bmxninja357 wrote:a freeman on the land has to accept governance which is directly opposed to the marc stevens no state stuff. the two are not compatible.
peace,
ninj
Read Meads v Meads, not the massive PHD thesis portion on OPCA gurus and methods but only the portion at the beginning that applied to the actual issue at the hearing, Mr. Mead's responsibilities to his estranged wife and children. The decision was in respect to his full-frontal Freeman tactics at trial trying to derail things with Freeman gibberish. In paragraph 24 he clearly stated that he was a Freeman on the Land;
24] Mr. Meads then asked me about the sign above my head, which is the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada, and declared:
This is an admiral court, your jurisdiction is on water, it's not on land; I am a freeman on the land, and for you to play down some of the statements I am making is not acceptable unless you prove it to me in law, and just saying it to me is nothing.
Then in paragraph 25 and 31 he stated that because he is a Freeman the laws of the land don't apply to him;
[25] He complained that he had asked Ms. Reeves to provide her bond and license to practice law, but had not received that, and continued:
'But I do sir want to work with law, and not statutes and rules that have come up from man over time. I understand they work for the bulk of the people, but ... I'm representing myself and what I speak about I believe in. There are rules above man's rules, and God's laws is where your laws originated from, so let's go back to the Maximus, and deal with it as quickly as possible.'
[31] He asserted he was willing to go to jail, but as he is "flesh and blood" he is free from the mumbo jumbo that is law. Mr. Meads alleged that an emergency protection order to which he is subject was the result of a trap, and his wife had been coached by the RCMP to spring that trap. He rejected the system into which he is pushed, and indicated that my statements are directed to a corporate entity created by the government.
This doesn't look like the acceptance of good governance to me unless Freemen consider "good governance" to be a flexible term that means whatever they want it to mean to fit to their own advantage. This is certainly the situation I've seen in the Freeman trials I've reported on. They believe in "good governance" only to the point it imposes no rules or obligations on them which, in my understanding, is the same as no governance at all.
The judge pointed out the hypocrisy of this position;
[43] From a review of these documents, it appears that Mr. Meads is purporting to split himself into two aspects. One gets his property and benefits, the other his debts and liabilities. The Mr. Meads with liabilities has entirely indemnified the Mr. Meads with property. He also appears to instruct me and the Bank of Canada to use a secret bank account, with the same number as his social insurance number or birth certificate, to pay all his child and spousal support obligations, and provide him $100 billion in precious metals. Mr. Meads has also purported to create various contractual obligations for those who might interact with him, or who write or speak his name.
[44] This is, of course, nonsense. As I have noted to Mr. Meads, these materials have no force or meaning in law, other than they indicate an intention on his part to evade his lawful obligations and the authority of the Court and government. He is an OPCA litigant. That has legal consequences for him, which these Reasons will explain.
