I ended up using the statute law to win at trial anyway and have since fought three more speeding fines using the law against itself (won another, two others are in appeal).
In doing my due diligence on FMOTL stuff I came across Quatloos a couple of years back and have been prowling this site occasionally ever since. I decided to join so I could get some opinions on the following ideas propagated by another 'judicial activist' I know (he calls the freeman ideas BS).
The below is quoted from one of his posts and seems to make some sense. I would like to hear your opinions on it....
G O K wrote:"Understanding the law #2 Prize Law takeover of Australia 1988
The following disclaimer is used in Australia for “my gov” agreements, the taxation office, seemingly all government departments that claim that Australians are subject to these courts in the A.C.T.
But what does it mean?
People tick these disclaimers oblivious of the gravitas.
Here are these courts
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C ... c353261684
It took me 5 years to figure out that the law is surprisingly simple.
Protestant rights are protected by an ingeniously simple device – Contractual Monarchy.
The monarch is sworn to defend the protestant Christian faith and uphold our common law rights to gain the throne.
If he or she fails to keep that contract they and their heirs lose evevrything and are replaced by a monarch who will.
That’s the law established long ago after many wars between catholics and Christians.
It seems that the current monarch doesn’t like this state of affairs but is bound by the genius of contractual monarchy. To escape this brilliant law the queen has brought the mountain to Mohammed. Instead of abandoning her side of the contract and risking a forfeiture of the Crown, she has fooled us into abandoning our side of it.
A clever ruse has been conducted to trick Christians into technically abandoning their side of that contract leaving the monarch free to rule as she pleases.
That ruse is based on the American model of claiming independence which frees the monarch of any contractual obligation in law then we become aliens of the Crown.
With freemasons controlling the courts, they can secretly work for the monarch,making crucially important decisions in law, which facillitate use of Prize Law (which is international) to then conquer countries secretly. And just as secretly take the citizens of a country as Prizes. Which oddly enough makes sense in Prize Law. Which I discovered by reading an American Prize court decision from 1814.
That established 3 important principles internationally.
1- To use Prize law , war can be declared on a THING , such as debt
2- Prizes can be taken on land and sea
3- Taking part of the Prize is considered taking the whole.
(brown versus US 1814 )
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_c ... 67840920...
Once you have made British Subjects aliens of the Crown and established a few crucial decisions in Prize Law the next step is to declare a secret war to facillitate use of Prize Law to take what were protestant British subjects with rights as enemy citizen Prizes. Treasure.
Making property of us. When people are made property , they are slaves.
Slaves have no rights. Not even rights over their own children. Which many of us have experienced first hand.
Australian citizenship was created in 1948 and it initially had the same rights as British subjects (which Australians were at that time) This encouraged many people to swap status.
However in 1986 Bob Hawke’s federal government passed the Australia Act, changing the nature of Australian citizenship. Australian citizenship no longer had the same rights as British Subjects, it was an alien of the Crown.
In 1988 the Australian Capital Territory Self Government Authority was formed ostensibly to govern the small area of Canbera and its surrounds.
Unusually, it was formed using Imperial Prize Acts.
Unusual because according to Bob Hawke , English law no longer applied in Australia.
And also unusual because the A.C.T is a landlocked territory with no likely danger of buccanneers invading. (Jervis Bay is its own government again ( which is another can of worms)
But perhaps not unusual if Australians did not form that government. If it was government formed by a foreign Crown entity the authority of Imperial Acts makes perfect sense.
Most people think USA is a spverogn country but what if USA was the Catholic Crown taken the same way Australia was taken?
Then the presence of Americans in Australia (armed forces stationed in Darwin etc) makes alot of sense all of a sudden.
As does the bizzare practice of American presidents declaring war on a thing – drugs, terrortism etc
So next time youre asked to tick this disclaimer, hesitate and ask for more detailed information first.
edited by AndyK to separate Struth from quoted material -- as if it matters