For those of you fluent in Norwegian the article I'm quoting from is here;
http://tovsugeren.blogspot.no/2013/05/k ... ville.html
For those, like myself, just struggling to cope in one language (thanks for the above help Spiro), the Google translate is here;
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... &edit-text
The article gives a bit of her background and it seems that Freemanism is just a part of her rich full history of being a crank;
Brief history - Who is Ingunn Røiseland
For those who do not quite know what kind of environment Ingunn Røiseland represents . Ingunn Røiseland we know that the lady who fronted the anti-vaccine movement in talk shows on television a few years ago in connection with the swine flu vaccine. She believes the CIA using vaccines to spread nano chips , which means that "we" can be monitored and tankemanipuleres (note - Don't blame me, that's what Google translated).
She was in NRK - the program Social Security Office on 03.10.2012 involving conspiracies where among other theme was; pop artists are working for the dark forces in this world. Besides conspiracy that NATO and UN spray us with chemicals (popularly known as chemtrails ). In the program she tried frantically to distance from what she previously claimed. In addition Røyseland written articles posted on the News Mirror, which is not appreciably known to be concerned with reality.
Towards bankrupt West
If we move toward a fascist society of control?
Ingunn Røyseland on Libya conflict
Do either the vaccine or terrorist attacks
Otherwise she is featured here:
Angels in bad company
Fritanke.no - I am not an anti-Semite
Ingunn Røiseland is one of the few people that move with the greatest of ease between the alternative landscape and the more outrageous conspiracy landscape. It means that she has a certain impact in several camps. She is very clever to "sweet to the" for all who agree with her view of the world.
As to what Ingunn has to say for herself, does this sound familiar?
The most important question you must ask yourself is:" I will be in a contractual relationship with the state, or will not I? You must remember that "the contract is King". If you want to accept the existing offer of social contract that says you have agreed to come under its jurisdiction with all that entails. If you say no to contract, as I do, so I say to me all the privileges that come with the contract. This for that.
One of the most important things we can do, is to put us in legal terminology. What does "man (human being)", "person", "natural man / woman." Feel free to use Blacks Law Dictionary, latest edition. To be free, you have to be uncompromising in the way that you do not allow yourself to be led back into the contract with the State, or that you suddenly staggers and think that you need to deal with a jurisdiction that may not apply to you. Change comes from within. You must be able to take clear value choices and understand the consequences of your choices. When you are firm then you are also unbeatable.
I just want to make it clear immediately that I am not afraid of reprisals, to be deprived of property or put in jail, and I'm just think a heavy dose of realism is the alpha and omega for dealing with a radical life choices
To be frikvinne I very first made three things:
1 Announce to the state that there is no contract, or any enforceable between us, referring to my natural right to live in the country because I was born here. Letters are immediately on http://www.freeman.no.
In this letter I specify that I refrain from the provision of state benefits and not going to help this community. For my part, there will always be natural to help a community, but a community that regularly and systematically violates so many others' inherent right to life and happiness.
I have not found the answer to this brevet. Det is also indifferent whether I get a response or not.
2 In the letter over, I asked the government to inform all their agents via its registers that there is no contract between us, so really wanted to I could end here. However, I have, just for the fun of it, also sent a legal document to individual actors Norwegian Mapping Authority, Collection Agency etc, and informed that there is no authority to act, sign, negotiate or anything else on my behalf. Letters situated within a short time of http://www.freeman.no.
3 So, most importantly: I am in the process of establishing a company through a private process (no registration in public registers) and then pledge my birth certificate in an underlying holding company. Then I will inform the state that fact and move in three ads in a local newspaper. Info is soon on http://www.freeman.no .
And this could have been taken right out of the Canadian Freeman playbook (and probably was). Has she been talking to Paraclete Belanger and David (You're all perverts!) Smith?
So how have we been able to be defined as security: The imaginative have lawyers (read: Bar Association, managed by The Crown: http://www.healthfreedom.info/BAR%20Association.htm ) would define us as a marine product. We come out of the mother's waters, through the birth (berth) canal, Received by the doc (!) ...
"Maritime admiralty law conside you a maritime admiralty product, simply Because you were birthed out of your mother's water. A ship sits in its birth until the captain the railway station, a certificate of manifest to the Port Authorities.
The reason you are required two have a Birth Certificate is Because at the time of your birth there is an exchange of money two cover hospital costs. The doc k signs your birth certificate simply Because That is what the ship is tied two, you will need a doc k to sign your birth certificate. "
The premise that we should be traded, is that we created a marine product AND that maritime jurisdiction comes into play. So how come the maritime jurisdiction into play in Norway? For my part, I doubted that I could find circumstantial evidence for this, and was therefore surprised when I saw how many references that indicate that something is "weird". Two examples: I would recommend reading about maritime jurisdiction in internal waters, and then how internal waters are defined, and how much land we are talking about. "Feeling" is that anything but the mountain is defined as maritime jurisdiction. It is also interesting to read about how the Kingdom of Norway is defined as Svalbard, Jan Mayen and mainland Norway.Where is that, if all of the internal waters shall be deducted from? Many will certainly feel it offensive and "over the top" to read these considerations. Then I just ask everyone to go back to the section on the blue pill versus red what public administration is concerned. However, I must emphasize that this section Admiralty is based on assumptions for the most part. However, it is certain that the often necessarily apply, and that it must be made for it.
Our birth certificate (vi) has been created as a Cestui Que ... trust, and here's a little about this:
If you have not taken the steps you need two take two join the land of the living then you are Regarded by the CORPORATION as a dead entity! From the Cestui Quest Act 1666:
"Cestui que vie remaining beyond Sea for Seven Years together and no Proof of Their Lives, Judge in Action to direct a Verdict as though Cestui que vie were dead.If such person or persons for whose is life or lives such Estates have beene or Shall be Granted as aforesaid Shall Remain beyond the Seas or elsewhere absent themelves in this realm by the space of Seaven Year together and something Sufficient and evident PROOF be made of the lives of such person or persons respectively in any Action commenced for recovery of such Tenements by the lessors or reversion in every such case the person or persons upon-whose life or lives such Estate depended Shall be accounted as naturally dead, And in every Action Brought for the recovery of the said Tenements by the lessor or reversion Their Heir or assign, the Judges before Whom such Action Shall Be Brought Shall direct the jury to Give Their Verdict as if the person soe remaining beyond the Seas or otherwise absenting himself were dead. "
So you can look up "watershed" or "prominence" on Wikipedia, and see that the watershed is high in the mountains. Here lies the opportunity for a creative and highly paid lawyer, who might as well have sworn "allegiance" to the Bar Association or lodge brothers of any kind.
Read on Wikipedia about maritime lien, and understand that it applies to us. We are "the vessel". See also "ship mortgage.
And, of course, a Shout-Out for Meads v Meads;
A Canadian court has addressed the Freemen nonsense. There is a long sentence , the size of a sizable book actually. The judgment has picked apart the rhetoric, and not lose the self-proclaimed "laws" that movement surrounds himself with.
For those of you wanting a look at our Nordic beauty, here she is;
Every bit as photogenic and crazed as Hannah Sotbolt. While the article I've linked is from 2013 a picture taken just a week ago shows she is still throwing herself into the fray;
Put her name in Google and you get 18,000 entries but, as far as I can tell, all in Norwegian. Since I'm to lazy to run a sample through Google Translator and clean them up she'll have to remain largely an enigma unless anybody else wants to take on the chore. Hannah has the big advantage of communicating in a language I can understand.