How much are you worth ?

How much are you worth? (UK only)

Now there is always a confusion. A British 'billion' was always defined as a 'million million', whereas an America billion has always been a 'thousand million'. (The American idea is more useful, because the British version leaves a thousand million as a 'thousand million - without a specific word for it).

However, what this means is that the trillion, being based on a billion, also suffers from a lack of clarity in its specific size.

A simple Google "UK GDP" returned "UK GDP = 2.13 trillion". Is this the American trillion, or the British trillion? One is a thousand times greater than the other.

A simple Google "UK Population" returned 60,943,912.

So how much is your share worth? Well it is 2.13 trillion divided by 60,943,912.

1) If the 2.13 trillion is being quoted in American units, that's £34,950 per person..

2) If the 2.13 trillion is being quoted in British units (which is more likely, bearing in mind the British source), it is a thousand times the above amount, i.e. £34,950,168 per person (as of January, 2009).

What does this mean? It means that the most valuable thing you possess is your signature. Your unique signature is backed by approximately £34 million in personal assets.

If you could captialise on these assets what could you do?

First of all you could 'sort yourself out'. Permanently. And your family.

But, don't forget, each member of your family is also worth £34 million in their own right.

What could you do with the rest? You could use it for what it was designed for - to benefit your community. Your community as a whole. Clubbing together with others to decide what you want to see in your neighbourhood. (After all, that's what your Government is supposed to be doing with it anyway. The reason why they don't is due to utter corruption on their part).

How do you do this? Some of us are attempting to claim direct ownership of our individual share via the Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right. Claiming the right to hold the share. To become the shareholder. Thus quarterly dividends would be paid to the individual, not the Government. And, furthermore, the individual henceforth has the voting right carried by the share.

At that point a Freeman-on-the-land is no longer be dependant on any form of State Benefits derived from the law-of-the-sea/Statutes. Such an individual becomes totally independent, and able to make sensible, non-corrupt, choices at all times.

Veronica: of the Chapman family

January, 2009

Supplied information

So Whats that all about ?

So what's it all about?

If you've read the rest of the information presented on FMOTL.com you should have the idea that it can all be summed up in one word 'commerce'. Statute 'law' is all about commerce. And contracts. And tricking you into contracts, such that Statutes can be used against you. And to hide/disguise the fact that The Law, the Real Law, Common Law, can protect you.

If you check this link, you will see that a UK citizen is worth (to the Government) about £34 million (+) in financial terms (January, 2009). If you murder someone then Common Law will be used to try you. If found guilty the sentence imposed will be commensurate NOT with the fact that you took another person's life (because 'there's no sentiment in business') - but that you have robbed the Government of £34 million. This is because while the trial will be based on Common Law (you caused harm to another human being), the sentence, the punishment, will reflect the commercial aspects.

Now, there is a hidden problem with Statues. One that very few people realise. If you check, you will find that the Government generally tack on the possibility of a prison sentence for Statute violation. But the courts rarely use it, in practice.

Now the reason why the possibility of a prison sentence is tacked on to the violation is the psychological effect it has. "I could go to prison for that" is great psychology.

The reason why this option is - if at possible - avoided is commercial. It costs money to keep people in prison. It costs money to build them, to staff them, to furnish them, to heat them to light them, etc.

In 1993, during the Poll Tax days, the cost was £2,500 per inmate, per week.

Now you know why, having spent £19 billion to implement it, just a few thousand of us brought it to its knees by going to prison ... and saying we'll continue to go as long as the Poll Tax is on the Statute Books.

Small numbers can move mountains, if they know what they are doing.

Don't ever be afraid to point out, to all and sundry, that there is a serious cost, per inmate, to keeping people in prison. And the 'taxpayer' always has to pick up the tab.

(By the way, 65% of the prison population are there 'on remand'. In other words charged, but not had their day in court)

The majority of people think that their taxes go to fund 'something to do with the name of the tax'. For example that 'Road Tax' funds the roads, and 'Council Tax' funds local infrastructure.

They think that fines (e.g. Parking Fines, Speeding Fines, etc) go to the Government.

This is not true. Not in the sense that these monies 'stay' with the Government.

If you recall from the 'Long Arm' article, the UNITED KINGDOM CORPORATION is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. All taxes and fines collected are used to pay off the INTEREST on previous International Monetary Fund/World Bank borrowings. (Note: The interest only ... the original loans can never be paid off. Far too much has been borrowed in the past)

That's why there are so many Statutes. The Government spends its time working out ways to tax you, by fining you for - what can only be considered to be - some of the most paltry things possible. The idea is to tax you as much as practically possible - without you realising that it is just another tax.

For example, it is now a Statute violation to hold an 'unlicenced' concert in a Church Hall. OK. What harm, injury or loss does an 'unlicenced' concert cause, in a Church Hall? A very temporary small amount of noise, maybe? Considered to be 'a breach of the peace', maybe? Well, if we are talking out 'breaches of the peace', what about Police Sirens? Or even Church Bells? Or Jetliners?

The idea is utter rubbish of course. Purely designed to collect money. It is an imprisonable 'offence', but you can be sure that they will fine the organisers, not send them to prison. Fining them collects money - to pay off the IMF INTEREST demands - imprisoning the organisers spends money.

Does this explain why all Governments do the same - or very similar - things once in office? When they never repeal all the legislation passed by any previous Government? The Poll Tax was THE, LAST, ONE BIG, EXCEPTION ... but then, it was so outlandish ... it went totally beyond the pale. The Poll Tax was too big a step for the creeping Totalitarian Tiptoe. They learned from that to keep the steps a lot smaller.

'Ang on! 'Ang on! 'Ang on! Could that be why rapists and paedophiles - people the public would love to see put away for a long, long time - quite often get a sentence that amounts to a 'slap on the wrist'? Although these lowlife have absolutely ruined another human's life, they haven't - generally - robbed the Government of £34 million +! And it costs money to keep them in prison! 

And could this explain why a 'life sentence' doesn't mean life (more often than not), and why parole is so easily on offer?

Steal a loaf of bread because your children are hungry, and the next thing you know there are calls for the introduction of Sharia Law!

Follow the money.

Once a Government gets into office - irrespective of any 'policy' and all Manifesto Pledges - they are faced with finding methods to pay back the IMF INTEREST. Whatever party you vote for, they will face the same problem. And there is only one way to solve the problem (as far as they are concerned) ... and that's to tax you, somehow, in such a way that you'll only bitch about it to your next door neighbour. (Or in on-line 'Commenting', under on-line so-called 'news' articles).

In other words, in such a way that you'll always blame 'the other lot'.

Further reading and research

There are two main schools of thought about all this. The first 'school' says 'stymie/stalemate everything, don't let them even get you into court'. The second says 'all courts are commercial, and by learning the ropes, you can have a lot of fun, and even make some money'.

The first method comes down to 'Freeman-on-the-land'. The second is known as 'Commercial Redemption'. It may be possible to enjoy a mixture of the two, but that is unclear (at least to me) at this time.

Both methods require the basic understanding of the situation, as explained as explained in the 'Long Arm' article. Alternatively you can purchase the book on this subject of FMOTL

However once the idea of the legal fiction PERSON is understood, and how it is used by the Judiciary, what you do about it splits into each method.

I'll try to describe these methods in basic terms, taking them in reverse order.

Commercial Redemption

Major proponents of the Commercial Redemption Method are Mary Croft and Winston Shrout. (There may be others)

Neither of these two people have - in my humble opinion - a clue how to explain anything. (Maybe you can say the same for me, I don't know). But what I do know is that reading Mary's book is very hard going. Similarly watching Winston's seminars is very painful. Due to a number of factors:

1) They don't know how to present. Much of the information is presented in reverse. In other words the roof is described before the foundations. (In one seminar the phrase 'wet signature' was used many times before someone had the commonsense to ask 'just what that meant'. It means handwritten, not rubber-stamped, photocopied, etc). 

2) The accent (e.g. a laid-back Serthern Draaaaawl) is hard to decipher (in Winston's case)

3) It is all about the united States or Canada. Obviously there are United Kingdom equivalents, but what are they? ("So near, yet so far"?)

However, in all cases, stern warnings are always given (by these proponents): "Don't do anything at all until you know exactly what you are doing".

Basically what these people are saying is that you can take control of your legal fiction PERSON. (Actually absolute control) And, if you take control of it, you can utilise it in your favour - by learning the game, and playing the game.

Now Mary's book is free (see link above). And good for her. But all Winston's stuff costs money. So one wonders if he is so good at fleecing the courts with his Commercial Redemption, and (as he says) he enjoys it so much, then why is it not possible to do his brethren a big favour and explain it without attempting to make a fast buck? (Hmmmm)

Take that, plus the stern warnings, and the time one would spend 'knowing exactly what one was doing' and, in my case at least, I think I pass.

Do I really want to spend time going down to courtrooms and watching what goes on, just to learn the ropes? And then go out and deliberately violate Statutes to test my knowledge (some you win, some you lose, but you gain experience). Is that what you want to do with your life? Well, I've got 'better' things to do, so I think I'll pass.

And I'll add something else. Personally speaking, as human being with a soul, I utterly reject the idea that I am associated with an 'fiction'. This is simply playing the utterly corrupt New World Order Commerce 'game'. And I, personally, will have no part of it if I can possibly help it. 

Yes. I pass.

(But good luck if you decide to go down that route)

Freeman-on-the-land

Fundamentally this consists of 'having as little as possible' to do with any of the corrupt New World Order 'game'. Generally by posing unanswerable questions back to robots. This creates a wall between the Freeman and the robot, causing a stalemate. This will create confusion within the robot. I'd rather confuse a robot than extract money from him.

It also satisfies my sensibilities. The robots are, in point of fact, engaged in treason. They just don't realise it. 

Personally speaking I would rather educate these robots back into non-treasonable human beings. Back to stark reality. I don't see how stark reality can be achieved by playing within the surreal of Commerce Law. I can't see how allowing the robots their 'surreality', and going along with it, will ever teach them anything. 

But that's just my twopen'rth. (I guess I was born to rebel)

Veronica: of the Chapman family

January, 2009

Gain back control

FREEMAN ON THE LAND

What is meant by 'law'? That's the catch, What you have grown up to assume is 'the law' is not! That's The Grand Deception. Hitler was right: "If the lie is big enough, the People will fall for it".
Once you understand and know the deception, we will see what the law actually is, you will soon realise how the wool has been firmly and deliberately pulled over your eyes, your parent's eyes, and those of everyone you know.

Take control stop allowing this system to rob you blind.Firstly lets start with the subject of

'GETTING OUT OF DEBT'

Whenever you receive a demand for payment from a Bank, Building Society, or Loan Company, all you need to do is to respond correctly, the drift of which is to request them to provide three things:

1. Validation of the debt (the actual accounting), and

2. Verification of their claim against you (a sworn affidavit or even just a signed invoice - signed is important!), and

3. A copy of the contract binding both parties.

Write to say you would be happy to pay any financial obligation you might lawfully (important word!) owe as soon as these three documents are received.

They can't validate the debt because they never sustained a loss.

They can't verify any claim against you - as a flesh and blood human being with a living soul - they will be attempting to talk to your legal fiction NAME.

They can't produce a copy of the contract because a lawfully binding one doesn't exist.

What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract.

What they refer to as 'your contract with us' is not a valid, bilateral, agreement - since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the Credit Card (or whatever) 'application', namely:

1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are actually creating the credit with our signature), and

2. Equal Consideration. They bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose. ("Consideration" means 'something of value', e.g. money, or an item of value - something they are trading for your signature/promise - something they have to lose), and

3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud), and

4. Signatures of BOTH Parties/Meeting of the Minds (Corporations can't sign because they have no Right, or Mind, to contract, because they are soulless legal fictions)

Credit Cards and Loans are win/win for them, and lose/lose for everyone else - it is the slickest con game on the planet.

More detail, with regard to Mortgages (which are slightly special - because dwellings can have encumbrances attached), can be found here

But you have to know, and realise all this. If you don't they will steamroller you. They will try every trick in the book, because it is their life-blood.

Stick to your guns.

ENSURE THAT EVERY LETTER YOU SEND CLEARLY STATES "Without Prejudice", which means that you reserve all Rights in law, and yield to no contract unless it is lawful by virtue meeting the four conditions above.

Conditions (1) and (2) can never be met. Simply because they never have any money to lend in the first place. Banks are not allowed, by law, to lend any Depositor's money. Loan Companies do not have any Deposits anyway. Therefore they can only ever lend what you gave to them in the first place, based on your signature on the Loan Application.

THEY LEND BACK TO YOU - WHAT YOU GAVE TO THEM - VIA YOUR SIGNATURE/PROMISE!

They will get the message, because they know they are operating fraudulently.


But what about my Credit Rating?

IN THEORY, since you have no judgment against you, your Credit Rating should remain intact.

(I did say … "In theory")

My son says "Well, yes, but two wrongs don't make a right"

Banks/Building Societies/Loan Companies have never had, nor ever will have, any money to lend you … except your own (created by your signature on a Promissory Note - called a Loan Agreement).

So they can you into paying them in order to use your own money.

The 'wrong' is that they charge you for the use of your own money. It is 'right' not to let them play this confidence trick on you.

If you do (somehow) end up in court

You will be asked your name, or whether you name is … e.g. Sally Smith.

The correct reply is "If I tell you my name, will I have a contract with you?"

If the answer is "No", then you say "I'm a flesh and blood human being, with a living soul, and commonly called Veronica" (Obviously substitute your own Given Name - or use mine which would constitute a fraud … your choice). If they continue to use your legal fiction NAME (e.g. 'Ms. Smith'), do your best to ignore it, until they make it clear they are addressing you, and then repeat "I'm sorry, were you addressing me? I'm commonly called ".

If the answer is "Yes" then you can say "Then you need to provide me with FULL DISCLOSURE, some CONSIDERATION, the LAWFUL TERMS AND CONDITIONS, and we would both need to SIGN. Is that not so?".

Either way, you would be seriously looking at "Case Dismissed"!

If they threatened 'Contempt of Court' (a trick they often use), then the response is "Is that CIVIL or CRIMINAL contempt?".

DO NOT SAY ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL YOU RECEIVE AN ANSWER. (Do not be sucked into filling in 'empty silence').

If the answer is "Criminal", then the response is "Who makes the CLAIM, what is the CRIME, and who is the INJURED PARTY?". If they say "The COURT makes the CLAIM", the response is "You know that the court is not a human being, and that only human beings, blessed with a living soul, can make a CLAIM!".

If the answer is "Civil", then the response is "Please explain the CONTRACT. Will you provide FULL DISCLOSURE, what is the CONSIDERATION, and will you provide the SIGNATURE of a human being with a living soul?"

(I wish I had known about this when I was young!)

(By the way, they generally hate LIPs - Litigants In Person - who actually know the ropes. On the other hand, if you stick to your guns, there's not a whole lot they can do about it. But they are sharks, and will try every trick. You need to remain alert. More information here)

FMOTL information and expansion on subjects