Hi there. Just wanted to share a modified template from http://www.scribd.com/doc/23642381/Affidavit-2 opinions and comments, suggestions for improvement etc. would be gratefully received. I'm using this affidavit to cease all action being taken against my person by the local magistrates court (Sheffield, UK) and police constabulary. Wanted to know if going too far in that respect, that I'm biting off more than I can chew or if anyone's off the opinion that this affidavit can be used with a NOUICOR and that I would be better off including that and going all the way (serving to all relevent corporations inc. The Crown, HRH, UK Parliament etc.).
If I'm honest I've lost faith in my judgement and lost a bit of confidence due to what what I've been forced to endure by kangaroo courts and the 'rozzers' (really starting to fall out with them, must remember that there's still a few good ones out there!).
Thanks for you help in advance.
Really want to get to grips with the details know I understand the philosophy and intent of the movement.
Finally have some methods to really create some changes in my life and community and just want it to snow ball, I swear to pay my dues Freemen, as soon as I get my self- esteem back (as well as the feeling in my arm, thanks officer!).
AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT AND DENIAL OF CORPORATE EXISTENCE
A verified plain statement of facts
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
I, Alex Marc: of the family Dawson, hereinafter “Affiant”, being of legal age, has first hand knowledge of the facts contained herein, is competent to state the following matters and that that they are true, correct and complete, presented in good faith, and not intended to mislead.
ACCEPTANCE OF FOREIGN STATUS
1. There is no evidence that Affiant is a UNITED KINGDOM citizen, subject, vessel or “person” or any ens legis artificial entity, procedural phantom, legal fiction or juristic personality.
2. Affiant has seen no evidence that Affiant is not foreign to and without the UNITED KINGDOM, and believes that no such evidence exists.
3. There is no evidence that Affiant has or is visiting, passing through, residing in, or is situate within the UNITED KINGDOM, nor has the ability to visit, reside in, pass through, or be situate within the UNITED KINGDOM.
4. Affiant has seen no evidence that any party that would order, represent or persuade Affiant to falsely present himself as a UNITED KINGDOM citizen, vessel or person directly or by deception, device, misnomer, mistaken identity, warrant or indictment, real or imagined, will not be engaging in Enticement to Slavery, Perjury of Oath, assault on a Foreign Official and a violation of the Convention de La Haye du 5 Octobre 1961 (“Hague Convention”), and believes that no such evidence exists.
5. As an official of a sovereign foreign jurisdiction, Affiant denies having ever knowingly sworn allegiance to or volunteered to submit to the UNITED KINGDOM, its agents or political subdivisions, or any jurisdiction foreign to Affiant.
6. There is no evidence that Affiant has at any time knowingly, willingly and intentionally sworn allegiance to or volunteered to submit by statute, contract or other device to the UNITED KINGDOM, its agents and political subdivision(s), or any jurisdiction foreign to Affiant.
7. Affiant denies that the use of a notary public, BANK OF ENGLAND Promissory Notes, or any other public facilities, when alternatives are generally unavailable, comprises Affiant’s submission to any political jurisdiction, the creation of an adhesion contract expressly or tacitly with the UNITED KINGDOM or any other party real or imagined, or an appearance before any body or tribunal, administrative or judicial, real or imagined.
RIGHTS, REMEDIES, JURISDICTION
8. Affiant has seen no evidence of a defect in the definition of the UNITED KINGDOM as a CORPORATION, and believes that no such evidence exists.
9. There is no evidence that Affiant waives, has waived, or intends to waive any rights, remedies or defences including, without limitation, the defence of want for in rem and in personam.
10. There is no evidence that Affiant is liable on any Government statute legislation or codes, including, without limitation, UNITED KINGDOM Codes and statutes and codes of any of Respondents’ political subdivisions.
11. There is no evidence that a fictional corporation can secure in personam jurisdiction regarding Affiant, a living man, without a voluntary election to submit.
12. Affiant denies that Respondents’ use of private letters, notices and affidavits comprises an appearance or submission to any jurisdiction foreign to Affiant.
13. There is no evidence that Affiants’ use of private letters, notices and affidavits comprises an appearance or submission to any jurisdiction foreign to Affiant.
14. There is no evidence that distress, restraint, injury or incarceration of any type pursuant to an assumption of in personam jurisdiction where none exists does not comprise: theft within the special maritime jurisdiction; assault; battery; fraud; perjury of oath; insurrection; plunder; kidnapping; assault on a foreign official; and other high crimes against mankind.
15. There is no evidence that Affiant, Affiant’s property and/or interests are subject to the jurisdiction of any of Respondents’ officers or agents.
16. There is no evidence that the UNITED KINGDOM has not stipulated that legal fiction ALEX MARC DAWSON is an artificial juristic personality created by the UNITED KINGDOM and therefore inherently without the ability to appear before any court.
17. As the law does not permit impossibilities, Affiant denies having authority or ability to produce legal fiction ALEX MARC DAWSON for an appearance before any UNITED KINGDOM tribunal.
18. There is no evidence that Affiant possesses authority or ability to produce legal fiction ALEX MARC DAWSON for an appearance before any UNITED KINGDOM tribunal.
19. Absent a vessel subject to seizure, Affiant denies the existence of a Court in vacuo other than mala fide on a mare clausum.
20. Affiant has seen no evidence that in the absence of a vessel subject to seizure, a Court in Admiralty can exist, and believes that no such evidence exists.
21. Legal fiction ALEX MARC DAWSON lacking sentience is unable to self-execute a contract with Respondents, and no such contracts exist.
22. Affiant denies having received full disclosure of the benefits and liabilities associated with the creation of legal fiction ALEX MARC DAWSON.
23. There is no evidence that the UNITED KINGDOM provided to Affiant full disclosure of the benefits and liabilities associated with the creation of legal fiction ALEX MARC DAWSON.
24. In the absence of such disclosure, there is no evidence that the UNITED KINGDOM was not and does not necessarily remain the trustee and liable party for all actions and liabilities attributed to legal fiction ALEX MARC DAWSON as an operation of law.
25. There is no evidence that failure to rebut this Affidavit point-by-point or exhibit a power of attorney authorizing Respondents to verify or disqualify Affiant’s Declaration of Political Status within ten (10) days of this date will not comprise Respondents’ confession to enticement to slavery.
26. In the event Respondents jointly or severally impair Affiant or Affiant’s interests, freedom or Claim against legal fiction ALEX MARC DAWSON there is no evidence that failure to rebut this Affidavit point-by-point or exhibit a power of attorney within ten (10) days of this date authorizing Respondents to verify or disqualify Affiant’s Declaration of Political Status will not comprise Respondents’ confession to theft within the special maritime jurisdiction, assault, battery, fraud, perjury of oath, insurrection, plunder, kidnapping, assault on a foreign official, and other high crimes against mankind.
27. Affiant has seen no evidence that the UNITED KINGDOM, a corporate body politic, has a circumscribed geographic boundary, which has been published and registered for public notice.
28. Affiant denies being an enemy of the UNITED KINGDOM, at war with the UNITED KINGDOM, engaging in insurrection against the UNITED KINGDOM, or belligerent to the UNITED KINGDOM.
29. There is no evidence that Affiant is an enemy of the UNITED KINGDOM, at war with the UNITED KINGDOM, engaging in insurrection against the UNITED KINGDOM, or belligerent to the UNITED KINGDOM.
30. Affiant denies liability to or for any Government statutes or codes, including, without limitation, statutes and codes of any of Respondents’ political subdivisions.
31. Affiant has seen no evidence that ALEX MARC DAWSON a fictional corporate entity for profit and gain, exists, and believes that no such evidence exists.
32. Affiant has seen no evidence of the existence of the Offer, and believes that no such evidence exists.
OFFERS AND CLAIMS
33. There is no evidence that the information or indictment in Case No. (“Offer”) does not comprise an offer to create/expand funds under public policy and a negotiable instrument upon acceptance.
34. There is no evidence that the Offer and Affiant’s acceptance thereof do not comprise a Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) between the presenter and acceptor.
35. There is no evidence that the Agreement will not prevent waste of public funds, and that dishonour of same would not comprise a wilful waste of public resources.
36. There is no evidence that notary certification of Respondents’ default did not comprise Respondents’ stipulation that no facts are in dispute and no controversy exists in the above-noted matter.
37. There is no evidence that upon notary certification of Respondents’ default, Respondent is not estopped as an operation of law from any and all further judicial or administrative actions in this matter against Affiant’s property, collateral, interests and/or freedom.
38. There is no evidence that upon notary certification of Respondents’ default, Respondents did not waive in perpetuity all rights, remedies and defences in and at law, equity, commerce and admiralty regarding the above-referenced matter and consequential actions which may be brought to cure Respondents’ commercial dishonours and/or actions undertaken outside the apposite bond/oath of office, such waiver of rights to include, without limitation, waiver of the right to argue, raise a controversy or initiate litigation or arbitration in any venue or jurisdiction foreign or domestic against Affiant or Affiant’s interests, property or freedom.
39. There is no evidence that notary certification of Respondents’ default did not comprise Respondents’ agreement to the filing of such consequential actions, judicial or administrative, as Affiant may deem necessary to purge Respondents’ liabilities.
40. There is no evidence that notary certification of Respondents’ default does not comprise as an operation of law Respondents’ stipulation jointly and severally to the facts and confessions listed on all notices and Schedules annexed hereto.
DENIAL OF ASSUMPTIONS
41. Affiant denies the existence of any contracts, express or implied, between Affiant and Respondent or any other party, real or pretended, in this matter. There is no evidence of the existence of any such agreements express or implied.
42. Affiant denies that Affiant and legal fiction ALEX MARC DAWSON are co-business partners. There is no evidence that Affiant and legal fiction ALEX MARC DAWSON are co-business partners.
43. Affiant denies being a surety for legal fiction ALEX MARC DAWSON. There is no evidence that Affiant is a surety for legal fiction, ALEX AMRC DAWSON.
44. Affiant denies serving as trustee for any foreign situs or constructive trust, in particular for legal fiction ALEX AMRC DAWSON. There is no evidence that Affiant serves as trustee in any foreign situs or constructive trust.
45. Affiant denies being, acting as, or being capable of being a “citizen,” “resident,” “individual,” “resident individual,” “non-resident individual,” “part-year resident individual,” “part-year resident trust,” “resident estate,” “resident trust,” “non-resident estate,” “non-resident trust,” "person,” or “qualified taxpayer” of or relative to the UNITED KINGDOM or any corporate jurisdiction or Government entity or political subdivision. There is no evidence that Affiant is capable of being any of the aforementioned legal fiction entities.
46. Affiant denies engaging in the conduct of a trade or business in the UNITED KINGDOM or any Government entity or political subdivision. There is no evidence that Affiant engages in the conduct of a trade or business in any of the aforementioned locations.
47. There is no evidence that Affiant is a UNITED KINGDOM vessel either documented or undocumented.
48. Affiant denies benefiting from any admiralty insurance scheme, tontine scheme, or Government support pyramid/insurance scheme, such as, but not limited to, the Social Security System.
49. There is no evidence that Affiant has benefited from any admiralty insurance scheme, tontine scheme, or Government support pyramid/insurance scheme, such as, but not limited to, the Social Security System.
50. Affiant denies involvement with BANK OF ENGLAND Promissory Notes, interstate banking, or any benefit or privilege involving the discharge of debt under public policy.
51. There is no evidence that Affiant is involved with BANK OF ENGLAND Promissory Notes, interstate banking, or any benefit or privilege involving the discharge of debt under public policy.
52. Affiant denies the right of any party to impair Affiant’s private contracts. There is no evidence of the right of any party to impair Affiant’s private contracts without such party confessing to Enticement to Slavery and Theft within the Special Maritime Jurisdiction.
53. There is no evidence contravening the maxim of law that silence comprises agreement in commerce, equity, admiralty, lex mercatoria and public policy.
54. There is no evidence contravening the maxim of law that an affidavit stands as truth in commerce, equity, admiralty, lex mercatoria and public policy unless rebutted point-by-point by an Affidavit which is sworn to the same degree of commercial risk.
55. There is no evidence that an answer indicating “NA,” “not applicable,” “inapposite” or similar dishonours, or failure to answer any point herein would not be unresponsive and comprise stipulation to all facts in this affidavit pursuant to the maxim that silence comprises agreement.
56. There is no evidence that failure to respond to this Verified Affidavit of Facts point-by-point will not comprise Respondents’ confession affirmed to all terms and statements herein.
57. All words herein are as Affiant defines them. The contents of all boxes herein are included in their entirety by reference. No text within the said boxes shall be excluded by convention or otherwise.
As a free, sovereign, living, flesh-and-blood inhabitant on the land in undiminished capacity and full standing in law, the Undersigned executes and provides herewith to Respondent the following affidavit that Respondent must execute, in red ink and notarized, and return to the Undersigned within ten (10) days or be in default thereof:
a. Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment;
In order to satisfy the rules of bona fide commerce and be of any force, effect, and credibility, any communication of any kind received by the Undersigned re this matter by Respondent and any other party, hereinafter jointly and severally referenced as “Offeror,” must be executed under affidavit certified and sworn true, correct, and complete with full personal and commercial responsibility for the truth, accuracy, relevance, and verifiability of everything Offeror alleges, with the following documents attached in support of said affidavit:
b. Copy of Offeror’s insurance policy and bond of office, proving the existence of Offeror’s commercial liability and the extents thereof and providing all details required to identify the underwriter of the bond and all criteria needed to file a claim against said bond.
c. Duly executed Bill of Peace, bearing original signature in red ink and notarized, contractually agreeing the Offeror is not committing an act of war by acting in any manner against the Undersigned re Offer.
d. Proof that all relevant corporate entities enumerated in the Undersigned’s Affidavit of Specific Negative Averment exist, are solvent, and possess capacity to sue and be sued.
e. Proof of Offeror’s bona fide authority and bonding to act as a third-part debt collector re this matter.
f. Proof that the undefined and unproved all-capital-letter being/entity/person/corporation /whatever, i.e. Trade Name, exists and Offeror holds bona fide claim thereon superior to claim of the Undersigned.
Failure by Offeror to comply with each and every demand set forth above establishes on the record Offeror’s confession and consent of judgement that Offeror is:
g. Acting without commercial liability and thereby in an ultra vires manner in private, unlimited-liability capacity and can be sued accordingly.
h. Committing treason and engaging in war against the Undersigned, the United Kingdom and the people, relieving the Undersigned of all and any obligations to transact any commercial business with Offeror, a Self-proclaimed enemy, in accordance with the criteria set forth.
i. Acting in private capacity outside of all bona fide corporate authority.
j. Acting without authority and bonding and therefore in an ultra vires, private capacity, and can be sued or prosecuted accordingly.
k. Acting against Trade Name, i.e. an other wise non-existent and unproved being/entity/person/corporation/whatever, on which neither Offeror nor Offeror’s Agency holds bona fide and verifiable claim superior to established claim of the Undersigned.
If not rebutted within TEN (10) DAYS by lawful evidence to the contrary, this affidavit is at law evidence that the court has not joined the true party of interest and a default exists. Failure to present evidence to the contrary of the Affiants testimony, will be evidence that all parties stipulate to the facts herein as true, correct and complete.
COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT OATH AND VERIFICATION
“I, Alex Marc: of the family Dawson, on my own unlimited commercial liability, certify that I have read the above affidavit and do know that the facts contained therein are to the best of my knowledge true, correct and complete, not misleading, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Signed this day 3rd day of February, 2010.
Real Name: by Special Appearance in rerum natura,
All rights reserved without prejudice UCC 1-207 & 1-308.
Real party in interest under injury
Use of a Notary or Commissioner of Affidavits is for attestation and verification purposes only and does not constitute a change in status or entrance or acceptance of foreign jurisdiction.
For verification purposes only
On this day and date of ___________________, _________________________, 2010 A.D., Principal did personally appear before me, is known to be the natural man operating in the requisite capacity for signature described herein, who executed the foregoing, acknowledged the contents thereof; and executed the same as her free act and deed. Subscribed and agreed to before the undersigned.
Notary Signature, All Rights Reserved
_____________________________________ My commission expires:_______________
Printed name of Notary
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Gee thanks that looks pretty similar like my commercial oath that was on thinkfree.
I'll take it back.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
or rather here's one I cooked earlier. Sanitised of course.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
Dear Mr Brainy Mathematician short stopper and or his replacement Chief Constable Lordy Lordy what have I inherited here.
I, the flesh and blood woman known as Girl:nmn, hereinafter “CLAIMANT”, do hereby affirm and declare that I am of legal age, have first-hand knowledge of the facts contained herein, am educated, to Masters Degree level in Social Work Law. Therefore, I certainly feel more than competent enough to make this statement of the facts in relation to the account referenced on Page 1 of 4 of this Affidavit.
Therefore, let it be known by those responsible for the corporate Trust entity known as MERSEYSIDE POLICE FORCE (severally, jointly, collectively “RESPONDENT” or "RESPONDENTS and any relevant parent or subsidiary company, including its Assigns, directors, shareholders, agents and affiliates, that I do hereby state that the following is, to the very best of my knowledge, true, correct and complete, presented in good faith, and not intended to mislead in any way
1. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the RESPONDENTS that the use of the queen’s promissory notes constitutes a contract
2. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the RESPONDENTS that the bank account signature is a contract or benefit privilege
3. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the RESPONDENTS that the National Insurance Number normally assigned to persons of subject status constitutes a contract and accepts complicity that it has only been used due to the pressure of today’s market place, whereby it is required by everyone and everyone as they have been mandated to request in law and that the CLAIMANT has no interest in it except to be the grantor and holder in due course. CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence that MARY GYE is not a fiction in evidence.
4. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the RESPONDENTS, that there is a requirement to have a drivers licence for free travel on the land by way of mechanical propelled machine. The RESPONDENT therefore concedes that the technical purpose of the driver’s licence is commercial in nature and agrees that the CLAIMANT does not carry passengers for hire and that the carrying of the drivers licence is to use for identification purposes only and for no other reason expressly applied in hidden adhesion contracts now and forever more. Furthermore, CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence that the Respondent has been injured ergo CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence that Respondent and CLAIMANT have an enforceable contract.
5. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the RESPONDENT, that there is a requirement that number plates constitute a contract and benefit privilege and accepts thatwere there to have ever been one that this was rescinded and void ab initio by the CLAIMANT.
6. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the RESPONDENT, that the birth certificate is relevant to Sovereign Status and that this piece of paper through non formal disclosure without the recipients full knowledge and consent that it constitutes property, ownership and subject status means that the contract is void ab initio and the RESPONDENT in failing to rebut this point accepts this. Furthermore there is now tacit evidence on file of the living breathing sovereign through the scientific DNA of the LEGALLY LIVING BREATHING CLAIMANT which now leaves the CLAIMANT open to be able to claim all heirs and titles under the Cestui Que Trust Act 1666 and the Cestui que vie of 1666 in that ‘he may defend his title in the name of the trustee’. 1 Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, c. 4, s. 4; vide Vin. Ab. Trust, U, W, X, and Y 1 Vern. 14; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t.: 1 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 321, note 1; Bouv. Inst. Index, hardson v Belilios , AC 118; Wise Perpertual Trust Co h.t
7. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the RESPONDENT that any document she has ever signed nor any document which may denote her as a CITIZEN that can be used to compromise her Sovereign Status as no full written disclosure was provided freely without coercion, misrepresentation and binding in contract. Ergo the RESPONDENT has not challenged the statement that the Passport did not provide full written disclosure about what applying for a passport meant and thus the RESPONDENTS agrees that it is NOT legally binding at all and does not represent the CLAIMANT as a lawful entity. Furthermore the RESPONDENT has not challenged the subject status of the CLAIMANT in that she is not a inhabitant, resident, franchise, subject or ward of, property, chattel of any corporate or corporeal European govt, country, State, Sovereign Nation, municipal body, corporate City government, county government under any Authority.
Furthermore CLAIMANT has seen no evidence that a legislation department or agency created by such authorities, nor the jurisdiction of any employees, officers or agents derive any authority from them and that the CLAIMANT IS NOT a subject of any of them as all hidden contracts openly signed, agreed to by digital media, verbally or otherwise are now void ab initio.
8. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the RESPONDENTS that there is a duty to perform as a Voter or register as a voter and that in so doing the CLAIMANT has voluntarily handed over sovereignty to the State or any other Body Politic.
9. CLAIMANT has no evidence from the RESPONDENTS that there is any obligation on her part to become a subject through the Post Code and accepts her assertion that she is a free woman on the land. The RESPONDENTS in failing to rebut this point with the evidence that is unimpeachable thus accepts the CLAIMANT’S assertion that the post code is merely used for identification only and that no expressly or implied adhesion contract is tied to her free status and that all benefits applied are waived save any common law rights under the Charter of Liberties, 1100, and 1213 Charter of England and Wales.
10. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence that any use of semantics by those who wish to dominate or masquerade as Government by altering the definitions of words, acts or phrases, to suppose an advantage over the sovereign spirit soul and that the words, person, driver, mail, resident, motor vehicle, driving, passenger, employee, income, business owner and many others imply in any way shape or form can affect whatsoever her freeman on the land status and sovereignty. The RESPONDENT thus accepts the assertion that no Statute applies and that she does not reside or work in any territory, regulations, or implied authority. Furthermore, the CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence that CLAIMANT is bound by the statutes and laws of ENGLAND. CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence that Respondent has conformed to the statutes and laws that bind Respondent
11. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence that any powers, contracts, obligations or controls by any UK/GB/European officials preclude them from evidencing their oaths of office and their bonds of insurance for public liability and in particular in the Constitution of England and Wales
12. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence that any powers, statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules, and procedures contrary to several Acts of 1213 and 1100 Constitution of England and Wales are not null and void
13. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence that the Claimant had any lawful right to seize her property and chattels. They have ignored repeated requests and appeals for the property to be lawfully returned.
14. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the RESPONDENT about the true law of the land being supreme and they seem to be under the strict impression that law passed by parliamentary legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. They have failed to provide any evidence that it is not thoroughly unconstitutional. Furthermore the kidnapping and unlawful tort of trespass to retrieve bodily fluid for no apparent LAWFUL misdemeanour is not accepted from their third party intervenors, the findings of which have been returned Refused for Cause due to the onus being on the RESPONDENT who is the man and holder of responsible office to respond.
15. CLAIMANT has seen evidence as requested as to the events of the Custody Suite of 4 September 09. As it has come from a third party intervenor it has been sent back Refused for Cause and a Notice Sent stipulating no contract implied. CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence of the nature of the charge or charges. CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence that due process has been served upon CLAIMANT. CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence that a man or woman doing business as a judge for the court is an impartial party to the proceedings
16. CLAIMANT has changed the Fee schedule from £5,000 as per the original DVLA Claim of Right to £3000 per hour for each hour of unlawful detainment. The charge of £1 million pounds due to be paid for arrest, handcuff, transportation in chains, tort of trespass and false imprisonment has been offered to be waived only as an out of court settlement.
17. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence that her Revocation of Power of Attorney does not stand as Truth from the RESPONDENT as it pertains to anything that requires certification, licence or registration and that fictitional rules apply to fictions. RESPONDENT therefore accepts the Secured Party Status of Mary:nmn ARR to all claims placed upon the Fictional Appellent: Miss MARY GYE
Let the RECORDS SHOW TO THE RESPONDENT that accept that the CLAIMANTS ATTESTATION that she is not the enemy of the State of England, UK or Britain, at war with England, UK, Britain or the European Union neither is she engaging in insurrection against that of England, UK or Britain or the European Union.
Sovereign Sui Juris, Freeman on the Land
Affirmed, autographed and sealed (with a red thumbprint) before me, __________, Notary Public, on the 18 day of the month of January in the year two thousand and ten AD.
Notary Public: Seal:
NOTICE is hereby given that the RESPONDENT has seven (7) days following receipt of this Affidavit of Obligation to rebut, deny, or otherwise prove invalid the allegations contained herein, by delivering an appropriate and timely response to the notary’s office referenced above. Failure to rebut, deny or otherwise disprove any of the allegations, upon full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, will be construed as RESPONDENTS affirmation that said allegations are true, correct and complete.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Actually this isn't the one but I'm putting it in the English section as there isn't much there and lets hope that with articles there it will attract more English contributions.
<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=4407">viewtopic.php?f=26&t=4407<!-- l -->
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Thanks for sharing.
What was your intention with your Affidavit? Seems like you wanted the Police and the Courts off of your back forever.
Wanting the same - but that's all I want! Getting caught up in the philosophy of this Freeman thing... but really need some advice 'cos my Notices, so far, have just been ignored and I got a trial next month and I don't know what route to take!
Being tricked in to entering the dock after being arrested for not attending court even though I witnessed the warrant for my persons arrest... (UGGHHH deep breath) is just confusing the hell out of me!
I really just want to see things work, so I can help others use these methods. It would be great to help family and neighbours be free from there debts, but I don't want them thinking they have to give it all up. I don't want to give it all up either!!
This Affidavit of Facts seems long, long enough to ensure no rebuttel, but what do I do next? Just not attend my hearing? I ain't the first person to do what I'm doing, Everything made sense before I got kidnapped by the police!
The administrator has disabled public write access.