Lawrence Friesen wants an adequate living at my expense!

[Burnaby49]

Lawrence Waldo Friesen bubbled to the surface in the Dean Clifford discussion when Wake Up! Productions posted this;

There is a new entry on the Manitoba Court site, under Dean's criminal case. This one is slightly confusing:

11-Mar-2016 - Winnipeg, QB - AFFIDAVIT- LAWRENCE WALDO FRIESEN, SW 29FEB2016

When I Googled LAWRENCE WALDO FRIESEN, this came up:

https://www.ucc411.com/ca/107239417822/ ... EREOF.html

The debtor party is Lawrence Waldo Friesen And Any Other Derivatives Thereof in Winnipeg MB. The secured parties are .

This California UCC Filing #107239417822 was recorded on 07/22/2010.The filing status is listed as Active (Unlapsed).

Can somebody shed some light on this ???

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10867&start=940#p224228

So I've done a bit of looking around for Waldo's online footprint.

He was involved in the Denise Rosenberg detaxing antics back in the day:

viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2712&p=41745&hilit ... erg#p41745

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... Xvyid4PSwA

Glenn Fearn was involved in that dispute too.

Rosenberg and Friesen alleged that sheriffs who were seizing property for the CRA had stolen a child's money, which led to them being the target of criminal charges. They were, however, acquitted: R. v. Rosenberg, 2002 CanLII 46192 (MB PC)

http://canlii.ca/t/1qz6j

More indications of Friesen's ancient Detaxer activities:

http://can.mailarchive.ca/taxes/2005-09/0464.html

Friesen has a number of civil actions in the Manitoba court records:

Bankruptcy:

BK01-01-62472 - 2001-2006
BK10-01-01628 - 2010, second bankruptcy

CO11-01-70936, civil claim against Friesen and wife for $17,542.53, wife paid $20,649.21.

But the interesting file that I spotted is this one in Federal Court:

Lawrence W. Friesen v Her Majesty the Queen: docket T-367-15.

-Statement of Claim filed on March 10, 2015, struck out April 20, 2015 without submissions

So I went down to the Federal Court registry today and picked up a copy of the Statement of Claim. I can't get it on Media Fire for a bit but I'll give you the basics. Friesen is in full freeman mode making a number of demands to the court.

One is that he does not want to be recognized and designated as a servant and subject of Her Majesty the Queen. He has apparently informed the Queen in Counsel that he will only stand under his recognition and designation as a human being. He therefore is not obliged to get licenses or permits from the Crown for anything.

The Statement of Claim isn't long, eleven pages, and most of that is padding from quotes from statutes, most out of context to what he is arguing.

We get to the "I'm a parasite, give me money" part of the claim at paragraph 17, the garbled English and formatting is in original;

17. The Applicant claims that there has been a security issued to me when he was a child, and this security is the obligation that Her Majesty and Her Majesty representatives have allowed me to be secure from fear and want and to allow me a living

A quote or two from the Bank Act about securities then the money shot;

20. The Applicant claims that a security is in registered form if it bears a statement upon it that is in registered form. If you look upon the documentation given or received from the government after the human being is born it is designated a registration of live birth. Written upon the documentation it is indicated that it is indeed registered, meaning it is in registered form.

In other words the certificate of live birth is a registered security. And while the certificate doesn't have an amount on it, it doesn't need to! Article 84 of the Bank Act apparently allows Waldo to pick the amount he wants. And it is guaranteed by the Queen AKA Canadian taxpayers;

23 - The applicant claims that his security is a representation of the obligation, a debt obligation that her majesty has towards the Applicant. The obligation to make sure the human being has an adequate living including food clothing and housing and to continued improvement of living conditions. This security is issued to 6the natural person i.e. the human being and creates or represents the obligation. Even though it is not written on the security itself as to what the obligations are the law says that it does not have to be stipulated or written on the security.

In other words just John Spirit's free money grab already taken to court by Wally Dove and Stu Pearce. Here's Wally;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9418&p=220696

Wally lost and is appealing, same with Stu. However you don't know about Stu yet because I'm in the process of writing him up. He wanted $100,000,000 to support an adequate living, the same as Wally, and, same as Wally, he lost. Struck without leave to amend. Precedence doesn't look good for Waldo!

Anyhow Waldo claims in paragraph 29 that the Queen hasn't given him his money because she is the trustee over his security and she has declared him a minor. However on January 26th 2014 he sent a notice to the "executive powers" telling them that he is no longer an minor and the Receiver General refused to discharge the trustee. He asked and asked for funds to support his right to an adequate living but he was refused. By not giving him his money for nothing that we taxpayers had to work for in the first place the defendants named in the claim (he uses the plural although there is only one named defendant, Her Majesty the Queen) have not protected his rights. His spelling issues persist when he states that "these actions are contrary to the principals of fundamental justice"

So he wants;

a) To order the defendants to honour their obligations to the applicant as required in the Constitution Act 1982, Article 7.

What he really means is Article 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states;

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

He wants past injustices remedied;

b) to make reconciliation on the applicant's past claim towards and adequate living, and on any needs for an adequate living going forward.

Perhaps he has this kind of adequate living in mind;



When you are demanding free money no reason not to think big!

c) to cease and desist from hindering the applicant in the expression and operation of his individual fundamental rights and freedoms by allowing the applicant to use promissory notes without interference of the representatives of Her Majesty's Bank.

So it looks like he wants to issue his personal bullshit promissory notes for his debts, probably the three/five letter scheme, and he wants the Federal Court to order the Queen to leave hi alone if he does it.

d) That an order to safeguard the applicants rights Article 7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person I, as a human being, have the right to the security of my person and no one can deprive me of this right.

The next sentence actually doesn't make any sense, he's not the best of legal writers, but I assume that it means he wants some petty cash funds to keep going until he can issue his own promissory notes and his funds from his security start rolling in.

e) List of receipts of the amount of money, $14,340.39 the Applicant is seeking to have returned to you based upon the right to enjoy a living for initial claim. (attachment #23)

I have no idea what is in attachment 23 or 1 to 22 for that matter because I had this printed out at the registry from their records and the attachments will be in the fiscal file in Winnipeg which I can get but don't think it's worth the bother.

As stated earlier Waldo's cry for justice was cut short by being struck without leave to amend about a month after he filed it.

[The Observer]

Well, this is one sovrun I am rooting for. Why? Because I also want an adequate living at Burnaby's expense! Nothing would please me more than seeing Burnaby having to pull money out of his wallet to pay for my house note, car payment, groceries, utilities, insurance and the like so that I can be adequately supported. It would even be more pleasant if poor Burnaby would actually have to pay for my Pilsner purchases as well.

Not that I think it is likely that Friesen will come even close to prevailing, but a guy can dream, can't he?

[Philistine]

Well, this is one sovrun I am rooting for. Why? Because I also want an adequate living at Burnaby's expense! Nothing would please me more than seeing Burnaby having to pull money out of his wallet to pay for my house note, car payment, groceries, utilities, insurance and the like so that I can be adequately supported. It would even be more pleasant if poor Burnaby would actually have to pay for my Pilsner purchases as well.

Not that I think it is likely that Friesen will come even close to prevailing, but a guy can dream, can't he?

I'm with ya!
Just getting to watch Burnaby49 have to shell out to buy me a case of Molson Canadian for "May two-four" weekend might be worth filing a few "papers".

[Pottapaug1938]

Well, this is one sovrun I am rooting for. Why? Because I also want an adequate living at Burnaby's expense! Nothing would please me more than seeing Burnaby having to pull money out of his wallet to pay for my house note, car payment, groceries, utilities, insurance and the like so that I can be adequately supported. It would even be more pleasant if poor Burnaby would actually have to pay for my Pilsner purchases as well.

Not that I think it is likely that Friesen will come even close to prevailing, but a guy can dream, can't he?

I'm with ya!
Just getting to watch Burnaby49 have to shell out to buy me a case of Molson Canadian for "May two-four" weekend might be worth filing a few "papers".

Burnaby can correct me if I'm wrong; but I suspect that he can find you something much more drinkable....

[arayder]

Nice post, Burnaby.

Thanks to the efforts of Wally Dove, Stu Pearce and Larry Friesen the idea that a Canadian birth certificate is a registered security which Canadians can cash in has been pretty well put to bed. . .not that other gurus won't push the idea if they think it will get some Facebook likes.

I am struck by the stupidity of freeman and their gurus can't see that should their fantasy become true Canada would be forced to expend most its national wealth to keep everybody in groceries. Groceries which would end up going down the pooper, leaving the nation of Canada with nothing.

It is not surprising that freemen who can't build any wealth for themselves don't see the utter foolishness of the "security of the person" scheme.

[Burnaby49]

Well, this is one sovrun I am rooting for. Why? Because I also want an adequate living at Burnaby's expense! Nothing would please me more than seeing Burnaby having to pull money out of his wallet to pay for my house note, car payment, groceries, utilities, insurance and the like so that I can be adequately supported. It would even be more pleasant if poor Burnaby would actually have to pay for my Pilsner purchases as well.

Not that I think it is likely that Friesen will come even close to prevailing, but a guy can dream, can't he?

As I keep telling you damn yankees over and over. You kicked out the Queen (well, king at that time) so stop expecting the benefits that she has promised to we loyal Canadians who've always given her a warm welcome.

[Philistine]

Well, this is one sovrun I am rooting for. Why? Because I also want an adequate living at Burnaby's expense! Nothing would please me more than seeing Burnaby having to pull money out of his wallet to pay for my house note, car payment, groceries, utilities, insurance and the like so that I can be adequately supported. It would even be more pleasant if poor Burnaby would actually have to pay for my Pilsner purchases as well.

Not that I think it is likely that Friesen will come even close to prevailing, but a guy can dream, can't he?

I'm with ya!
Just getting to watch Burnaby49 have to shell out to buy me a case of Molson Canadian for "May two-four" weekend might be worth filing a few "papers".

Burnaby can correct me if I'm wrong; but I suspect that he can find you something much more drinkable....

Yeh, that's the point, but he's ignoring us anyway...and for good reason I might add.

[Burnaby49]

Anyone commenting that they drink Molsons Canadian is beneath my notice.

[Philistine]

Anyone commenting that they drink Molsons Canadian is beneath my notice.

I'm not going to drink it. I just wan't you to have to buy it...

[Burnaby49]

Anyone commenting that they drink Molsons Canadian is beneath my notice.

I'm not going to drink it. I just wan't you to have to buy it...

In other words you want to force me into the humiliating situation of wasting my money buying a vile brew unfit for human consumption just so you can mock me. Well played!

[The Observer]

In other words you want to force me into the humiliating situation of wasting my money buying a vile brew unfit for human consumption just so you can mock me. Well played!

Sounds like the definition of socialism.

[Pottapaug1938]

Anyone commenting that they drink Molsons Canadian is beneath my notice.

I'm not going to drink it. I just wan't you to have to buy it...

In other words you want to force me into the humiliating situation of wasting my money buying a vile brew unfit for human consumption just so you can mock me. Well played!

Molson's Canadian is one of Canada's answers to Budweiser and Coors. Fortunately, Burnaby lives where something much more drinkable is available (and so do I, on the opposite coast and south of the border. Having a son who works for one of the hottest craft breweries in Massachusetts is a good thing).

[notorial dissent]

Molsons and Coors are for all intents and purposes the same thing since they merged, maybe even before based on description of the Canadian products equine egest, I wouldn't venture to which was the senior partner, but I think their products are coequal. Bud is now owned by a Belgian outfit as I recall. We have real craft brewers where I live, but there are people who insist that the other stuff is really beer and the only thing they will drink, I just look at them and shake my head.

[Wake Up! Productions]

As I keep telling you damn yankees over and over. You kicked out the Queen (well, king at that time) so stop expecting the benefits that she has promised to we loyal Canadians who've always given her a warm welcome.

Having studied Waldo in more detail, are you any closer to taking a guess as to what he filed in Dean Clifford's court file, or what his connection is to Dean?

[Burnaby49]

As I keep telling you damn yankees over and over. You kicked out the Queen (well, king at that time) so stop expecting the benefits that she has promised to we loyal Canadians who've always given her a warm welcome.

Having studied Waldo in more detail, are you any closer to taking a guess as to what he filed in Dean Clifford's court file, or what his connection is to Dean?

Not a clue.

[noblepa]

I could never figure out how the whackos could think that a birth certificate is some sort of promisory note and that the government, or the crown, owes them a lot of money for it. Reading this, it finally dawned on me.

I suspect that somewhere, sometime, one of the crazies read that securities, such as stocks and bonds must be REGISTERED with the government.

Then, they realized that birth certificates are REGISTERED with the government.

Ipso Facto, this means that everything that is REGISTERED with the government is a security, which is a proof of a debt.

Therefore, someone owes me a boatload of money, because I have a birth certificate.

I just had a thought. I have three certified copies of my birth certificate. Does that mean that the government owes me THREE TIMES AS MUCH MONEY????

Simple. How could we have missed this inescapable logic?

[Burnaby49]

I try to explain the documents I review fully and give a comprehensive analysis of the legal arguments in them but there isn't much I can do if readers like noblepa just skim my writings without even a superficial analysis. Comments like this make me wonder why I bother.

I just had a thought. I have three certified copies of my birth certificate. Does that mean that the government owes me THREE TIMES AS MUCH MONEY????

Simple. How could we have missed this inescapable logic?

Did you give the issue any thought at all before writing that? Wally explained it all fully. Since your three certified copies all have the same registration number they all refer to the same registered security so you can only cash-out once. You were only born once weren't you? This is why there is no dollar amount stipulated on your birth certificate/registered security. It allows you to decide, before cashing it out, how much money you personally need to secure yourself an "adequate living". If you need three times as much as somebody else it is open to you to demand it.

Friesen's legal analysis of the provisions of the Bank Act and the rules regarding securities is so comprehensive that his position is unarguable. Which I assume is why the court threw it out without arguing it.

[The Observer]

I really don't think you should mock or reprimand posters like noblepa for failing to understand completely the intricacies of sovrun theories. After all, you need to consider the fact that noblepa, like most of us, is fettered with a lot of long-term habits such as logic, common sense, and a command of the facts. Given these handicaps, it should come as no surprise that he might overlook a subtle position that you just now explained with derision. You should realize that you benefit from spending significant time in studying these doctrines from morning to bedtime, as well as the exposure you get by being in court with these freemen of the land as they pontificate on the lofty legal thrusts to which they subscribe. One may even suppose that the certain ales you imbibe provide an almost mystical ability to dissect the sophisticated musings of sovruns that would only appear as gibberish to us laymen.

[Burnaby49]

I really don't think you should mock or reprimand posters like noblepa for failing to understand completely the intricacies of sovrun theories. After all, you need to consider the fact that noblepa, like most of us, is fettered with a lot of long-term habits such as logic, common sense, and a command of the facts. Given these handicaps, it should come as no surprise that he might overlook a subtle position that you just now explained with derision. You should realize that you benefit from spending significant time in studying these doctrines from morning to bedtime, as well as the exposure you get by being in court with these freemen of the land as they pontificate on the lofty legal thrusts to which they subscribe. One may even suppose that the certain ales you imbibe provide an almost mystical ability to dissect the sophisticated musings of sovruns that would only appear as gibberish to us laymen.

You left out the obvious comment that, unlike the rest of you, I can understand these issues because I am not hampered by the straight-jacket restrictions of "logic, common sense, and a command of the facts".

I'm currently trying to plow through an hour and a half video by Marc Boyer;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9423&p=181772

Where, I think, he is saying that warehouse receipts, the documents that show you have something stored in a warehouse, are the key to riches for all of us. He says, a direct quote;

One solution to initiate a paradise on Earth is through the Warehouse Receipts Act

This is the Act governing the storage of goods which Marc calls the most powerful Act in the world! I'd planned to write it up but I likely won't make it. That's a lot of Marc to get through. The guy loves talking and he's got a father fixation that is taking up way more of the video than I can tolerate.

But it got me thinking. Warehouse receipts? Why not your driver's license? Fishing licenses? Marriage licenses? A fourth of July fireworks permit? Anything issued by the government with a number on it is a security we can cash out! There's money just falling out of trees here and we Quatloosians, obsessed by logic, common sense, and a command of the facts, those old outmoded concepts you love so much, have been too damn dense to realize it.

[The Observer]

You left out the obvious comment that, unlike the rest of you, I can understand these issues because I am not hampered by the straight-jacket restrictions of "logic, common sense, and a command of the facts".

Only because you have been able to transcend them, not because you are not in possession of such abilities.

There's money just falling out of trees here and we Quatloosians, obsessed by logic, common sense, and a command of the facts, those old outmoded concepts you love so much, have been too damn dense to realize it.

Exactly my point. You are able to seize on key things and realize the bigger potential of Freemanry that I could never hope to see. It is as though you are the Siddartha of sovereign philosophy and are on the verge of glimpsing their Nirvana.