This is a story from an English freedom seeker.
This happened som year ago. I cannot say that I agree with taking an
empty house without first making sure that no one claims ownership to
it.
But I love the way this guy deals with the police.
Pay attention to what he says and does. I believe this is a very good strategy to be left alone.
But I love the way this guy deals with the police.
Pay attention to what he says and does. I believe this is a very good strategy to be left alone.
Greg's story:
Our housemate, having lived with us for a while
now has reached the point where he wants to exercise his right to
freely use the fruits of the Earth, in this case an abandoned
property. We recently found such a property and yesterday went to
seize it to his continued use. Once inside, the door was secured and
the following notice placed in the front window :
Notice of action taken by a man
Be informed that I, a man, have found real property (land) at
xxxxx unused and abandoned.
As of 5th
June 2011 I have seized it to my continued use and have bestowed
bodily labour upon it.
In peace
Your Friend
Within approximately 20 minutes of doing so the
next door neighbour came to check what was going on – a truthful
answer was given. Very put out and angry by this notion, the threats
begin and the police are called.
Not more than three minutes later two cars carrying four police officers arrived. Very angry at first, tasers at the ready, we opened the door and welcomed them in. We explained what we were doing and, when asked, explained the foundational law upon which the process was based.
We were laughing and joking with them so after only a couple of minutes we were having a very friendly discussion with the sergeant who I have to say was a genuinely decent man, as were the other officers once they had been calmed down.
When asked for names, we provided a name with the caveat that the name was to be used for their benefit being careful not to attach ourselves to it and adding that HMCS (Her Magesty's Court Service) had already acknowledged that I was not the liable party for that name. We were arrested for causing criminal damage (we had actually deconstructed the front door so no damage had been caused, not that that really matters) and one of the officers was trying very hard to make it clear that “the laws of England and Wales apply to everyone, including me and most definitely including you, you are not above the law.” To which the response was “you are mistaken.”
Not more than three minutes later two cars carrying four police officers arrived. Very angry at first, tasers at the ready, we opened the door and welcomed them in. We explained what we were doing and, when asked, explained the foundational law upon which the process was based.
We were laughing and joking with them so after only a couple of minutes we were having a very friendly discussion with the sergeant who I have to say was a genuinely decent man, as were the other officers once they had been calmed down.
When asked for names, we provided a name with the caveat that the name was to be used for their benefit being careful not to attach ourselves to it and adding that HMCS (Her Magesty's Court Service) had already acknowledged that I was not the liable party for that name. We were arrested for causing criminal damage (we had actually deconstructed the front door so no damage had been caused, not that that really matters) and one of the officers was trying very hard to make it clear that “the laws of England and Wales apply to everyone, including me and most definitely including you, you are not above the law.” To which the response was “you are mistaken.”
We had a good chat in the van on the way to the
custody suite and both committed ourselves to having a fantastic day
“we are precisely where we are meant to be. This is our purpose.”
The two other officers who transported us, were
waiting with us for about 15 minutes whilst we waited to be booked
in. Again they were two decent people. The woman officer was trying
to make small talk regarding issues of jurisdiction etc so we
politely changed the small talk to the weather and life in general.
On booking in all the usual information was
requested and I was once again happy to provide the basics for their
benefit only, and with the appropriate caveat. Any other questions
were unanswered on the basis that I didn’t recognise the authority
of the one asking them. All requests for signature were dealt with by
stating “I am unable to sign as it is against my faith,” when
asked “what is your faith?” I stated that “it is against my
faith to publically talk about my faith.”
The guy who took the fingerprints etc was
fantastic, in fact my housemate was convinced that he was his angel
for the day. We basically made friends with everyone – love being
the order of the day. The next 10 hours we both spent crossed legged
in meditation, blessing everyone who had played a part in the day,
slowly coming out of meditation every hour when someone put their
face through the slot to see how we were. The detention officers were
all pretty ok once we had made friends with them. Ten hours of
meditation can take you to some strange places – by 7pm the walls
of the cell no longer looked solid, and I no doubt looked pretty
crazy to anyone watching through the camera when every 20 minutes or
so I would break out in hysterical laughter!
At about 9:45pm I was finally interviewed by two
of the officers who made the initial arrest. Prior to the official
start of the interview I was being asked many probing questions by
the young officer, perhaps 27 years old, and it was clear he wasn’t
trying to trip me up he was genuinely questioning his role in this
saga following what had been said at the house at the time of the
arrest. In fact his senior officer had to rein him in. The older
officer was clearly the psychology guy, but NLP doesn’t work when
you know that’s what the game is! As soon as the tape recorder
clicked on everyone got very serious and the interview went as
follows:
Officer 1 (older officer): (Introduction –
stating time and alleged offences) Are you Mr Gregory Paul Saunders?
Me: Before I respond to any questions you may have
today, there is something I need to tell you before we proceed.
Officer 1: What’s that?
Me: (looking deep within his eyes) I love you,
(turning to the other officer) I love you (20 seconds of silence)...
would you like to repeat the question? (both officers pretty jittery
from this point onwards)
Officer 1: erm, are you Mr Gregory Paul Saunders?
Me: in the matter of that name, there has been a
mistake. Where is the proper notice so that i can deal with the
matter honourably?
Officer 1: we need you to identify yourself for
the purpose of this interview.
Me: The only truthful response I can give in
relation to my identity is ‘I am’. I need to make it clear at
this point that I am unable to answer any further questions.
Officer 1: Why is that?
Me: no comment
Officer 1: I’m not trying to be awkward, would
you like the opportunity to explain why you are unable to answer any
further questions?
Me: If you were willing to state for the record
that in this matter you are speaking to me as my holy brothers then I
would take great pleasure in conversing with you as equals. As
however you are wearing a uniform and as such appear to be here
representing a fictional entity, we are not equal and I am unable to
recognise you. I answer only to my creator. For me to answer
questions posed by you would also be a blasphemy upon my divine self.
(approximately 30 questions followed relating to
the events that had taken place earlier that day, the reply to all of
them being “I am unable to answer that question”)
Officer 2: but the laws of this country apply to
everyone. No one is above the law. Do you understand that?
Me: Might you be mistaken? (should have been
“could it be that I am no one?”)
Officer 1: we believe that you are Mr Saunders and
that you did cause criminal damage to xxxx.
Me: Are you using that name for personal
identification?
Officer 1: yes, we believe you are Mr Saunders.
Me: Would identifying me by that name without my
consent be tantamount to involuntary servitude?
Officer 1: what does that mean?
Me: Are you attempting to enslave me?
Officer 1: oh no. Is there anything else you would
like to say before we conclude this interview?
Me: Would you agree that every man has free will?
Officer 1: Yes
Me: It is my will that I leave this detention
centre immediately. Will you comply?
Officer 1: Now? Oh no, no
Me: Are you saying man only has free will when it
suits you? Would that be tantamount to involuntary servitude?
Officer 1: Is there anything else you would like
to say before we conclude this interview?
Me: I am unable to comment any further on this
matter.
Tape stopped
Officer 2: So completely off the record, man to
man, what got you into all this then?
This question came out of a genuine interest as it
was very clear by this point that the days events had had somewhat of
an impact on this chap and had made him question his role. We chatted
for the next 10 minutes as equals with him expressing a genuine
interest in everything from the global matrix of control, to the
nature of the banking system, to the desire to create a better world
for our children.
Within five minutes of being returned to the cell
the case was dropped and I was released with no further action to be
taken. My housemate followed five minutes later. When leaving, no
signatures were requested, either for the release itself or for the
return of chattels.
On the way home we drove past the property that we
had been arrested at to find that the door had been left ajar so no
attempt was made to prevent a repeat performance which would be
without the possibility of arrest for ‘criminal damage.’
Nonetheless, in view of the state of the house, which was unknown
beforehand, my housemate has decided to find a different property to
use. So we look forward to another adventure!
A massive bingo moment occurred during that day.
Whilst I gave what I would have considered the correct responses at
all times, it was only during the meditation and subsequently the
interview (where I practiced what I had learnt during the meditation)
that I fully and completely realised the most basic of truths – Any
agency or authority being nothing more than a complete fiction does
not deserve the slightest recognition from us as men. This is why we
had still not previously been completely left in peace – by
engaging with them in any way we ARE acknowledging their authority
because any man who truly knows who he is would never sully his own
divinity by engaging with, let alone responding to questions posed
by, a fictional entity.
Ultimately then we have no business communicating
with or attending the place of business of any fictional entity,
including the court. Why would anyone who has come to understand that
they are far more powerful than any artificial entity, ever go to or
communicate with a non-existent entity for any reason, when doing so
is acknowledging their very existence and thus their authority?
In the past I have justified such action by expressing intent to help my brothers settle their matters, however there are a couple of issues here – 1. Whilst they are wearing their personas, they are not my brothers no matter how much I treat them as such. 2. If I don’t recognise anything artificial, how could I possibly assist with the settlement of any matter which originates in the fictional realm?
In the past I have justified such action by expressing intent to help my brothers settle their matters, however there are a couple of issues here – 1. Whilst they are wearing their personas, they are not my brothers no matter how much I treat them as such. 2. If I don’t recognise anything artificial, how could I possibly assist with the settlement of any matter which originates in the fictional realm?
I am not suggesting that the previous processes
talked about on this site are obsolete, simply that they only
represent a partial truth. Because we tend not to realise the nature
of our own enlightenment over night they also remain the ideal
stepping stone process along the path of self realisation. For this
reason I still highly recommend the court process of correcting a
mistake, if not for a complete settlement, for the wonderful
opportunity for self growth that the experience provides.
If I were to have yesterdays time again I would
simply have stated at the outset, when the police first came to the
door of the house, that “it is against my faith to acknowledge you
or enter into any form of discussion with you unless you can confirm
that you are my holy brother and not a representative of an
artificial entity. I refer you to the notice in the front window
should you require any information pertaining to our actions today.”
Despite whatever justification the ego may create to deviate from this position, any deviation is in itself an acknowledgement of their authority and a declaration that (at least in some way) we have misunderstood who we truly are. The reason why this may prove a difficult step for many to take (or to even acknowledge it as being the right step) is that it does require significantly more peace of mind and absence of fear, but they that’s what this journey is all about isn’t it? Notwithstanding the above if I were accused of being the name I would still respond with “In the matter of the name there has been a mistake. Where is the proper notice so that I can deal with this matter honourably?” - But nothing more.
Despite whatever justification the ego may create to deviate from this position, any deviation is in itself an acknowledgement of their authority and a declaration that (at least in some way) we have misunderstood who we truly are. The reason why this may prove a difficult step for many to take (or to even acknowledge it as being the right step) is that it does require significantly more peace of mind and absence of fear, but they that’s what this journey is all about isn’t it? Notwithstanding the above if I were accused of being the name I would still respond with “In the matter of the name there has been a mistake. Where is the proper notice so that I can deal with this matter honourably?” - But nothing more.
Though some minor refinements may be required, I
strongly believe that this is the missing piece to the puzzle and
represents the complete and final solution to “getting out of the
box.” I will start a new forum on this over the next few days.
I love you all, you beautiful people
P.S. When I refer to “my faith” I simply mean
the hearts will (or conscience) which receives its instructions
directly from my true nature - divine consciousness itself. Whilst
“my faith” may conjure a suggestion of ownership, it is simply a
way of drawing a line in the sand across which no fictional authority
can cross in a manner that the fictional authority can understand.
What exactly is meant by “my faith” is not their business.
I asked Greg what the Caveat
was and this is the reply:
"Kent - the caveat was
"I will provide a name for your benefit only, so long as you
understand that it is not to be used to personally identify me"
or something to that effect. Having said that, and as you can see
from the story, I would not say the same thing again."
------------
This was probably more than 10 years ago now. Greg's site is gone and I have not heard what he does today. He was basically following the "Peaceful Inhabitant" philosophy developed by two Americans calling themselves "Batman and Boris" back then. You can find Batman now as "imbatman57" in Talkshoe ( http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=44889&pageNumber=0&pageSize=15 ) and this appears to be his website:
https://joehuston57.wordpress.com/
------------
This was probably more than 10 years ago now. Greg's site is gone and I have not heard what he does today. He was basically following the "Peaceful Inhabitant" philosophy developed by two Americans calling themselves "Batman and Boris" back then. You can find Batman now as "imbatman57" in Talkshoe ( http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=44889&pageNumber=0&pageSize=15 ) and this appears to be his website:
https://joehuston57.wordpress.com/
As I understand it, the philosophy of Peaceful Inhabitant has it's origin in that these guys studied the Geneva Convention and another similar text, and concluded that the World is under a covert Military Occupation, by the Corporate States and the One World Structures in place.
These conventions says that an occupying force should leave peaceful inhabitants in peace. So if the State is an occupying force that are trying to extort value from, or punish us, they would have no right to do so if we enter into the proper persona and abandon any capacity that they try to place us in - such as the juristic PERSON (The Name in all capital letters).
Greg took this a step further in realizing we should not even interact with the fictions, as this will give them legitimacy as well as degrade our own divine self. Which he successfully did in the example above.
If you think about it, this could be applied in many situations. But mainly those where you want to be left alone to conduct your own business without interference from a fictional State. Apply this using common sense.
Kent
These conventions says that an occupying force should leave peaceful inhabitants in peace. So if the State is an occupying force that are trying to extort value from, or punish us, they would have no right to do so if we enter into the proper persona and abandon any capacity that they try to place us in - such as the juristic PERSON (The Name in all capital letters).
Greg took this a step further in realizing we should not even interact with the fictions, as this will give them legitimacy as well as degrade our own divine self. Which he successfully did in the example above.
If you think about it, this could be applied in many situations. But mainly those where you want to be left alone to conduct your own business without interference from a fictional State. Apply this using common sense.
Kent
