Educate Yourself

"You can't know too much - but you sure as hell can know too little."

The articles in this blog are aimed at giving people interested in living life on their own terms, rather than being told what to do, some basic understanding of who or what they are, as well as the nature of the System we are up against.

If you are serious about your own freedom and that of your brothers and sisters of this planet, you will have to learn a lot more than what you will find in this blog. You will not find what you need to know by sitting watching YouTube clips of someone outsmarting a cop who stopped them for some reason or something clever to say in Court.

I am not saying that there are not good stuff on YouTube, but the good material is generally not given in a few minutes. That is too short to be able to convey much knowledge at all.

If you are serious about taking a stand for your own and others freedom and future, you will have to put in some serious time. You will have to read through some books about law. You will have to become familiar with both alternative methods and remedies practiced by people who may call themselves all kind of things, as well as the principles that apply to the current “Justice System”.

If you are going to do this, it is pretty likely that you will end up in the Courts we have today. This is the modern battlefield. This is where most battles are fought today. This is where a lot of money is being made by the System and this is where we often find ourselves giving up our rights, possessions and the fruits of our labour.

Below, I will introduce you to different people who you could learn a lot from. They use different approaches and philosophies in their methods. But one for one they have one thing in common. They have a considerable experience of being in a Court Room. Some have done so in practicing law in a conventional way, others have done it as “Freemen”, “Sovereigns”, “Living Men”, “Creditors in Commerce”, or whatever label you like to use for Freedom Seekers.

To become good and to avoid the pitfalls – no matter what subject or skill one tackles, one need to practice. And the harder it is, the more practice one needs. Even if you are a “natural” at something, you need to do some practicing. It is one thing to watch films and videos of ice skating, or read a lot about it. If you know a lot about ice skating, you will most likely learn it faster, than if you never heard about it before. But there is no substitute for putting a pair of skates on your feet and get out on that slippery ice, and fall and fail, until you finally become really good at it.

If you look at any profession that is a bit technical or hard to master, those that are truly good at it, had to study for years. Then work or practice. Then study new developments to keep up with the subject. In fact, a true professional never stops learning and never stops trying to improve his ability.

In this game of taking back our freedom, our rights and our lives, it is no different. We as a group become more and more educated and new strategies and facts surface all the time. And since we do not have our own “Peoples Courts” yet, we are left to fight our battles in writing and if that fails in person in Trials and other Court Hearings. Man's law and rules change too – usually for the worse. So we need to keep tab on those things there, that concern us.

You may say “But this is not fair. Most people are not smart enough to fight this game. Justice should be simple and all we should need are basic principles like 'We are all equal', 'Do no harm', 'My rights end where your rights begin', etc.”
Well, welcome to planet Earth. Most people are not smart enough to become computer programmers or surgeons. Most people are not responsible and incorruptible enough to live life according to those simple rules.

Maybe one day – if we can get rid of the negative or evil influences that now control our way of life and if we can evolve as beings to a mental level where we will cooperate in a spirit of love, rather than fighting each other and compete for things we really do not need, we can have a simpler and more fair life. Maybe doing this freedom seeking now, is a step in that direction.

I know that most people would look at the length of this text, right here, and would think something like “Oh, I can't be asked to read all that. Moving on...” The education today is so poor that few people can even be considered literate. I have a friend in Sweden who tried to find a partner via dating sites some years ago. She said that 75% of the emails or texts she got were full of misspellings and poor punctuation. Those were rejected immediately. And Sweden has one of the better literacy rates.

I will add a section below, which will be a little crash course in how to learn stuff by studying. But if you are still with me you are probably literate enough to manage this, or stubborn enough to fight through whatever it takes to learn what you need.

Treat this page of the blog as a kind of “Course Schedule” or Layout. I suggest you study a bit at the time, instead of just reading through it all in one go and then hopefully going on to pick someone’s teachings and get into that. I have tried to make it flow in a logical sequence – at least the first parts. But if you already are familiar with some of this and some of the suggested “teachers” below, by all means pick and chose.


The beginning of any education starts with oneself.
Why do I want to know this?
What will I do with the knowledge I am getting?
How will it change my life?
Does it align with my purpose in life?
Am I willing to pay the price, in time, in costs and in sacrifices?
How bad do I want it?

Everything has it's price. That price is not always in the form of money. It can be other things you value. So before you decide to dedicate yourself to this you need to be serious about it and willing to put in time and possibly fork out some money on materials that might further your education.

Below you will be presented with different more or less workable approaches. Some of it will be available for free, others will want some donations to share what they have learned the hard way.

A doctor or an engineer will have to study for years and then practice for some more before they will be good and considered fully trained and competent. Then they will have to keep up with new developments for the rest of their career. Freedom seeking is a bit the same.

But there is one more thing you need to know with regard to self here. You are a co-creator of life and the world we live in. You are not a “cogwheel in a large machine”. You are born equal and with equal rights and freedoms to everyone else on this planet. You have no right to rule other, nor have they any right to rule you – unless you give them that right knowingly and                                                                                                                                                                             voluntarily.

You are an unfinished novel or movie, and you are the writer, the producer and the director of your life;s movie.
You are an X quantity and can play almost any role in the game of life, with exception for some physical limitations and your state of mind.

This is true about your relationship with the system of society we live in too. This system is dreamed up by men like you and I and as living men we stand above our creation. So in relation to all the fictions we people have come up with to make life better or more interesting, we are all in our natural capacity God – when it comes to the fictions of Man. You may say “well I did not come up with the Laws, so how can I be God in relation to them?” You are God in that you allow them to exist. If no one believed in them, they would not be laws. Same with money, contracts, corporations, titles, etc. They exist because we as Man-Gods allow them to exists and matter. If we use them, we show with our actions that we give our consent and our endorsement. It is all voluntary. This “voluntary” part may be hard to see at first, but I promise you that if you keep an open mind and can let go of any hate you might harbour, you will realize this sooner or later.

There is no secret manual about how life works. There is no great “authority” that dictates the “correct” way of doing things. You can create anything you can conceive. Your creator have given you fairly free reigns – a species that abuses that freedom and does not contribute to the general direction of Life itself, will soon be gone from this Earth. Remember this when you start to play with paperwork and courts.

Before I make the chapters of the different approaches one can take and where you can find more materials or knowledge on that specific subject, there are a few common things I want to go over so you have a few general tools under your belt. These are things I have picked up along the way and which I have had success with and seen others use with good results. None of this escapes the Buddhist rule “If it is not true for you, it is not true”. Nor is it legal advice or necessarily true or always effective. You are ultimately responsible for your actions. I am not forcing or telling anyone to follow anything suggested here. This is presented as possible strategies or methods, for your use if you so choose. There may be many factors that affects the outcome of any use of the ideas below, and all of those may not be covered here. I make no claim to the completeness of these materials or their work-ability in all situations.


First you need to have a “want” or a purpose for studying the subject. Only you can say what that is. It may be to get back a child that was stolen from you by Social Services. It may be to get a piece of land and live on it in peace without being told what you can and cannot do on it – like how your dwelling must be built, what you can grow, whether you must pay for connection to the grid, or water and sewage, etc, etc. It may be to never pay direct taxes again. It may be to help your fellow man with cures that are forbidden within the commercial system se live in. It may be to bring balance to the world of finance and settle the bogus national and personal debts that riddles our people.

Once you have established a worthwhile purpose, you need to start with the very basics of the subject. This includes things like vocabulary, maxims and basic principles of the subject, some history of the subject.

Then pick some part of it that seems doable to you and study all you think you need to get your feet wet in trying out in practice. Count on doing mistakes and getting some things wrong. But this will just be part of the learning process.

If something seems very involved or technical. Take some time and draw it up on a sheet of paper or use different objects that represents parts of the whole and set the scene up on a table – a bit like generals at headquarters placing pieces representing troops, weapons and logistics on a map on a table, to get a                                               clearer view of the situation.

Also, and maybe most importantly. If you cannot understand what all the words in a sentence means, you will not fully understand the sentence, nor will you understand the paragraph, the chapter or the book. ALWAYS make sure you know what the words mean. There is no excuse with the internet, that holds both general dictionaries and legal ones. It may also be a good idea to get a few legal dictionaries in book form. That way you can study a book on contract law, Trust law or Administrative law on a plane or a beach somewhere.

Get familiar with the actual physical objects and environments of what you study. If you study how to deal with traffic tickets, spend a morning in Court and see what goes on there as a spectator, in a court room that deals with these.

A good professional never stops learning and observing what others do in his field. I'm in woodwork and construction. When the wife drags me from one clothing shop to another, I look at the shelving, the counter and other furniture in the shop, to see how it is made and what finishes they have used. One can learn lots by just observing.

Practice, practice and practice some more. Put yourself in situations that might force you to use what you are studying. If, for example you need to practice questioning everything, practice on family and friends. Try to do it in such a subtle way that they do not realize you are practicing on them. When we build habits, it gets easier to do things and it becomes second nature.

When I got a speeding or parking ticket, I took it as homework or a practical assignment. When bailiffs came knocking on the door about the unpaid fines, I took it as an exam or test.


As children our parents set the rules of the house and the family. When we questioned these we got replies like “Because I say so”, “My house my rules” or my mothers favourite “You will understand when you become grown up”. So we get used to follow rules without questioning. Same continues in school. If you did military service this was drilled into you. Workplaces are often the same – do what we pay you to do, or find another place to work.

It is a bit like the training of a powerful animal like a horse or an elephant. The animal must not realize that it is more powerful than you and must be made so accustomed to becoming commanded and handled, that it stops resisting and willingly  does anything it is directed to do – even charge into battle. It is the same with people. If the masses understood that they are being farmed like animals and almost all of the value they produce will be confiscated for the “owners”, this system would fall tomorrow.

We are not taught to think critically or logically. That could make us realize that we are being used inappropriately. Most of us were actually pretty good at this – at about 3 or 4 years age. We asked “Why” as a response to almost anything we were presented with. Wise and patient parents tried their best to explain, and thus gave their children a good start in life. Others fobbed off the child and soon he or she saw no point in asking anymore as no answers came forth.

We need to get back to that state of mind. Looking at everything with fresh eyes and question anything that does not make sense. Like when a Judge reads the charges, and asks “Do you understand?”, do not just say Yes, so you do not seem dumb. Say “No”. When you are asked what you do not understand, list all the things with the whole matter that does not make sense to you. For example: “If no one was harmed or endangered by the alleged contravention, how can there be a charge? Who makes the charge that I did anything wrong? Where is my accuser? If all men are born equal and no one is another’s master, and I have caused no harm to my fellow man, what gives you the right to make decisions about this matter? What law-form is this court operating in? If the State is the employer of the policeman that issued the ticket, of the prosecutor and of you as a Judge, how is that not a conflict of interest and how can a defendant get a fair trial? Why is the defendants name written as KENT BENGTSSON in the paperwork, and why is the name on the invitation to attend this hearing that was dropped in my letterbox Kent BENGTSSON? What is that about? What does this court seem me as, what capacity have you invited me here in? Etc, etc.
And for every answer they give you, there will be more questions – if you are sharp.

Act in a humble, earnest and non-accusatory manner. Don't be a “Smart Alec”. You are trying to paint them into a corner. You are trying to get out of there unharmed. No need to act in a manner that will cause animosity.

Do not just take what is said to be the truth as the truth. Observe for yourself and trust your own observation over others claims.

When something does not make sense or conflicts with what you have observed, it probably contains a lie. Use questioning to unearth that lie.


As I mentioned above, we are actors in the game of life. We can play a lot of roles.

This is also true about our relationship with our Juristic Person (the Strawman). This entity that represents (re-presents) us in the fictional world of commerce, law, politics, etc. appears to be a Trust. But may be seen as all kinds of things – again depending on how someone what to see it.

If it's role has not been expressed, and if your role in relation to it has not been expressed a Court or some other public institution may interpret these things in a way that is most beneficial to it.
Remove this freedom of interpretation by expressing the role of the legal Person for the specific instance as well as what role you are fulfilling in relation to it. Also express what role the State or any other opponent holds with regard to it at that moment.
This requires a basic understanding of Trust Law and the parts of a Trust. More on that below. But let me just go over that very quickly here.

A Trust is a juristic person, a fiction invented to fulfil some purpose. Often to care for some property. It consists of something of value that is being placed into trust. A name for this is “the Res”. The creator(s) of the Trust is called the “Settlor”, Grantor” or “Trustor”. Note that they all end with “or” as in “Creator”. This is the one(s) who places something of value into a Trust.

The Trust is created for one or more parties benefit. These are called “Beneficiaries” or if only one “Beneficiary”.

Last but not least every Trust has a “Trustee”. This is the person who has the duty to carry out the will of the Settlor (Creator) in accordance with the Trust Indentures, which are the rules laid out by the Settlor for how the Trust is to be administered.

For example: A wealthy man does not trust that his children will act wisely or responsibly with the money they inherit at his death. So he creates a Trust in which his wealth is placed. He is the Settlor and the Children are the Beneficiaries. He then appoints his accountant or lawyer to be the trustee for the trust. The trustee will then manage the wealth and release a reasonable amount money every year to the children after his death. The trustee is entitled to compensation for work done for the Trust.
One person cannot fill all roles in a Trust. Then it is not a Trust. But one can be Settlor, Trustee and Beneficiary, if there are more beneficiaries in addition to self.

If I'm correct in the assumption that the Strawman is a Trust, then your Parents are the Settlors (a role that you will inherit), You and the State are beneficiaries and someone is the Trustee. This Trustee role is a somewhat sticky one, as the Trustee is responsible and has duties.

We have also two classes of Trusts. One is the “Expressed Trust” where it is all written down and laid out clear. The second is the “Constructive Trust”. It should really be called the “Construed Trust”. But the people that run the show like to deceive the public, so will use misleading terms.
The latter is not expressed and the roles can be assumed. The Strawman Trust is such a Trust – until it is expressed. This will allow the State or Courts to assume that you are the Trustee and have the duty to settle any demands upon the Trust – such as fines, taxes, penalties, community service, military service, jury duty, etc.

It also allows them to act as Trustee with regard to the value you generate for the Strawman and your share of the Nation. There is said to be an account that represents this, which can have quite staggering amounts in it. If they in the case of your account or estate are the trustees then they can manage this and pay themselves for it. So when it suits them they will be the Trustee and other times they will assume that you are the Trustee. Very convenient.

The way to deal with this is to express the roles in the Trust, so that they are no longer at liberty to construe these as they please.

Right now you will not be knowledgeable enough to fully express the whole Trust, but you can, if it serves you, express the capacity in which you are signing a document.
When relevant, qualify in what capacity you are signing a document.This does not have to be trust related. You can also qualify your status in any way you like.

When you create your own paperwork, you can do this any way you see fit, for example:

“Yours Sincerely

[ autograph ]

Kent of the Bengtsson family, a living Man, Settlor and Beneficiary of the KENT BENGTSSON Trust.”

Here is a video showing the benefits of having things in private common law trusts. Especially listen to what the man tells about how the "Elite" uses trusts to avoid the taxes and other demands upon us and our property, 12 min into the video.

The first part shows how a man avoided paying a penny after a divorce without having a prenuptial agreement in place.  Spending time on learning more about trusts, could save you lots of money and grief in the future.

[ videos gets removed, as has the one mentioned above. But the subject has not yet become taboo on YouTube, so do searches on "Private Common Law Trust" or similar terms, there.]

But what does one do if one needs to sign some form or contract one did not design?

Then specify the status you assume in signing it, or simply just use “by:” before the signature. The “by:” is often used by officers of corporations when signing for the position they hold. This is said to specify that they sign as that fictional entity and do not take any personal responsibility for whatever they confirm with the signature.

If you want to specify the role in the Trust that you take on, sign “by Beneficiary: [signature]” or any other role, such as Settlor or Trustee. Beneficiary would be the safest and most applicable one in most situations, as the Beneficiary have no duties or responsibilities.

Another useful thing one can use when signing others paperwork, is to put “...” before and after the signature. Three dots signifies that something has been omitted. That way one can later clarify what should have been said before the signature and after it – giving you freedom to say exactly what you want to be there, but which you did not have the time or space to specify at the time of signing.

When signing something you need to decide in what capacity you do so – if it matters at all.
If you sign for a parcel being delivered, it does not matter. But remember to write “not inspected” if you have not inspected the goods being delivered.

If you sign a cell phone contract, it matters little, as you are acting as the Strawman when you do so, same goes for opening accounts etc. In all such circumstances you are acting in the fictional world of commerce as your Strawman/Person. Usually no point in complicating things. The fictions can only do business with other fictions. This is what your Strawman/Person is for. No one will dispute that you are entitled to use this entity for such purposes (except maybe the people that believe “It is illegal to use the legal name”). This is a privilege you have as the beneficiary of that Trust.

Just as one man can be a number of things at different times, such as father/mother, worker, customer, gym member, driver, claimant, defendant, lover, fighter, etc. so can we take on any role we please. We are only limited by our imagination and what we think is suitable.

Living man/woman
Free man
Peaceful inhabitant
Ignorant Idiot
Child of God
Natures Child
Immortal spirit
non-domestic entity

Another way of signing a paper without actually signing it, is to draw a box around the signing area, and then sign inside the box. The box separates the signing area from the rest of the document. So you have not agreed to anything written in the document itself. But the person demanding the signature will most likely not understand that.

Also, as creatures who originate from a divine or superior domain (Nature or the Tangible Universe) we cannot be forced to do anything in the domain of "Man Made Fictions" without our full informed and willing consent. Thus any agreement or contract formed in the fictional domain/jurisdiction, in order to be binding must be entered into with full knowledge of all factors concerned and willingly. This means that if you are forced or coerced to sign something, it is not valid.

To practically apply that, ask a few questions to the one who claims you must sign something - like:
"What happens if I do not want to sign?"
"What obligates me to sign this?"
They will either give you an open or veiled threat, or give you some negative consequences that will occur if you do not sign. If so, write on the form or document "signed under threat (or coercion)" and then sign. This will void any construed contractual obligation. 

But if you ask what causes the obligation, they may simply admit that there is no obligation 
and then you can simply smile and politely decline the offer to contract.

Always make the box and any qualifying statements before you sign, or they might snatch the paper away before you have time to write the rest or draw the box.

I like to quote Brandon Adams, who is one of my favourite teachers in these matters. He said something like this to an audience once:

“All the terms and all the names I have given various notices and paperwork, where do you think I got them from? Is there some authority that says what words you can use and what you must call things? No! I pulled them out of my arse. I could just as well have called them something else and defined them any way I liked to. We make shit up. And so does everyone else.”


In this current commercial system we call our modern society, anything directed at us can be seen as “an offer to do business”. It does not matter if it is a leaflet for solar heating or a policeman at the door, wanting to arrest you for some real or imagined offense or crime. As private living sovereign men and women, we stand under no one, and no one is above us. We are in fact our own sovereign nation – each one of us. If no one is above you, no one can order you to do anything, unless you have already consented to that (more on this later in this “course”).

This is why I say everything is an offer to do business – as one cannot force a free man to do anything.

There are a few ways one can respond to such an offer. Some of these are honourable others are not.

You can accept the offer. This is honourable. You pay or perform in accordance with what is offered. In the case of the arresting police officer, you let yourself be arrested and booked at the station. Maybe not the best option though.

You can refuse the offer. Not always honourable, and it may lead to further trouble down the road.

You can remain silent. Also not very honourable, as we humans like to have communication going. It may also lead to further trouble down the road, as in law silence is usually interpreted as silent consent. When I was young politicians often justified the taking of an unpopular decision by the phrase “We base our decision on the consent of the silent majority”.

You can make a “counter offer”. This is honourable and also has the benefit of placing your offer on top, in the negotiations.
In the case of the arresting officer, it could be something like “I accept your offer to arrest Mr KENT BENGTSSON and take him into custody, if you can identify the defendant (remember they want to arrest the Strawman, which is a fiction) and upon presentation of an original accusatory instrument for my inspection.” More about the latter, later in the “course”.

These offers versus counter offers can go back and forth for some time. Just like a buyer and car dealer haggling over a sale.

The Counter Offer is generally the best response to an offer to make business – unless you like the original offer, like for example “We are from the National Lottery, and if you are Mr. KENT BENGTSSON, and can prove it, we are authorized to transfer one million into your account.”

Aside from offers to do business, we often face various accusations. A fairly effective way to deal with such is what is called “Confess and Avoid”. This is practiced by politicians and people in the legal profession a lot.

Example: You to Judge: “Are you acting under your oath of office now?” Judge: “I have my oath right here by my side.” He confessed by his failure to answer that he is not. Remember silence is consent. And then he tries to avoid the question by coming with an irrelevant statement. If you accept that you have let him off the hook.

Or a policeman stops your car and asks “Are you John Smith?” and you counter with “Have you just observed me cause any harm or act in a manner putting lives or property at risk?” Him: “No.”
You: “Then what does it matter who I am?” You confessed by not answering the question, and avoided the matter by asking a question. This would probably carry on for a while, and you just stay in the question and maybe add some counter offers to his offers.

There is a formal way of dealing with offers, using contract and administrative law. This is described in depth in the materials of Creditors in Commerce below. A common name for this process is “The three step process”.

Here are some videos that also describes this:

This is generally effective. Especially when dealing with companies who just want to make a quick buck out of you. Like parking companies, debt collectors, etc.


This is a favourite subject of Gordon Hall of Creditors in Commerce. But it is not a new concept.

Here are a couple of “Maxims of Law”. These are very old basic principles of Law. This is directly applicable to contracts, but in a wider sense applies to any so called law.

Consensus facit legem. Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.

Contractus legem ex conventione accipiunt. The agreement of the parties makes the law of the contract. Dig. 16, 3, 1, 6.

If we operate on the idea that the creator is superior to the creation, and that we were created by Mother Nature or some God. That makes us second “in command”.

We as people then created laws, rules, customs, agreements, governments, associations, corporations, military, police, justice systems, money, banks, accounting, trusts, etc. etc.
These are all our creations, and as such are junior to us. Thus they can thus only apply to us with our consent. The creation cannot tell the creator what to do – that would be a perversion of the natural order. If the creation can become the master of it's creator, a monster has been created (such as the Frankenstein’s Monster, the Machines in the Terminator movies or a cold unthinking heartless construct manned by unthinking irresponsible zombies – like a modern Government) and for our own good, all effort should be made to destroy or tame any such monster.

Thus from the viewpoint of being living breathing thinking people, all is by consent (contract). This applies to all man-made “Law”. The laws of Nature does not care if we consent or not. Man cannot cancel them. But we can cancel any man made law.

So when you see the word “Law” think “Contract”, and vice versa. For more on this see the suggestions on how to study the materials of Creditors in Commerce below.

How does this matter, you may ask yourself.

Well, you have to take responsibility for the contracts you have entered into during your life, and if you do not like them, you will have to undo them. Contracts can be fluid. They can change with changing circumstances, with new offers or players entering the scene.

Part of your education as a Freedom Seeker should definitely be a good book on contracts. Preferably a popular one for you own country, or one that is used in your country.

When you understand that almost all human interaction is based on contracts, you will see a clearer picture of the human world and be able to deal with it more effectively.

A common misunderstanding is that a contract is a piece of paper with signatures on it. This is not the case. The contract is the agreement of the parties – no papers needed. The paper is the recording of the agreement. That recording may be good to have if any party fails to honour the contract.

The agreement does not even have to be expressed in spoken or written words. A contract can be implied through our actions. If we step on a bus or a train, it is assumed we know that we need a valid ticket or that we will pay for the trip. If you sit down in a restaurant and order from the menu, there is no lengthy written contract that says you will honour the payments of the order, you will not make other diners feel uncomfortable and you will leave a customary tip for the waiter, and the restaurant will not stipulate how they will cook the food and that the cook will not spit in the soup, etc. etc. those “contract conditions” are presumed and “Good Will” is presumed to be part of any contract.

Again, when you fully know something, you will have no or few problems with it. Get that contract book, and read it.


How often have you heard the phrase “It's the Law” as if that is an absolute and indisputable fact that cannot be questioned in any way.

I like Mark Stevens asking a Cop in a cross examination “Is it your opinion, that the correct speed limit for the road in question is X miles per hour?” Cop, “No, it's the Law.” Mark, “Oh, so it is someone else’s opinion then.”

ALL man made “law” is based on the ideas of one or more human like yourself. The better ones are based on experience that have stood the test of time and which almost anyone agrees with. The not so good ones have been dreamed up to protect someone’s vested interest or profit. Like the ludicrous idea that a corporation can patent a life form, just because their staff has genetically altered it a bit or even because they were the first to request it to be patented. That is no different than to say that I can claim ownership of a fellow man, just because I altered him by cutting off his pinkie finger.

There is a hierarchy of laws. There may be some arguments as to what is the correct order. I am just going to take someone’s claimed order here and say a few things about it. If you do not agree with the order, alter it to what you think it should be – once you have a good grasp on the subject.

On top we have the LAWS OF NATURE.
These are things like the law of gravity, the behaviour of matter, the law of cause and effect, etc.
They are on top of the list, because man cannot alter these laws by any decree. No matter how practical it would be to have water freeze at a 20 degrees lower temperature and how many lives it would save in the traffic and costs in areas affected by snow and frost, no government has the power to do this. Only the creator of the universe could do that.

Next comes what has been called NATURAL LAW or MORAL LAW. This would include the kind of things that man has held for true in times immemorial. Such as “Treat others like you would like them to treat you.” “We are all born with equal value and rights” “No man is another mans master or owner, unless consent has been given.” “My rights end where yours begin.” “When you step on another mans rights and liberties, you forfeit your own.” etc. etc. [when I use the word “Man” here it is in the meaning of “a member of Mankind”, and includes all sexes and ages.]

Below that we have
COMMERCIAL LAW which covers interaction between sovereign individuals. In other words someone who is in control of his or her property and not subject to any conditions or limitations when it comes to own life, body or belongings. Two or more sovereign entities has the unlimited power to make any agreement they choose, without any other parties having any say in the matter.

Then we have COMMON LAW or TRADITIONAL LAW which is the agreements of a group or a society, based on past experiences and decisions of it's People or Courts. This would be the guidelines for proper ways to interact with other members of your society.

Below this we have STATUTORY LAW. Statute is “a legislative rule of society, given the 'force of law' by the consent of the governed”.
This can be compared with Company Policies” or the rules by which the members of a Gold Club has to abide if they want to be members. It is voluntary to take employment in a company or to join a Golf club, thus one volunteers to follow their rules when one joins. Likewise the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country or through freely chosen representatives.” The corollary of this is that everyone has the right not to be part of a political entity. The democratic principle says that we have the right to choose. That must logically include the choice not to be part of something.
This normally is all legislation that has the word “Act” in it, and covers a multitude of subjects from tax and traffic rules to the fact that it is illegal to cure cancer – or at least claim you can.

When you are operating in the capacity of your legal/juristic Person, you are operating in Statutory Law.

Below this would be the rules of companies, clubs, sports, etc. that are registered within the political entity of the Statutory Law. This would be the lowest “law”.

Especially Commercial Law and Statutory Law would have lots of sub-divisions or sub-disciplines.
But this is pretty much a scale of seniority of law forms.

As you can see, the phrase “It's the Law”, need to be met with the question “What law?” or “What Law-form?” and maybe, “What evidence do you have that that law applies to me in this instance?”
What if I am taking my sovereign self and my somewhat less sovereign dog for a walk on the planet that was created for our free use – with no affiliation to any man made law or political construct and I do no harm to anyone doing so. Can a policeman of the political entity that conducts it's business on that part of the planet, interfere with me or give me a ticket for have the wrong colour of dog collar or for not carrying one of their ID documents? That depend on how you act and what you say. If you act like the sovereign you are – then No. But if you show him a government issued ID or admit to being a citizen and give him name, ID number and address, then you gave him jurisdiction.


One school of thought in this, says that when you follow an order, you are saying with your actions "I am accepting that you have authority over me."

Thus if a policeman tells you to hand over the Drivers License or step out of the car, and you just comply, you have with your actions shown that you subjugate yourself to him.
Now, it may not be a clever thing to refuse to comply, as he might turn violent.
A better way is to ask him as if you never heard him make his request/order -  "Would you like to see my drivers license?" or  "Do you mind if I step out of the car now?".  By doing it that way, you are not following his orders, but you are following your own suggestion instead.

This can be applied to Judges, Court Ushers, and anyone ordering you to do things in a situation where you do not want to grant that person authority over you.

Another great one, that links to the contract law discussed above, is to make known your fee for fulfilling an order. You could say something like "Since I am not a slave and since an order is chargeable, my fee for following any of your orders, is (any amount you fancy, why not make it high), or, say an amount for each action they want to to perform. Have your phone or other device recording the conversation (probably best to start a video recording, but putting it in a pocket or handbag, so as to not aggravate the situation). After a few orders having been fulfilled, you now have a substantial claim against the police officer/official, which can be used as a bargaining chip in future negotiations.
Karl Lenz in the videos below, covers his version of this method.

As an extension of this following orders thing, bear in mind that we do not voluntarily subjugate ourselves when we do not want to. If you do something of your own accord, it can and will be considered to have been done willingly and voluntarily. Gordon hall gave the example in one lecture, about how he once was led up to the gates of a jail, but just before he entered the gates the guards let go of him and said angrily to him "Are you going to carry on being difficult, or not?". As he responded he actually walked into the jail of his own accord - not being forced, led or pushed. Just distracted.

So if arrested, make it known that you do not consent, but also that you will not put up physical resistance if they move or handle you. Then only move when touched. As soon as they let go of you, be still again. This can still be combined with the announcement of charges. Such as Dean Cliffords brother once: "My charge for going over to your patrol car is 5000.00 dollar. And it does not matter if you drag me over there or I walk of my own - the charge remains." And why not, just for the fun of it, add in the question "Do you understand?" as they themselves so often do.

OK, I think that is enough of the basic things I wanted to share before I go into different “Schools of Freedom Seeking” and what they teach.

Again, I apologise for the length of this. But at least it is not years of study to become a lawyer or doctor, where you become trained to follow the rules or orders of commercially motivated entities.
I am a carpenter, cabinet maker and joiner. It took years to learn the basics of this trade and then you never stop learning as you practice your trade and keep up with new materials and methods.

Anything a bit technical takes a bit of effort to learn. If you do not like that, go be a street sweeper or a dustman and let others run your life for you.

I am going to start with a few videos that will give a basic understanding of things. I will assume you have read most of the other articles in this blog, so you have the most basic concepts already.

Just a few comments, before we go into the teachings below. Each one of us travels a different path through life. We experience different things, draw different conclusions from this, and have a different outlook or attitude towards life. So there will be things taught here that will not agree with someone else’s teachings at times.
Also there are people that have had success with a certain approach or method for years maybe, and then it seems like it does not work any more. I cannot say why that is. Maybe the System has been altered to prevent these remedies from reaching wide usage. Maybe they let some things pass for a while, so that people will start using them – just to that they can catch people on this later. What do I know. My only advice here is that you follow your own instincts and logic, and research things well before you put them to practice. Or test them on trivial matters like traffic tickets to determine if they are valid methods.
The methods that build on the existing system and it's “laws” (Statutory Law) are more likely to succeed than more basic reasoning belonging in Natural Law or Commercial Law, since the fiction can not see or act in the reality.

First is a short little video to keep in mind. Words, by Stefan Molyneux.

Here is a very good and well presented video of how we got to where we are now and a few things we can do about it.
“Freedom a complete picture” 

This is two videos by one of the pioneers of the Freeman on the Land concept, and one of the first I came to know. Robert Menard.
Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception:

The Magnificent Deception:

If the links do not work, search on the author and title and you should get the current link in YouTube.
If you like Rob, there will be more videos suggested by YouTube.

Bernard Weckmann.  
Here is a link to an article in his blog. It is not that long and gives a lot of very basic and relevant information when it comes to the "Law", "Courts", "Authority", etc.
A good place to start in your further education.

Continuing in a similar vein, here is Kenneth Scott, explaining what he has learned and done to set himself more free, on the alternative radio station Anarchast (episode 275). Well worth listening to.

Here is another speech by the same man (under a slightly different name: Ken Cousens) giving some very good info on these things that infiltrates practically all human activity – Law and Money.
The history of the World Systems, Pando Populus:

Ken (or Kenneth) is of “Gemstone University” and the “Pan Terra Private Contract Association”.
I have not joined these or done their courses (which are charged for) but they seem to be good and thorough. Maybe something to consider once you have exhausted what I present here.
Here is the link to Pan Terra PCA:
And here is the one for Gemstone University:

A group that I think have many similarities with Pan Terra and Gemstone University is “Creditors in Commerce”.
They were active about 2009 – 2012. The teachers there were Brandon Adams, Gordon Hall and Jack Smith.
As far as I know Gordon is in Jail and Brandon might too. But I do not have enough information to say if that is because they lacked in knowledge or if they were railroaded to set an example to others who might follow in their footsteps.
Their main message was one of not arguing and fighting, but to settle all claims and demands in order to make everyone whole. I liked this peaceful approach to commerce and much of the philosophy they preached. They may not have had it all right, but they did have a lot right. I have had the most success in Court when using their approach. This have been my main influence in this quest.
Many tend to balk and back off when they realize the amount of materials there is to study here and if that does not get them, Gordon Hall's “Thank God for this wonderful and perfect Government” often did. But Gordon also said “The role of the Government is to Lie, Cheat and Steal, and to drive you back to God.”

Their site is still up and one can download all audio files and many documents from there. The video versions of their workshops can be had for a fee. But there are a few free videos, so one can see what they look like at least. I used to download a workshop and put it on an MP3 player and then listen as I was driving, shopping, taking walks, or when I did work that did not require much thinking (such as sanding wood or spray painting). I listened to most things over and over, and each time I realized more things and got more ideas about how one could deal with different things.

Suggested studies.

Note, since this article was written the Creditors in Commerce site has been removed from the Internet. So please search for their materials on YouTube etc. It is well worth checking out.

Here are a site that has their workshop audio recordings posted:

Or alternatively, this one:

Then ideally do each one in order. But there will be a lot of talking about something that is not applicable outside the US and which seems to have been clamped down on in the US. Too much to explain here, but when they talk about Original issue and tax form 1099 and similar things, it is about this. Leave alone.

Then I suggest you listen to Gordon Hall talk about application of Contracting.
The first one is “The rules to the game of life”

Much of their workshops deal with how to settle or get rid of a Mortgage for ones house. But how to deal with various situation relating to Courts or Government agents coming at you for different reasons goes like a common thread through it all.

Then get onto the CIC (creditors in commerce) workshops and the Living Temple workshops.
Best is to do them in chronological order, but if you want a shorter route do the first one which is CIC Chicago Workshop(August 2009)

The second workshop (Los Angeles Oct 2009) is very much about mortgages, but if you want to give that a miss, you must at least listen to Brandon’s story of when he let himself get arrested and how that went. Very deep and touching, with a great ending. That is most of Part 2 of that workshop.
Then I recommend the Living Temple Workshop (April 2010). This is about enforcement. A judge attends, and lots of very interesting stuff is revealed. 

If you have listened to CIC then you will be familiar with the works of Winston Shrout.
He normally sees to it that he get paid if he ever goes to Court.
This man has accomplished a lot in this field, and I suggest you go to his YouTube channel and watch what he has put there as a good point of intro. This is the link to that channel:
He also have a website where he tells of his upcoming workshops etc. He also has a few products for sale. 

When you have exhausted that see more recent YouTube videos of his.

Another one that operates in a similar vein, is Jean Keating. He has been teaching this stuff since the 1970s and has studied law, but not made it his profession. He can be a bit rough around the edges and a bit of a Redneck at times. But he seem to have a heart of Gold. He has helped many who were about to lose their homes.
He also made a text about how the prison system works, which explains why the US has such a large prison population. Prison Treatise, by Jean Keating:
Here is a transcript of a workshop of his. Good reading.
Here is more materials by Jean, if what you have seen so far seems good:
[As you can see these all comes from Freedom School, which is one good source of things to study once you run out of things here, or if you want to now pick your own route.]

When you have exhausted this, you may find more by him on YouTube or in Search Engines.

Here is a slightly different approach when the vultures are at the door. David Clarence treats our Person as an Estate, by the idea that you probably by now have come across several times – that we are lost at sea and that the State or someone looks after our Estate in case we will show up one day.
He made up a series of letters and how to register ones address in a specific way in order to act as the Executor for that estate. I have met a few people that have used this method successfully in the UK. But it seemed pretty limited and mostly effective for being left alone when accosted. I consider it a bit of the puzzle and worth some study, even if you may never use it.
This video should give an introduction:

and this webpage has additional links to letters and more info:

This is a guy I like a lot. He does not go into the commercial implications or the Person vs. Man thing. He just wants to keep it simple and get out of Court unharmed as quickly as possible. Most people can understand his method easily. He also have had many victories against the IRS on behalf of his clients.
He has a “Student” called Nathan Fraser, who have had good success in the Courts with this method.
Here are a good point to start with Mark:

Many videos have been removed from YouTube now due to increased sensorship.
When I have found them eleswhere, I have given a new link here:

Here is his website:
Here is an interview with Nathan Fraser:

Anarchism & Sovereignty:

This is another of my favourites. I like him because he keeps it simple and do not go to deep into the rabbit hole. He is a Canadian builder with language and attitude to match. He did a lot of seminars some years ago, and was arrested after his last workshop and spent some time in jail with the occasional visit to a Court hearing. Now he seem to still be handling the things he was accused of and getting back on his feet, as well as concentrating on creating an alternative to the current society.
You tube is full of his talks and interviews. However the best ones (in my opinion) are not available there.
Start with this one and other ones who's title grabs you:

Then for the best. This is a series of radio interviews on how to do things. Study these. At least the ones where Dean appears. And I am also in possession of the audio recording of the one that he was arrested afterwards. You will not have the slides of that presentation, but it will be pretty clear for the most part. This was done in Hamilton. This is contained in the folders “DC How to” and “DC Hamilton” at this page:

Here is the closes I can find to a website for him:

Here is a man who’s mother worked for the IRS and he got familiar with law concepts early. He have developed a method of standing under common law when dealing with adversaries. Common law is still a recognized law form in many countries that were British colonies at one time – South Africa included, if I'm not wrong.
Again his approach is relatively simple compared to the commercial routes, but it requires that one does not fall in any of the traps that will be laid by the Judge, in order to drag you into their preferred jurisdiction. Well worth studying and applying if you feel up to it.
Have successfully helped people get their children back when the Child Protection Services or other State bodies have taken peoples children from them, with a very basic request.
Suggested studies for starters:
Karl in UK Column:

What to do when arrested:

Karl at Johnson City Tennessee:

I came into contact with this method or philosophy some years back. I like it for it's simplicity although I see it mainly as a defence method.
The first ones I listened to talking about this were a pair calling themselves “Batman and Boris”.
They had come to the conclusion that most countries in this world is under a kind of disguised military occupation, under military law and rules. If you listened to Creditor in Commerce workshops, you might have heard Jack Smith talk about this too. Much of the English political or business language contains military terms. Chief Executive OFFICER, Payroll OFFICER, etc.

They had also studied some international conventions, like the Hauge and Geneva Convention, and found that these proclaimed that an occupying force should leave peaceful inhabitants in peace. So they concluded “Don't be the NAME” and make no claim to it, and declare yourself a peaceful inhabitant who just wishes to be left alone. As for the juristic person/Strawman and it's name, they would assume this is an entity created by the government, and not make any claim to it and ask that the government take care of any claims against it. They had some successful stories to tell about this approach.
When asked about their name they would reply that they were happy to give a name on the condition that it is not used for identification purposes. That is of course why the police asks for a name.

I cannot find the old files from this time, but Batman seems to have been active until recently. He is a colourful character with a refreshing attitude. Looking now, I found a long video covering this approach, so that will be my first link on this subject.

For listening to Batman, go to this Talkshoe page:
Here is a call where he and Dean Clifford are talking. Judge for yourself who handles himself best there.

Here is a nice little story of an arrest of someone following and adding to this philosophy:

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 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?
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.
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 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 is an American guy that has done extensive studies and have experience with the “justice system”. He writes and talks on this subject.
I have not studied much of him, but like what I have heard. Again centred on the US, but since the same system is in force in most countries and probably all Western nations, it is relevant in many ways.
Here is a good video by him:

Common Core, Agenda 21 and Global Privatization:

Vaccination and the Law:

His blog is here. If you look at the list of articles to the right, you will see that he covers a lot of subjects.

Here is one that I am a bit reluctant to recommend. Mostly for the faulty slogan or assumption
It’s illegal to use the Legal Name”, but also because I never had any “Aha Moments” listening to Kate (who is actually a man, wanting to be a woman) and finding him hard to follow. But he has lots of followers and lots of people have swallowed this “Legal Name” misconception. So he has gotten a lot of people to wake up and for that he deserves to be recognized.

Here again the idea is to not use the name or not let oneself be identified as it. If there is more to it, you can be the Judge of that.

Here is the website:

The reason I say the statement “It's illegal to use the legal name” is false, is because it is based on the misunderstanding that the name is under copyright. This in turn comes from the fact that the Birth Certificate in at least the UK and Canada has the text “Crown Copyright” on it. But looking into copyright law, one soon finds out that a name or title cannot be copyrighted. Nor can facts or numbers. A copyrighted text has to be a unique creation. A name is not unique. Lots of people have the same name. All government forms are copyright protected. That is the form itself – not the data entered into it.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

As far as I can think of now, that are all the “teachers” or philosophies that provide some kind of method or approach in dealing with those who believe they have the right to rule us.

Then there are people who just like to inform us of the truth, or get us to realize we are our own masters and no one can be superior to another against that others will. Or that we are slaves, as some have come to conclude.

The first one that comes to mind here is Larken Rose. He has made lots of YouTube videos and written a book on this.
Here are some very good videos of his, that I often use to make a point.
Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion

Message to the voting cattle

I'm allowed to rob you

The tiny dot

Another one is Mark Passio. He is a former member of some secret society and is well aware of what goes on there and what their aims are. He talks about this and related matters. Very logical and informative. Maybe he should have been above in the list of those with some kind of remedy. I have not studied that much by him, but what I have seen I like.

Interview with Mark:

Here is a seminar by him. Natural Law Seminar:

Here is his YouTube channel:

This list would not be complete without Jordan Maxwell, who is one of the longest active researchers and speakers on matters of conspiracy, law and who rules this world. He ranges from ancient history up to current events. Too much material for any links I will give here to give him justice. But here are some stuff to give you a taste:
Matrix of Power: 

Much more on YouTube.

There is one guy I really like. Not because he reveals much new or has some great method, but because of his sharp logic and great sense of humour. He is also totally devoid of any Political Correctness. This is the now late comedian George Carling.
I let him speak for himself. Enjoy!
About Muhammed Ali:

Dumb Americans:

People who ought to be killed:

I think I will end off here. There might be some more of interest on the Conspiracy page of this blog.
I know this is not a complete list and that new talent will enter the scene all the time, just as the current ones might tire of being attacked, ridiculed, threatened or thrown in jail. I will add to this as and when I come across things I think should be included.

If you know of someone or something you think should be added to this page, please let me know by message or comment below.


1 comment:

  1. TAMI PEPPERMAN has remedy by the fists full and the documents to back up... she gives definitions and the codes to back up here extensive research. from what i understand she was under persecution and lost her entire family in the process (of showing the way "out" i imagine). her most powerful document i have been unsuccessful in finding so far it's called: "Patent Infringement" i think... after the EXECUTOR docs, Fieri Fascious Febonis Ecclesiastes (sp) and Fee Schedule (very important) among others... i'm not sure if she's even around but can be found on "You Tube" possibly... if she's as legit as she claims she's got a process that trump's them all... but i sure would appreciate a second opinion! thank you