TweetThe Freeman Delusion – The Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument in Australia By : Robert Sudy FREE E-BOOK CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD – The Freeman Delusion This E-Book is the most comprehensive guide to the delusion that some people call “Freeman” or “Sovereign” or the countless other names that the Courts have characterized as Pseudo Legal (stuff […]
TweetThe following is an extract from Volume 1 of the Final Report of the Constitutional Commission 1988. The report was forwarded to the the then Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, The Hon Lionel Bowen MP, on 30 June 1988. Authors of the report include Sir Maurice Byers CBE QC, Professor Enid Campbell OBE, The […]
TweetThose people who think that they can drive without a licence and that somehow the traffic legislation does not apply to them will find that the Courts do not agree. Case extract from The Supreme Court of New South Wales – Losalini Rainima v Magistrate Freund & Ors (2008/11084)12 September 2008 “It seems that the […]
OPCA theorists often insist that THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE is some sort of “international law” that applies to every nation that trades with the United States, but this is completely false.
In any case, I do not accept that the unilateral delivery of a promissory note, as occurred here, was a payment of a tax related liability within the meaning of regulation 18 of the Taxation Administration Regulations 1976 (Cth). The regulation requires payment of the liability, not a promise to pay; and a promissory note is not a method approved by the Commissioner for payment. The third defendant had not agreed to the discharge the tax liability in this eccentric way; nor, as the third defendant submits, could he have, consistently with regulation 18(1).
You ask why entire countries need to register their name with the SEC. Please note that entities issuing stock, bonds, or others securities to investors in the United States generally must register the offering with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933.
“The case was dismissed by High Court judge Justice Gavin Lightman, who noted that not only did he have no say over the case, but even if he did rule in favour of Mr Fitzgibbon the Australian Government, independent since 1901, could ignore him completely.
“It is for the Australian courts to apply Australian law to determine the capacity in which Her Majesty the Queen is acting, the appropriate seal and the consequences, if any, if the wrong seal is used,” he ruled.
This organised pseudolegal commercial argument claims that our original government was hijacked, and the entity is now just a “corporation” “posing as a government” and hold as evidence of this fallacy, our registration details in the United States Security Exchange Commision.
TweetA further evolution of the freeman/sovereign movement, is a group known as Lose the Name. This group asserts that since there exists a Crown copyright on the layout of birth certificates and other official documentation, that this copyright also applies to the use of a persons name. For these reasons they are instructed to refuse […]
The Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 is totally misconceived by those within the freeman/sovereignty movement to imply that state ownership of their body applies via the birth registration process, and unless this presumption is lawfully refuted before the time period of seven years elapses after registration, they become the property of the state, having been declared legally dead, or “lost at sea”.