free will not to be a member of any
society can be referred to as a Freeman-on-the-
land, and
[100] Whereas it is my understanding a Freeman-
on-the-land remains entirely and solely under
Common Law jurisdiction, and
[110] Whereas I Veronica: Chapman am a Freeman-
on-the-land, and
[120] Whereas it is my understanding that all
authority possessed by elected representatives
must inherently derive from those who elect said
representation, and
[130] Whereas it is my understanding that if I have
the right to empower representation by casting a
vote then I am empowered to represent myself,
[140] Whereas it is my understanding that the right
of empowerment does not derive from any
government otherwise it would be possible for a
government to revoke it, and
[150] Whereas it is my understanding that if the
right to empower representation were revoked then
no representation would thereafter be possible, and
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
[160] Whereas it is my understanding the only form
of government recognized as lawful in the United
Kingdom is a representative one, and,
[170] Whereas it is my understanding
representation requires mutual consent, and
[180] Whereas it is my understanding that in the
absence of mutual consent neither representation
nor governance can exist, and
[190] Whereas it is my understanding the United
Kingdom is a Common Law jurisdiction enjoying the
protection of Common Law, and
[200] Whereas it is my understanding equality
before the law is paramount and mandatory, and
[210] Whereas it is my understanding that for
something to exist legally it must have a name, and
[220] Whereas it is my understanding that the
UNITED KINGDOM is in reality a corporation in
Chapter 11 bankruptcy and thus still allowed to
trade, and
[230] Whereas it is my understanding that by virtue
of my birth within the boundaries of my Country
England I am a single share owner in said UNITED
KINGDOM CORPORATION, and
[240] Whereas it is my understanding all Acts are
statutes restricted in scope and applicability by the
British Constitution and Common Law, and
[250] Whereas it is my understanding a statute
being defined as a legislated rule of a society is,
within the United Kingdom, in fact a rule of said
UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION, and
[260] Whereas it is my understanding rules of a
corporation are limited in applicability to those who
are agents of said corporation, and
[270] Whereas it is my understanding those who
have a National Insurance Number are in fact
employees of the government and thus are bound
Notice of Understanding and Intent and
Claim of Right
by the statutes created by the said government,
[280] Whereas it is my understanding that it is
lawful to abandon one's National Insurance Number
while at the same time not affecting the right to
any pension claim based on National Insurance
Contributions previously paid, and
[290] Whereas it is my understanding people in the
United Kingdom have a right to revoke or deny
consent to be represented and thus governed, and
[300] Whereas it is my understanding if anyone
does revoke or deny consent they exist free of
government control and statutory restraints, and
[310] Whereas it is my understanding that a claim
of right establishes a lawful excuse, and
[320] Whereas it is my understanding that if one
has lawful excuse one may choose to not obey a
court, tribunal, statute, Act or order, and
[330] Whereas a Freeman-on-the-Land has lawfully
revoked consent and does exist free of statutory
restrictions, obligations, and limitations, and
[340] Whereas it is my understanding that I,
Veronica: Chapman as a Freeman-on-the-Land,
acting peacefully within community standards,
would not in that capacity breach the peace, and
[350] Whereas it is my understanding that all
existing courts and governments are de facto only
and not de jure, and
[360] Whereas it is my understanding that a
woman acting as Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor
did take the throne of England on the Second Day
of June, Nineteen Hundred and Fifty Three, and
[370] Whereas it is my understanding that during a
Coronation ceremony said woman acting as
Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor was asked by a
man acting in the role of the then Archbishop of
Canterbury "Will you solemnly promise and swear
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa,
Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and
the other Territories to any of them belonging or
pertaining, according to their respective laws and
customs?" and she responded "I solemnly promise
so to do", and
[380] Whereas it is my understanding that this
ceremony did install said woman as Queen of
England and the United Kingdom, and
[390] Whereas it is my understanding that on or
after the Seventeenth Day of October Nineteen
Hundred and Seventy Two said woman did sign into
statute an Act of Parliament known as the European
Communities Act of Nineteen Hundred and Seventy
Two (ECA1972) which accepted without my consent
a treaty known as the Treaty of Rome, and
[400] Whereas it is my understanding that the
terms of the Treaty of Rome are counter in many
respects to the "respective laws and customs" of
those nations of which said woman is Queen
including England which is my Country of birth, and
[410] Whereas it is my understanding that anyone
who participates in allowing or by culpable neglect
enabling my Country to be governed in any way by
any foreign power is an act of treason as defined by
the British Constitution, and
[420] Whereas it is my understanding, therefore,
that by signing of the ECA1972 as opposed to
dissolving by Royal Prerogative the Parliament that
created the treacherous Act was in itself by
collusion an attempted act of treason against my
Country, and
[430] Whereas it is my understanding that as a
Freeman-on-the-Land in this common law
jurisdiction that I have the duty to stand in defence
of the United Kingdom and its people against
Notice of Understanding and Intent and
Claim of Right
foreign armed troops who attempt to invade,
govern or police me or my Country, and
[440] Whereas it is my understanding that this duty
is not affected by agreements made by treasonous
and de facto government agents, and
[450] Whereas it is my understanding that
agreements made on behalf of the United Kingdom
by traitors to the United Kingdom do not bind the
people of United Kingdom, and
[460] Whereas I do firmly and truly believe the
aforementioned agreement is an overt act of
treason, and
[470] Whereas I honourably refuse to be bound by
agreements made by traitors such as said Elizabeth
Alexandra Mary Windsor in collusion with the then
Prime Minister Edward Heath, and
[480] Whereas it is my understanding that any
peace officer who co-operates with foreign armed
troops to govern or regulate the population is also
committing treason, and
[490] Whereas it is my understanding that
historically the purpose of a national armed force
was to ensure that foreign powers never invaded
and governed under a gun, and
[500] Whereas it is my understanding that the
existence of armed foreign troops patrolling and
policing our streets would be evidence of a war
fought unsuccessfully, and
[510] Whereas it is my understanding that agreeing
or conspiring to agree to allow armed foreign
troops to patrol and police our streets is an act of
treason, and
[520] Whereas it is my understanding that any
action for which one can apply for and receive a
licence must itself be a fundamentally lawful action,
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
[530] Whereas as I not a child and I am a Freeman-
on-the-Land who operates with full responsibility
and I do not see the need to ask permission to
engage in lawful and peaceful activities, especially
from those who claim limited liability, and
[540] Whereas it is my understanding that I have a
right to use my property without having to pay for
the use or enjoyment of it, and
[550] Whereas it is my understanding that all
'public transportation' is in fact and actuality public
property to which I have the right of use and access
without having to pay, and
[560] Whereas it is my understanding peace
officers have a duty to distinguish between statutes
and law and those who attempt to enforce statutes
against a Freeman-on-the-Land are in fact breaking
the law, and
[570] Whereas it is my understanding that I have
the power to refuse intercourse or interaction with
peace officers who have not observed me breach
the peace, and
[580] Whereas it is my understanding that
permanent estoppel by acquiescence barring any
peace officer or prosecutor from bringing charges
against a Freeman-on-the-Land under any Act is
created if this claim is not responded to in the
stated fashion and time, and
[590] Whereas it is my understanding that the
Common Law right to travel on the highways
without license provided one is not engaging in
commerce thereupon is lawful and still exists
although it does appear to have been deceptively
hidden, and
[600] Whereas the Road Traffic Acts of the United
Kingdom do make it possible for peace officers in
the role of policy enforcement officers to stop an
automobile in order to provide services and
demand something of value, and
Notice of Understanding and Intent and
Claim of Right
[610] Whereas it is my understanding that if they
are not providing a service they have no reason to
stop any one and if proof of registration, insurance
and licence is not valuable they have no need to
ask for it, and
[620] Whereas it is my understanding that I have
the right to refuse to interact or co-operate with
criminals, de facto government agents or grossly
negligent peace officers, and
[630] Whereas it is my understanding that if I have
the power to elect a representative and empower
them to appoint peace officers then I also have the
power to appoint directly, and
[640] Whereas it is my understanding that if I have
the power to appoint directly or by proxy I must
have the power to fulfil those duties my self, and
[650] Whereas it is my understanding that the
United Kingdom Police Force although having an
illustrious history has had members recently acting
in a grossly criminal manner which does tarnish the
previous history and record, and
[660] Whereas it is my understanding that the Law
provides remedy at all times, even against rogue or
negligent peace officers and de facto governments
apparently hijacked by soulless corporate interests,
[670] Whereas it is my understanding that in order
to be a peace maker and deal with rogue and
possibly armed police officers who fail to act with
respect to the code of Common Law I will need use
of and access to firearms of equal or greater power
then those people who act criminally have access
to, and
[680] Whereas it is my understanding that the act
of registering the birth of a baby creates a legal
entity called a person that exists in association with
that baby and that the manner in which offspring
are registered transfers superior guardianship
rights over that offspring to the government, and
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
[690] Whereas it is my understanding that this
creation of a person and transfer of authority is not
fully disclosed to the parents and if it was all good
parents would refuse to register their offspring, and
[700] Whereas it is my understanding that the
person and the human being to which it is
associated are two very separate and different
things and that the people playing roles in
government only have the right to act upon the
person, and
[710] Whereas it is my understanding that if I do
not exist in association with a person I cannot be
lawfully governed by the people playing roles in
government, and
[720] Whereas it is my understanding a by-law is
defined as a rule of a corporation, and
[730] Whereas it is my understanding corporations
are legal fictions and require contracts in order to
claim authority or control over other parties, and
[740] Whereas it is my understanding that a
summons is merely an invitation to attend and
those issued by the Ministry of Justice or its
franchises which are de facto corporations create
no obligation or dishonour if ignored, and
[750] Whereas it is my understanding legal fictions
lack a soul and cannot exert any control over those
who are thus blessed and operate with respect to
that knowledge as only a fool would allow soulless
fictions to dictate one's actions, and
[760] Whereas it is my understanding that the
people in the government are merely playing roles,
[770] Whereas I AM NOT PLAYING, and
[780] Whereas it is my understanding that I am not
obliged to obey the orders of any one claiming to
be a Queen or King or those acting on behalf of
such an insane entity, as no one who does make
Notice of Understanding and Intent and
Claim of Right
preposterous claims that abandon and erode the
concept of equality has any authority over me, and
[790] Whereas it is my understanding that I can use
a Notary Public to perform duties found under any
Act including thus they have the power to hold
court and hear evidence and issue binding lawful
judgments, and
[800] Whereas it is my understanding that a Notary
Public can also be used to bring criminal charges to
bear against traitors, even if they hold the highest
office, and
[810] Whereas it is my understanding that there
may be more of this to follow
[820] Therefore be it now known to any and all
interested, concerned or affected parties, that I,
Veronica: Chapman am a Freeman-on-the-Land and
do hereby serve notice and state clearly specifically
and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and
lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations,
restrictions and that I maintain all rights at law to
trade, exchange or barter and exist without
deceptive governance and to do so without
limitations, restrictions or regulations created by
others and without my consent.
[830] Be it also now known to any and all
interested, concerned or affected parties, that I,
Veronica: Chapman as a Freeman-on-the-Land and
do hereby serve notice and state clearly specifically
and unequivocally that I would never conspire nor
would I in any way entreat others to disobey the
Common Law of the Land which ensures peaceful
[840] Furthermore, I claim that these actions are
not outside my communities' standards and will in
fact support said community in our desire for truth
and maximum freedom.
[850] Furthermore, I claim the right to engage in
these actions and further claim that all property
held by me is held under a claim of right.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
[860] Furthermore, I claim that anyone who
interferes with my lawful activities after having
been served notice of this claim and who fails to
properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is
breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or colour
of right and that such transgressions will be dealt
with in a properly convened court de jure.
[870] Furthermore, I claim it is my right and solemn
duty not only to keep the peace My Self but also to
intervene wherever may be necessary to ensure
that the peace is kept in a situation where peace
officers are not present or are unwilling for
whatever reason to uphold their sworn and solemn
duty so to do.
[880] Furthermore, I claim that the identity of My
Self is forever possible to establish correctly by my
Presence as a living, breathing, Human Being with
a soul together as may be necessary sworn
attestations from friends, family, and other
associates. Furthermore I claim that this
supersedes any necessity to obtain or carry any
form of external token such as an Identity Card for
any lawful purpose of establishing my true identity
for the simple reason that no such token can ever
represent the sovereign soul with which I am
[890] Furthermore, I claim that the courts in The
United Kingdom are de-facto and bound by the Law
and Equity Acts and are in fact in the profitable
business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating
the transactions of security interests and I further
claim they require the consent of both parties prior
to providing any such services.
[900] Furthermore, I claim all transactions of
security interests require the consent of both
parties and I do hereby deny consent to any
transaction of a security interest issuing under any
Act for as herein stated as a Freeman-on-the-Land I
am not subject to any Act.
Notice of Understanding and Intent and
Claim of Right
[910] Furthermore I claim ownership of my single
share in the corporation known as the UNITED
KINGDOM and demand a copy of said share such
that I will become the shareholder and thereby be
in the position of exercising my own voting rights.
Furthermore I claim to receive the corresponding
dividends for as long as said UNITED KINGDOM
operates under the illusion that 'money has some
value' (notwithstanding the fact that 'money has no
value' has been admitted by HM Treasury. Evidence
of this admission can be supplied, and is anyway
publicly available).
[920] Furthermore I claim that my inalienable
Natural Right to Trial By Jury for any apparent
transgressions on my part, including an inalienable
Natural Right of Habeas Corpus, and these shall not
under any circumstances be infringed.
[930] Furthermore I claim the right to be entirely
free to determine my own medication needs at all
times and never under any circumstances be forced
to ingest or otherwise receive into my body by way
of vaccination, electro-magnetic energy, audio or
visual energy or any other method any substance
or alien energies I do not consent to accept.
[940] Furthermore, I claim the right to convene a
proper court de jure in order to address any
potentially criminal actions of any peace officers,
government principals or agents or justice system
participants who having been served notice of this
claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful
counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission
with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and
established rights and freedoms.
[950] Furthermore, I claim the right to fulfil my duty
to shoot any foreign troops in the United Kingdom
who are armed and attempting to police or govern
me or my fellow countrymen without consent and
to view them as an invading force which must be
lawfully attacked. And I further claim to right to
nominate as many deputies as may be necessary
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
who by their own free will and consent are
prepared to assist me in fulfilment of this duty to
my Country.
[960] Furthermore, I claim the law of agent and
principal applies and that service upon one is
service upon both.
[970] Furthermore, I claim the right to deal with
any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an
open forum using discussion and negotiation and to
capture on video tape said discussion and
negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.
[980] Furthermore, I claim my SCHEDULE for any
transgressions by peace officers, government
principals or agents or justice system participants
or agents of the medical profession or any other
parties who trespass upon and thus unlawfully
hinder My Peaceful Self, Veronica: of the Chapman
family, as defined in attached Schedule A.
[990] Furthermore I claim the right to use a Notary
Public to conduct due process of the
aforementioned SCHEDULE against any
transgressors who by their actions or omissions
harm me or my interests, directly or by proxy in
any way.
Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made
herein or make their own counterclaims must
respond appropriately within FOURTEEN (14) days
of service of notice of this action. Responses must
be under Oath or Attestation, upon full commercial
liability and penalty of perjury and registered at the
Place of Claim of Right provided no later than
fourteen days from the date of original service as
attested to by way of certificate of service.
Schedule B is available for the resolution of any
Failure to register a dispute against the claims
made herein and then successfully defeating these
claims in a proper court of law will result in an
automatic default judgment securing forevermore
Notice of Understanding and Intent and
Claim of Right
all rights herein claimed and establishing
permanent and irrevocable estoppel by
acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under
any statute or Act or regulation against My Self
Freeman-on-the-Land Veronica: Chapman for
exercising these lawful and properly established
rights, freedoms and duties.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Place of Claim of Right:
Dated: __________________________________
Claimant: Veronica: of the Chapman family
Independent Witness 1: ____________________________
Address: _________________________________________
Independent Witness 2: ____________________________
Address: _________________________________________
Independent Witness 3: ____________________________
Address: _________________________________________
Notice of Understanding and Intent and
Claim of Right
Schedule A
Penalty term of imprisonment to apply to each and
every individual reasonably involved in the
transgression, including all senior officers or line
managers as accomplices in law.
Transgression Penalty Term of
My Self being questioned, 1 year
interrogated or in any way
detained, harassed or
otherwise regulated
My Self handcuffed, 2 years
transported, incarcerated
or subjected to any
adjudication process that
is outside Common Law
My Self forced to suffer 5 years
the effects of what has
come to be known as a
non-lethal or less-than-
lethal weapon such as a
My Self forced to undergo 10 years
any ingestion of energies
or substances forced onto
or into my body, whether
under to guise of
medication or not, without
my expressly notarised
My Self being attributed 5 years.
anything I did not actually
speak or write in the
event that my written or
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
spoken communications
are shown to be tampered
Notice of Understanding and Intent and
Claim of Right
Schedule B
Objections and Resolutions.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Schedule C
Supportive Understandings.
Notice of Understanding and Intent and
Claim of Right
Schedule D
Additional Claims.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Appendix E: Summary of Freeman Principles
here is a lot of information in this book, and it may
take a few reads in order for the whole situation to
sink in. You may also find the need to explain to
others. I write this Appendix for those reasons,
fundamentally to explain exactly 'where the Freeman is
coming from'
It goes like this.
A Statute is "a legislated rule of a Society".
A Society is "a group of like-minded individuals who
come together to deliberate, determine, and act towards
common goals".
Those are the definitions. A dictionary can be
consulted in order to verify them.
For anything to exist in Law it must have a Name, to
which it can be referred.
As far as a Society is concerned, it must also have a
Individuals apply for Membership when they consider
the "common goals" are those they can support.
For this to occur, the Society must have defined its
goals in the first place … such that Applicants can know
whether or not the "common goals" are those that can
be supported by Membership.
If, at any time, a Member determines that he or she
can no longer support the Society's espoused goals, then
he or she has the ability to RESIGN Membership.
That's a Society, and Statues are the legislated rules it
sets for itself. Application for Membership is an
application to agree to be bound by the Society's rules.
Since Statutes only bind CURRENT Members of any
Society, they have no affect on non-Members.
This is identical to the Policy (Company Rules) of any
Company, since a Company is the same thing as a
Summary of Freeman Principles
Society. Fundamentally, in terms of 'status', the
employees of a Company are indistinguishable from
Members of a Society.
So, before Statutes can be used to bind an individual
in Law, a number of proofs need to be forthcoming:
1. Proof that the Society has a Legal Name, by which
it can be uniquely identified;
2. Proof that the Society has set, and published, its
Common Goals;
3. Proof that the individual has applied for
Membership, and said application was accepted;
4. Proof that the individual has not subsequently
Subject to all of the above proofs, an individual is
bound, in Law, by the Statutes of the Society of which
s/he is a Member. In this case, by applying for
Membership, the individual CONSENTED TO BE BOUND.
If any one of the above cannot be proved, then an
individual is only bound, in Law, by the Statutes of the
Society, IF HE OR SHE CONSENTS TO BE BOUND.
In any/all other cases, the individual is not bound by
the Society's Statutes, in Law.
So ... before going any further ... indeed before taking
one more breath ... the above statements need to be
rebutted IN SUBSTANCE ... or, by silence and/or lack of
rebuttal ... ACCEPTED. That's by anyone, and everyone,
with whom we may be forced to interact.
'Legal obligations' are always addressed to a Named
You are not a Name. You are a sovereign flesh & blood
Human Being, with a living soul, and not a Legal Fiction
Name, such as "MISS VERONICA CHAPMAN" (or any
You are not a Name, because a Name is merely marks
on paper, pixels on a computer screen, or sound
pressure waves in the air, when spoken.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
Now, some may ask: "What's the difference?" But the
difference is enormous. It's the difference between the
marks on the paper (etc.), and a flesh & blood creature
that is 'aware' - in other words something that is
Now, the point is - and this is what it is really all about
(if you think about it): How do you grab the attention of
a creature that is 'aware'? When you want that
attention? How do you grab the attention of a flesh &
blood creature?
Well … simple … you CALL IT! You CALL it by 'what it is
commonly called'!
This one, the one writing this book, is COMMONLY
CALLED as: "Veronica"! And, since there is more than
one Veronica in the world, the Caller may need to be a
bit more specific … and so add my clan/tribe/family to
the calling, and to call: "Veronica: of the Chapman
When I'm CALLED this way, you get my attention! Hey!
It works!
The Legal Fiction Names used, e.g. "MISS VERONICA
CHAPMAN" (and so on), are actually the Names of little
ships. Little ships that the Vatican considers it owns.
When one writes to these little ships, they should send
their letters to the Vatican, not to me.
Why does the Vatican do this (via the UK
Government)? Very simply because most people think
that they are their Legal Fiction Name, and respond
accordingly. This places them, by tacit consent, as
It's a deception, of course. One is never told this, is
one? Well, they never told me, but we've found out. So
the deceptions don't work any more. (The Internet is a
wonderful thing, if used for something other than just
typing "big tits" into a Search Engine)
Here's one more point. A Name is not the flesh &
blood. A Name is ATTACHED to the flesh & blood. Usually
by one's parents, at birth. You "GIVE the child a Name",
don't you? You GIVE it a Name. It doesn't have one, as
Summary of Freeman Principles
the flesh & blood comes into the world, so you GIVE it a
The Name is ATTACHED. And this is provable by the
fact that a Deed Poll can DETACH a Name, and ATTACH
a different one. (Just the same as re-naming a ship,
where the old name is blotted out, and the new one
painted over).
If someone says to me: "Are you Veronica Chapman?"
… the truthful answer is: "No, I'm not a Name".
If someone says to me: "Are you the flesh & blood
sovereign Human Being, with a living soul, to which the
Name Veronica Chapman is ATTACHED, at this
moment in time?" … then I have to say: "Yes, it seems
like that", in order to remain truthful.
(But I'm never asked that question, in that way. Am I?)
My Self, the Human Being, the flesh & blood, attention
grabbed by calling Veronica: of the Chapman family,
remains solely under the Common Law jurisdiction of
Provided I do not:
1. Breach the peace;
2. Cause deliberate harm to anyone else;
3. Cause deliberate loss to anyone else;
4. Use deviousness in my promises & agreements …
… then I do not violate any tenet of Common Law.
And, if anyone thinks that I may have done, then the
mechanism of Trial by Jury exists to try me, and find me
innocent or guilty, as its verdict. Doesn't it?
They can take me to Court if they like. But I'll just
claim Common Law jurisdiction, and ask the Court if it
has Common Law jurisdiction. Unless there is a Jury
sitting, the Court will have to answer: "No". So I will ask
the Court what jurisdiction it has over My Self. And it will
be forced to admit that, while it may have jurisdiction
over the MATTER, it has NONE over My Self whatsoever.
Obviously I would be asking the Court to prove that I
am a CURRENT Member of the Society whose subsisting
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
regulations the Claimant & the Court are attempting to
impose … so they'd better be ready to rebut just about
everything I wrote about Statutes & Societies, above.
This might cause them a bit of a problem, since what I
wrote was the plain, unvarnished, truth.
No Statute is above Common Law. Statutes are bound
by Common Law. If they exceed Common Law, then
they are null & void. And that's the Law-of-the-LAND
(which is Common Law … and actually nothing more
than Common Sense).
The reason for this is simple. Common Law/Common
Sense was around long before 'Parliament' and
'Government' were invented. These entities were
invented under Common Law/Common Sense … not
above it.
'Not above it', because only a complete pillock would
ever claim to somehow "Do better than Common Sense",
surely? Consequently only such a pillock would claim
that Parliament could "Do better than Common
Sense/Common Law". So, what is Parliament doing? You
tell me! It certainly isn't "Doing better than Common
Sense", is it? Because that's impossible, isn't it?
Any argument to the effect that, because I have a
vote, I am somehow bound by the Statutes, is entirely
spurious. For the following reason. Before any Member of
Parliament can take a seat in the House of Commons,
they must swear allegiance to the reigning Monarch. Not
to those poor suckers who did their so-called 'civil duty',
and put an "X" against said MP's Name. Consequently
the allegiance of those 650+ showers of shit is not to
you & I, it is to the Queen. She might very well be bound
by what they decide, but - since their allegiance is not to
you & I - we are not so bound.
How can we be? If Human "A" makes a promise to
Human "B", Human "C" is not bound by that promise.
I'll just throw in a couple of other maxims from old
Roman Law (we were under Roman Occupation at one
time in our history).
Summary of Freeman Principles
The first one is "Consensus Facit Legem" … which,
translated, means "CONSENT MAKES LAW". Consent.
Consent! The Law can only be made by consent. How
many people, do you think, would consent to pay Income
Tax, Road Tax/SORN etc. if anyone actually dared to ask
directly? Bear in mind what I've written about the Grand
Deception of 'money'.
Why, do you think, the Government is so shit-
scared of any Referendum? On anything? The EU,
Road Tax … anything?
Because they would not obtain consent. And the
majority know that, as well as I do. The Irish most
certainly do, as in: "Keep voting Ireland … we will grind
you down until you say "Yes'". They can only gain
consent by grinding us down. (However, the consent is
really just a plea to "stop the grinding").
Consent makes Law … and they do not have consent.
You know it. I know it.
The other maxim is "Let he who will be deceived, be
So don't be deceived.
And then we have 'Contracts'. We are constantly
DECEIVED into making Contracts we did not realise we
were making. However, any and all Contracts we have
been DECEIVED into making are null & void, IN LAW, on
the basis of:
1. Lack of full disclosure by the other Party
2. Lack of any Contractual Consideration being
offered by the other Party entirely from its own
3. Lack of lawful Terms & Conditions, under Common
Law. The deceptions are crimes under Common Law.
And one final, final thing. If anyone thinks - for one
second - that all a Freeman is doing is trying to 'tax-
dodge', then they'd need to think that again, on top of
everything else.
And here's the reason.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word
The so-called 'Government' was elected to look after
the roads, infrastructure & health care etc. And to
protect our freedoms … not to erode them
As such, they are given the power to create a
'Monetary illusion', via HM Treasury. We let them create
whatever they decide they need. Don't we? (How/where
does money come from then?)
So, if ANY Government Agency (e.g. HM Revenue &
Customs) wants money, then they can get all they need
from the MAKERS … HM Treasury! They are the ones
who make it! Don't ask us! Why ask us? We don't
make it!
Tell me … why can't HM Revenue & Customs, and the
DVLA, etc. get all their money from those who create it?
Why do they need to bother us?
What, precisely, is the point in bothering me? Or any
of us? We elect the Government to look after these
things … we give them the power to create as much
'money' as they would ever need … and the very first
thing they do is demand it from us!!!
Huh???!!! If it wasn't so bloody serious, and utterly,
preposterously, absurd, it would actually be hilarious!
It's perfectly true, isn't it? Plain Common Sense, isn't
(And the answer, by the way, is that 'the money' has
to pass through us for one reason, and one reason only:
TO CONTROL US. 'Money' is nothing more - and nothing
less - than a Mind-Fuck. It serves no other practical
The sooner everyone comes to terms with this, and
stops deceiving people, the better for all concerned. As
the deceptions become more & more exposed, I just
hope the Great British Public (in fact everyone on this
planet) has mercy on the souls of these so-called
'Government Agencies'.
Now it's been said. No-one, having read this,
can claim ignorance any longer.
Summary of Freeman Principles
Unless and until these Freeman Principles are
rebutted, IN SUBSTANCE, they stand as the REALITY, and
the TRUTH, in LAW.
Freedom Is More Than Just A Seven-Letter Word