The Bizzle

"Saving your ass since 1999"

How aliens can help you write off your debts

Like all people who deal with correspondence from members of the public, I get letters from people with what you might call specialist concerns. I have at various times received ten page disquisitions on the Iraq war, tearful accusations of ruining someone’s intended career with the UN, and letters written in 4 point coloured type.

So I was excited to receive a letter addressed to “Dear Interloper”. A promising start, that; I wonder what we’ve interloped? 

Ah, it turns out that we’ve asked someone to repay some money that they borrowed from us: “Please provide verification of your claim, including … a hand signed invoice in accordance with Bills of Exchange Act (1882) and proof of agency”. 

If we don’t do this, then naturally we will have agreed to “the following terms: that you are a third party interloper; you have no legal standing; no first-hand knowledge of this matter; [goes on at some length]”. 

We are also told by our correspondent, who describes himself as “John of the family: Smith”, that we must not “refer to me as Mr or any title, which is a legal fiction and is not me”. And in case we were in any doubt on the matter, this missive is subject to the strict injunction: 

“No assured value, No liability. Errors & Omissions Excepted. All Rights Reserved”. 

Well, that all seems clear and absolutely on the level. 

But when I received the third identical letter along these lines, my finely-tuned legal brain sensed that a pattern was emerging. What were the chances that three different debtors had arrived at the same argument by chance? 

Turning to my research assistant, Mr Google, I find that the top result for the phrase “proof of agency” is a website called And what an interesting website it is. 

The promise of Get Out Of Debt Free, and I think that we can all get on board with this, is that with their kind assistance one can “Beat the Banks and the Debt Collectors totally Lawfully and Get out of Debt Free…” What’s not to like about that? 

This emancipation of the indebted masses is to be achieved through “Template Letters [and] Simple Strategies for a permanent Debt Solution”, backed by “Online Support and advice from the large Community Forum”. The message is clear: embrace random capitalisation and “Start Winning the Global Commerce Game NOW”. 

Well, now I’m properly worried. If there’s a hitherto unsuspected way that debtors can lawfully avoid liability for their debts, what future for evil lawyer types like me? 

So what’s the revolutionary legal theory that will bring down the banks and liberate the masses from the oppression of debt? The folks at Get Out Of Debt Free aren’t ones for keeping secrets, and right up there on their home page are the “7 Reasons why Credit Card/Loan agreements are unlawful or why you don’t owe your bank/credit card company anything”.

Let’s see… must be a binding contract… bank lending isn’t real money… fractional reserve banking… yadda yadda… names written in upper case aren’t real names… Wait, what? 

Oh, I see: “the uppercase name on the credit card is not your name, but a ‘corporate entity’”. In other words, JOHN SMITH is not John Smith. 

Er, right. 

But let’s go with it. How do we put this explosive knowledge into practice? 

Simple, just send the template letters. And then send some more. Ignore any response that your lender makes, because they will try to confuse you with “facts” and “law”. 

Do not allow yourself to be confused. Remember that “a Statute only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it. If you do not give your consent, a Statute cannot affect you in any way whatsoever”. 

Imagine the generations of poor unfortunates (others call them “criminals”, but we know better) who could have benefited from this knowledge. But it is suppressed by the authorities: “[the courts] will hide this from you at every opportunity”. 

There is other helpful advice. For example, “it is best to © And ™ your name as this gives you more power when invoicing”. You must “take control of your Uppercase/Capitalised name or Strawman, in Common Law and International Treaty”. 

There will no doubt be cynics and mockers who scoff at this sage advice and seek to portray it as a risible mix of nutjobbery and conspiracy theorism. But they are wrong, because this wisdom comes with the backing of “a multitude of friends and fellow researchers, all over the planet as well as a few off planet”. 

And you can’t argue with the space lizards, can you? 

It’s easy to poke fun at this stuff, and I’m certainly not going to stop you*. But there’s a serious point here as well: real people really try this stuff for their real debts, and, because it doesn’t actually work, end up getting further into debt. 

Do those people actually believe the theories peddled by GOODF and their like?** I’m sure that some do, because ignorance and (sometimes justified) cynicism about the financial system is widespread. And, like all good conspiracy theories, it takes a respectable and plausible idea (that our system of money and credit depends to a substantial degree on confidence) and builds a vast edifice of lunacy on top of it. 

But in my less charitable moments I think that some people simply resent the idea that they might have to pay back the money that they have borrowed, and want to believe that it’s possible to escape their debts through some loophole or other. But then I’m part of the corrupt and fraudulent system, so I would say that, wouldn’t I? 

[A postscript: It is not my intention in this post to make any judgement about people who struggle with their debts – I think that lenders should deal with their customers sympathetically, and that there are far too many who don’t do that. Equally, I make no judgement regarding the use of template letters for complaints about bank charges, payment protection insurance, and so on, or about the websites and organisations that promote them. I’m just saying avoid the crazy lizard people]


*Go on, there’s videos and all sorts. 

**This particular bit of wingnuttery derives from the oeuvre of Mary Elizabeth Croft, who in addition to the capitalisation thing believes that birth registration transfers ownership of your children to the state and that quotes from David Icke lend credibility to most arguments. And those are her more credible theories. 

By the way, here’s a couple of the letters:

51 responses to “How aliens can help you write off your debts

  1. IFABlogger June 10, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    Great Post. On the actual subject matter. I do see companies threatening legal action and court action and so on. But, they never do anything in the end, It just drags on. Your credit rating is destroyed for a 100 years, but. You may well get away with it. On unsecured debt anyway.

    I do have some faith in these letters as the pre court protocol states the company chasing the debt must provide the information requested. (Im sure you know). And I have seen case where the magistrate has thrown out the CCJ on the basis of no proof of debt. Even though they have made payments.

    The local magistrates muddle things so much as you say people do think they can get away with. And they do.

    • legalbizzle June 10, 2011 at 4:17 pm

      Thanks for your comment. It’s true that some debts don’t get litigated, because the value is too small or because there is some other criterion applied by the lender to select debts for litigation. That does tend to encourage an erroneous belief in the efficacy of these letters.

      But I disagree regarding the CPR and the evidence required to secure judgment. The lender has to prove the debt, but this really amounts to providing a copy of the contract. The stuff about signed invoices and proof of agency is, frankly, bollocks.

      A couple of factual points: credit ratings can only be affected for 6 years, because that is the length of time the credit reference agencies hold default records; and debts are litigated in the County Court or the High Court (depending on value), so cases are decided by judges, rather than magistrates.

      • Andrew: Dawson August 22, 2012 at 3:32 pm

        I’m sorry to say, but your referring to a contract is misleading, You mean “Agreement” Which is not a contract. But i have used these “Bollocks” letters to save me over £1200. I am also using the process with 3 other company’s. It puts you in control over the matter, and stops phone harassment. I beg people to look this stuff up, your legal friend “bizzle” has a conflict of interest lol.

        • CP August 23, 2012 at 10:54 am

          Ummm… THe dictionary definition of a “Contract” is “a formal agreement between two or more parties”. Therefore, by its very existence, a Credit Agreement (which is an agreement between two parties) is, in fact, a contract.

          • Andrew: Dawson August 26, 2012 at 10:06 am

            Ummm… Contract

            An agreement between PERSONS that obliges each party to do or not to do a certain thing. Technically, a valid contract requires an OFFER and an ACCEPTANCE of that offer, and, in common law countries, CONSIDERATION.


            Under common law, there can be no binding contract without consideration, it was defined in an Currie v Misa (1875) as “some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other”.
            Common law did not want to allow gratuitous offers, those made without anything offered in exchange (such as gifts), to be given the protection of contract law. Therefore, they added the criteria of consideration.
            Consideratio is not required in contracts made in civil law systems and many common law states have adopted laws that remove consideration as a prerequisite of a valid contract.

            I am not a person, i Never accept the claim that a debt collector and i have ever contracted. So using these simple methods means you can contest any agreement. I ask you to read the letters. All they ask for is proof of the debt or contract.

            • CP August 28, 2012 at 11:32 am

              Sorry, but a Credit Agreement IS a contract. It has offer, acceptance, consideration (some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other – i.e. you get the money you are asking for, but agree to repay it according to Terms and Conditions). It is a contract no matter how you dress it up – they even have the words “please sign only if you wish to BE LEGALLY BOUND”. It doesn’t have to be between PERSONS only – the dictionary definition states parties, persons, entities, companies etc. etc. etc. – the various definitions cover everything. So by choosing not to be classed as a person really doesn’t make a blind bit of difference.

              Further, most contracts carry a right of assignment contained within the terms and conditions. Which, as stated above, you sign, wishing to be legally bound by should you wish to enter into the contract.

              In any event, if you are not a PERSON, then what are you? The most common dictionary definition of a “person”, including legal dictionaries, is “a human being”. If you aren’t a human, what are you? A robot? A crocodile? A piece of cheese…?

            • Ian McIvor January 4, 2019 at 9:46 pm

              hahaha, you are a complete moron. errr, Complete of the House: Moron.

            • Ian McIvor January 4, 2019 at 9:47 pm

              What’s your credit rating after you “saved” having to pay $1,200 of someone else’s money?

          • Jay June 21, 2016 at 1:17 pm

            It is bi-lateral meaning both parties have to have signed for the agreement or contract. Too often contracts are only signed by one party which makes the contract void in some cases. Hence the requirement for proof of debt.

  2. A Lawyer June 10, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    But if “a Statute only carries the force of law upon you if you consent to it. If you do not give your consent, a Statute cannot affect you in any way whatsoever” and you (as the Bank) have not consented “Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997”, presumably that mean the n/u/t/t/e/r/ debtor cannot enforce that statute against you and you can ignore their protest about your behaviour.

    Of course I realise that logic doesn’t apply to space lizards and their earthly minions…

    • legalbizzle June 10, 2011 at 6:46 pm

      If it was up to me, that is *exactly* the reply I would give: “I regret that we are unable to comply with your request to stop contacting you by telephone, as we have not consented to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or indeed any other legislation governing or purporting to govern the collection of debts. We are grateful to you for drawing this loophole to our attention, and we intend to double or even triple the number of calls we make to you each day”.

      • Andyh June 14, 2011 at 8:41 pm

        I’d be delighted if you wrote that to me as I’d ping your response off to the law society to get you binned 🙂

        • Joe Bloggs March 28, 2012 at 4:51 pm

          Totally, this so called lawyer is worse than space lizards, hes talking through the hole in his arse, its a fact that acts and statutes ARE only given the force of law through consent of the governed, he knows it too, hes just scared that he will lose business when people actually stop and think for themselves instead of paying moron lawyers to think for them.

  3. Filemot June 10, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Brilliantly writtent but where is the sequel.
    Surely a Bizzle Bank response would be futile and having got this far the debtor will have left his phone lines far behind. There is now a layer of society dodging debt collectors and a prey to the debt advisers. Curiously in a recent list of investment opportunities I saw the debt collector wanting expansion funds was the only one listed as in profit.

    • legalbizzle June 10, 2011 at 6:41 pm

      Thanks for your kind comment. I’ve thought about writing on the more legitimate end of the debt avoidance industry, but I’ve not yet worked out how to say what I want to – and it’s possible that the CMCs in that sector will die out following the failure of the banks’ PPI challenge. And then there’s the CAG, which is a whole other rabbit hole… and (mixed metaphor ahoy) possibly a nest that I don’t want to poke just yet.

  4. A LegalWeasel June 10, 2011 at 9:00 pm

    You’d hope that, with these being form letters, that they’d t least take the time to make them readable.

    I did enjoyed the irony of them touting for donations via credit cards issued by the evil fractional-lending banks.

  5. arfanb June 11, 2011 at 10:26 am

    This website gave me a good laugh. I had a small stint working as a legal adviser in the local Race Equality Council and we got a debt cases…. The solution was always along the same lines, 1) verify debt and amount, 2) set up a repayment plan. So banks even froze debts for a year and a nominal payment after if the client couldn’t pay. So banks if dealt with right arnt evil :p

    Their FAQ warrants a visit to made me laugh!

    They also show “we saved our users x amount” I wonder what the following events were after.

  6. Tom (iow) June 11, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Ah, the old “Freemen of the Land” aka Nutters R Us. My commiserations on encountering this crap.

  7. Intelligent Challenge June 13, 2011 at 7:24 am

    Tremendous letters. It also raises the question of use of legal documents by consumers without proper guidance or context. I can see with the full advent of the legal services act, we are going to see a bunch of new business models underpinning the provision of legal services, and some of these will undoubtedly require a degree of “self-service”. While this model will undoubtedly develop and self-serve will (and should) become an option for simple legal support, I suspect in the early days we’ll see a lot more people hurling round heavy-duty legal phrases and documentation without proper guidance.

    That’s something for you to look forward to…

  8. Nick Hanning June 13, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Another example of Alice in Wonderland law is the claim to a “Commercial Lien”. A friend of mine had the misfortune to encounter someone who thought this was legitimate and proceeded to subject him to bizarre demands for several millions of dollars. Those demands then extended to every lawyer he instructed (and the partners and known staff at those firms), professional colleagues (and their known colleagues e.g. co-directors) and every judge and member of Court staff whose path crossed the case.

    It was amusing to begin but rapidly became embarrassing, intrusive and actually upsetting and frightening. We obtained an injunction to restrain the conduct which, thus far, has proved adequate and cost the person in question nearly £10,000. An expensive way to learn that it is foolish to rely blindly on tinternet to teach you the law!

  9. Pingback: International Cliche day – a game changing paradigm evidence based shift – and a quick look at the law blogs « Charon QC

  10. Paul Kersey June 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm

    Glad to see you are doing your bit in keeping up the pretence and security of Solicitors and Barrister and the like 😉

  11. cookstar June 15, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    “If an offer is in writing, it has to be signed by both parties, otherwise it is a unilateral contract”. An ‘offer’ is a ‘contract’. I think I can see what they are getting at…

    • theo March 29, 2016 at 11:20 pm

      ding ding ding.

      There is no valid lawful contract if not agreed to and signed by both parties. Even if the creditor is a corporate person, there must be a bonded officer of said corporation who must act in the capacity of authorizing such a loan to debtor under full faith and credit.
      To have no agent of creditor offer consideration (a signature for the creditor), there is no lawfully valid contract, but, like you pointed out, a unilateral adhesion contract, that is only valid under admiralty, and not international law which deal with real people under common law, if not chancery and equity.

      How much do you all reeeeeally know about the system?

      You seem to hate the ‘sovereign citizens’ but fail to put yourself in their shoes. Ironically, for the same reason those of you can’t grasp fractional reserve banking, that the FED Reserve is a privately owned company, or that this country is bankrupt, has been dealing with negotiable instruments and not lawfully money, would be to point out that you all fail to make a distintinction between a private citizen and a private Citizen (or a State Citizen of Washington vs a citizen of the state of Washington. For good measure, there is a difference between Calif and CA.

      Military knows about all this… for good reason it is compartmentalized and hidden.

      Check out a book called: Military government and martial law (1904)
      Or: US Army Doctrine and Belligerent Occupation

      Quit being senseless sheep, mindless tools and wake up.
      Do you even notice the anomalies in the food, health/medicine, energy industries? I mean manipulation is EVERYWHERE. Open your bloody eyes, for the love of God.

  12. patently June 17, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    I love the fact that they can infer an enforceable acceptance of contractual terms from mere silence on your part, yet you are required to present incontrovertible written proof of the debt.

    • Webby June 20, 2011 at 10:41 am

      “Mere silence”!?

      Obviously on Xenon (or wherever these lawyers come from), actually using the credit card doesn’t count as an acceptance of terms.

  13. cjr1968 June 30, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    These people are dangerous lunatics and should be closed down.
    This bit for example:
    Q: Will this work for my student loan?
    A: Yes, but I would suggest you do not use it until you have a lot of experience in these matters as the Student Loans Company works with the HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)� to ensure repayments are collected under the Income Contingent Repayment Loan Scheme. One way round this would be to become a Freeman-on-the-Land, where statute law including Income Tax will no longer apply to you.

    • Joe Bloggs March 28, 2012 at 5:06 pm

      The only dangerous lunatics are the ones who believe free born human beings can be ruled without question. You sir are a total retard if you allow yourself to be ruled by any other human being/s

      • Ian McIvor January 4, 2019 at 9:56 pm

        Come on. The stupid freeman website quoted in the article references a single court case where a court appointed lawyer for a freeman was removed because the freeman wrote a rambling, bizarre document that attempted to impose impossible conditions on the solicitor-client relationship. The removal could just as easily be seen as a win for the court-appointed lawyer and was not even on a substantive issue. To my knowledge, there has never been a successful court case based on freeman principles. With that said, responding as they do to debt collectors may be effective at avoiding repayment of small debts to lenders. That isn’t because their ideas work, but is simply because lending institutions do not throw good money chasing after bad (or crazy) money. Lenders will have general guides for the size of a debt they will sue under, because there are expenses associated with suing someone. You need to hire a lawyer, pay the court to file your claim, and track down some yahoo to serve them with the court document. You could simply not respond or send a picture of your cat and get the same results.

  14. Pingback: The Angry Pencil: a pathology of customer complaints « The Bizzle

  15. Pingback: Monday Links from the Bench vol. XCIV

  16. Zeitghost October 17, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    That Giant Alien Lizard isn’t from Xenon.

    He’s from Gorn.


  17. Pingback: Further adventures in woo « The Bizzle

  18. Pingback: Comment is free, but woo is sacred « The Bizzle

  19. charles houghton-beckford March 27, 2012 at 11:07 pm

    Suggest you all take a good look at this place – get some real education..

    That is, unless you consider people like [names of various politicians redacted] and many others, lawyers, economists, journalists et al to be charlatans too.

    The question in my mind is always… okay, so the bank loaned me money… WHOSE MONEY? – and where did that money come from?

    Refer Bank of England – clear explanation that money is created out of thin air when it is borrowed.

    The reality is that banks are not lenders, banks are money changers, they will change one kind of money for another – so when you go for a loan and sign their agreement (IOU – promissorynote) they accept that as money and in exchange enter that a mount in your account.

    The agreement you sign is your promise to pay and on that basis, it is, for them, money – LIKE ANY OTHER CDO, eg: sub-prime contracts (collateralised debt obligation). So, you
    effectively give them the money they then lend you and allow you to believe they are lending you their own money.

    • legalbizzle March 29, 2012 at 1:17 pm

      Hi Charles, good to see you again. You’ve once again suggested that certain named politicians support the Freeman movement, and I’ve once again redacted those names. Perhaps if you post a different comment next time we won’t have to keep doing this?

  20. thomas wayne March 28, 2012 at 9:59 am

    but if statutes do not require consent then surely that would be suggesting we are slaves would it not?

    are we not governed by consent ?

    legislation are rules of a society, who says we have to be a member of said society?

    where is the social contract?

    Most importantly, why are our constitutional rights ignored and subverted ?

    • lateforlawschool March 28, 2012 at 6:27 pm

      Thomas – I think it’s time to take away your crayons. Governing by consent does not mean that every single person in the nation must agree specifically to every single law passed by parliament. That’s madness.

      legislation are rules of a society, who says we have to be a member of said society?

      Who says you don’t?

      where is the social contract?

      What do you even mean by this? And I don’t mean “what is the social contract” I mean what are you banging on about in this specific instance?

      Most importantly, why are our constitutional rights ignored and subverted ?

      Which constitutional rights? And how are they ignored/subverted?

    • The LegalWeasel March 28, 2012 at 6:44 pm

      What “constitutional rights”?
      What constitution, come to that?

    • legalbizzle March 29, 2012 at 1:13 pm

      Hi Thomas, thanks for dropping by. My response to your questions (except the last one) is here: The short version is: (1) No; (2) No; (3) No one, but you’ll have to emigrate to withdraw from it; and (4) There isn’t one. For (5) see numerous rebuttals elsewhere of Freeman reliance on Magna Carta.

  21. Pingback: Consenting kidults « The Bizzle

  22. thomas wayne March 30, 2012 at 3:20 am

    Firstly legalweasel, HA, the name says it all, but peace to you my friend as i am just expressing in jest.

    The “Unwritten Constitution” is perhaps the greatest trick ever played on the people of these lands:

    Charter of Liberties
    Magna Carta
    Declaration & Bill of Rights
    Act of Supremacy
    Act of Settlement
    Claim of Right Act
    Union with Scotland Act

    The Bill of Rights state we cannot suffer any fine or forfeiture unless we have been found guilty of an offence in a court of law. Fines should not be excessive, and no cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.

    We now have a whole range of fixed penalty fines for which we are not permitted to appeal in one of Her Majesty’s Courts of Law. These are constitutionally illegal.

    (2)The Bill of Rights says that any threat of a fine or forfeiture voids the offence. Yet we are told that if we drop litter or don’t have a TV Licence we will be fined £1000, we are told that if we do not insure or tax our car it will be seized and crushed. These threats are constitutionally illegal.

    (3)The Bill of Rights states we may not be imprisoned unless we have been found guilty of an offence in one of Her Majesty’s Courts of Law. Yet we have 42 day detention under the anti terrorist laws, detention without any evidence being produced to any one, let alone one of Her Majesty’s Courts of Law. This detention is constitutionally illegal.

    These illegal laws are subverting the constitution, the major crime of Sedition, which at this level amounts to high treason against Her Majesty’s subjects.

    Hope this answers your questions my friend.

    late for law school, your a bit rude my friend so im only going to entertain one of your questions 🙂 but lucky for you, you get a free one (see above)

    The Act of Supremacy states the following:

    “No Foreign Prince, Person. State or Potentate. Hath or ought to have any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, Supremacy, or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual in this Realm”. The Tudors in the main ruled according to the prerogatives given to them by law.

    Yet we are governed by unelected bureaucrats from the EU.

    Im pretty sure i never suggested this
    “Governing by consent does not mean that every single person in the nation must agree specifically to every single law passed by parliament. That’s madness.”

    Those are your words my friend,

    i agree its madness.

    There is legislation that exists that we have a duty and an obligation to withdraw our consent from, legislation that is ruining lives both domestic and foreign.

    legalbizzle, I’m honoured I inspired you to write an article, thank you.

    I don’t have to leave my land my friend, Government is fiction, man is both its creator and master, man has just forgotten his place, but even as we type they awaken to form a critical mass which want restitution, and will achieve it.

    I believe i said nothing of Magna Carta in my original post.

    I am certainly not having a tantrum because im not allowed to do whatever i want to do, im having a tantrum because im being prevented from doing what i was created to do.

    You do not know me, yet you judge me my friends.

    i follow simple principles, i respect the laws of nature, i respect the constitution.

    i consider myself to have certain rights, and treat others if they had the same.

    i do not harm, cause loss and i honour all contracts, i certainly don’t see why anyone should have to beg for a license to do that which is already lawful.
    That suggests, for example, that to not have a license to drive would make the the act of driving a car a crime, where is the cause of action? no one has suffered a tort, no one makes a claim.

    You make the common mistake of thinking that you, I, or anyone else is a citizen, again, a citizen is a fiction, are you not a man? with a soul? a heart? and a mind?

    A citizen is a construct of the mind, it exists only within the mind and on paper, it is not real, it is nowhere in this physical universe and cannot be touched, besides, the government does not consider you a citizen.

    You forget who you are my friends, thank you for your time and replies, safety and peace to you all.

    • CP August 23, 2012 at 12:46 pm

      So, if the Bill of Rights 1689 is still valid in its original form, does that give me the right as a Protestant to take up arms against Catholics?

    • Ian McIvor January 4, 2019 at 10:01 pm

      Madness or not, the laws say what they say and as long as you live in a nation that follows the rule of law these arguments do not hold any water. You may be correct that there are more appropriate ways to govern, but that’s all academic until we change the laws. As an aside, if you, as a freeman on the land, walk into a bank and ask for $10,000, do you not owe the bank that $10,000 in accordance with the terms of the contract you have signed? Regardless of how your name appears on the document, you read the contract and you signed the contract (not some fictional person, it was your hand being controlled by your brain…well in a normal situation). How does any of this nonsense get around those basic premises?

  23. Michael November 10, 2013 at 10:35 am

    Why does my Canadian registration of birth long form have a stamp with a date and file number and initials from USA. SEC
    This is not my little birth certificate I’m talking about.
    Give me one reason this would be placed on this document other then to use it as a financial instrument.
    Who ever wrote this article lacks any talent as a researcher.

  24. Pingback: The Freeman of the Land……..Nothing but Snake oil | A Little Rant In Heaven......

  25. david:el May 16, 2014 at 2:14 pm

    @author… maybe you would like to submit your ‘legal interpretation’ of Unam sanctam
    (as issued by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302A.D), and offer your enlightened opinion on the subsequent Cestui Que Vie Trusts? you’ll be confirming that voluntary servitude is nonsense?… or confirming that you are a memeber of the Law Society and thus are trained in a sliver of ‘legal framework’. The world of man made ‘laws’, which you so wretchedley submit yourself to apply to crown agents ONLY, i.e, YOU! and NOT homo sapiens’! I AM NOT a ‘thing’ of the world nor a tin of beans belonging to Ceasar and the Cult of Rome… even if you are happy to admit that you most definitely are!…Improbi hominis est mendacio fallere.

    • Ian McIvor January 4, 2019 at 10:03 pm

      I love it, why don’t you go get a speeding ticket and let me know how this nonsense plays in court. I don’t really have an issue with you believe whatever you want to believe, but luckily the courts follow the actual law. Your beliefs are not relevant to the application of a nation’s actual laws.

      • Ian McIvor January 4, 2019 at 10:06 pm

        I have read many decisions on how the legal system feels about this movement and have also been in court to watch that treatment in person. In one particular instance, the individual (a freeman) would not even respond to his name when the court sought to confirm whether he was in attendance. After about 2 minutes of going back and forth with the bogus rhetoric you state above the Judge simply said to the clerk, “read his name in for him for the record” and later held him in contempt. So go forth and practice what you preach and let me know your success rate and credit score after a few of these run-ins.

  26. Rob Sudy January 17, 2018 at 8:37 pm

    I have recently published a 500 page rebuttal of OPCA concepts that may be of interest to readers. Freeman Delusion: The Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument in Australia. You can download it free here:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: