Archive for June, 2014



Why are Government’s Using There Police Dogs to come down so hard all of a sudden against The Freeman on the Land Movement ??? 

2957

The answer is a very simple one…The Elite Bankers – Shadow Governments – New World Order are Scared Shitless of the Truth of there Whole Fraudulent System being revealed to the Masses… The Freeman Movement Is About LOVE FREEDOM AND TRUTH. They are the number one Movement uncovering this whole gigantic fraudulent system and showing people how to remedy there situations with the LAW and Legal Remedy in the real criminals own DeFacto Fraudulent Law SystemAnd they don’t like that one bit, Why, Because Freemen speak the TRUTH…So THEY start of by calling it a Farce ,a Scam, run by GURU’s and fraudsters… Next will be the ASSOCIATING  it with fringe groups and some violence like Neonazi and White Supremacist and the likes….

Rob Menard Guru

Then the PROPAGANDA starts with accusation of association with terrorist or being terrorist themselves, FBI has already made this lie of an accusation about Sovereign Citizen being domestic terror threats in the USA. Then the real POLICE HARASSEMENT  begins and news stories warning of pending and future Violence against police being a big possible. Then usually  as per there normal mode of operation of WAR BY DECEPTION usually a false flag blaming the exact group they have been DEMONIZING in this case the FREEMAN MOVEMENT

Now some insight on Freeman on the Land Movement from true Peace Loving Real Freeman Who have claimed there Freeman Status Legally through THE Elites own DeFacto court system and abdicated legally from under Canadian Government Statute Law.  They have renounced there S.I.N. SINNER NUMBER and no longer pays taxes as they have no longer have accounts with the CRA. NO ACCOUNT = NO TAXES  Now Do you really think that the ELITE RICH who have enough money that they would never have to work a day in there lives, what would these people apply for a SIN number for in the first place they don’t need it to work right!!! And that is exactly what the Elite Rich have long known and do to avoid TAXES…There is nothing in the S.I.N. number act that Force you to get one but they make you and I the common man believe there is… Who hasn’t heard the saying “You have to have a SIN to work legally in Canada” Almost everyone has heard that!!!  But have they also heard that you don’t need a SIN to work lawfully in CANADANO of course not, BUT WHY NOT???

Each Society when created has the right to create a language for that Society and the Law Society’s of Canada and other countries created what’s called LEGALESE… The language of STATUTES and ACTS of the LEGAL – COMMERCIAL LAW SYSTEMS

Now we should start with a little bit of Black Law Dictionary deciphering of a few very important deceptive words they use against us all the time.

LEGALESE

Roman Law maxim that states: "Let he who will be deceived, be deceived".

A way of talking or writing used mostly by lawyers and corporations, as a way to explain and elaborate every square inch of the matter at hand

-language containing an excessive amount of legal terminology or of legal jargon.

– creating an airtight verbal bubble that leaves no room for ambiguity.

-"the language of legal documents," 1914, from legal + language name ending -ese.

– Legalese is the language of Statutes. It is assumed that Statutes are ‘the Law’.

This is done by writing as little as possible with as many words as possible, in such a way that Average Joe won’t have a single clue what is presented to him, yet agrees to it because he couldn’t care less about reading page up and page down with all that legal nonsense before he gets to use his new computer program.The language of the Law Society of Canada A society has the right to create it own language and Legalese is the legal language created for the Law Societies and Big Corporations and the Supreme Courts to manipulate deceive and entrap the Average Joe

Average Joe: "Your program destroyed my PC! I’m suing!"
Big corporation: "You can’t. You consented to waive all your customer-, civil- and moral rights upon agreeing to our Terms of Use license before using the product."
Average Joe: "How was I supposed to know that?! It was 72 pages written in legalese!"

Freeman on the Land -  Sovereign Citizens are Guilty of Studying The Law and Learning Legalese and using the systems own laws and words against them and if that is regarded as Terrorist Activity by the FBI,RCMP,CSIS and other Law Enforcement Organization, It show that the Elite Power  That Be  of the system that control the whole system are scared and circling the wagons.They are really worried because the Freeman on the Land Movement is growing by leaps and bounds and its numbers are becoming alarming because these Freemen are armed with the systems own weapon of Legal Remedy built into every Statute and Act and so far they have been able to get away with calingl it guru bad information… The only people that still believe that lie are the completely Comatose Mainstream Media Puttzes that still think that there The Nightly News never lies and that government have there best interest at heart and would never lie to the people either. It now seems that a real majority of people understand that Government are all under one giant corrupt conspiracy and that the Sovereign Citizen Freeman issue is just one part of the giant conspiracy, that we the people have learned and deciphered and found out the whole truth of the workings of the Fraudulent Legal System of Laws these criminals created to deceive and enslave and rob us all blind.

That is why they are now instructing there Government Puppets to sic there Militarized Rabid Police Dog Forces on the Sovereign Citizen – Freeman Movements  Worldwide  The Elite know once the TRUTH IS OUT YOU CANT STOP IT FROM SPREADING…They’ve been caught cheating at Monopoly and the game is over ,There House of Card is Crumbling by the earthquake of FREEMEN all spreading the TRUTH

"Let he who will be deceived, be deceived". Don’t be deceived. 

All definitions below snipped from http://www.blacks.worldfreemansociety.org/1/index.htm

Black's Law Dictionary, 10th Edition

DE JURE

DeJure

 

DE FACTO

DeFacto 1DeFacto 2

 

PERSON

Person Blacks

 

CAPITIS DIMINUTIO

CapitisDiminutio 1

 

SOCIETY

SocietyBlacksr

 

INDIVIDUAL

Individual blacks

CONSENT

consent

FREEMAN

FREEMAN blacks

 

CORPORATION

Corporation111

COLOR

color 1color 2

CITIZEN

citizen blacks

 

Sovereign – Sovereignty

Black’s 1st Edition

Sovereign Sovereignty 1Sovereign Sovereignty 2

Black’s 2nd Edition

Sovereign Sovereignty 1aSovereign Sovereignty 2a

 

LEGAL – LAWFUL

LEGAL

Legal

 

LAWFUL

LAWFUL

 

LAW

LAW1LAW 2LAW 3LAW 4

The Great Birth Certificate (Trust) Scam: This is How They Are Enslaving You

World Freeman society

The Great Birth Certificate (Trust) Scam: This is How They Are Enslaving You

YOU BETTER START ACTING IN YOUR CAPACITY AS THE ADMINISTRATOR of the Trust, and put them back in the position of being the Trustee.
Yep, it all started when your unsuspecting Mother signed you away by using her “Maiden” name on your birth certificate. The state used that little trick to take ownership of the offspring by assuming you were a bastard child without a father, even if there is a father listed/known.
The “Informant”, your Mother signed that little jewel (you) over to the state by using her maiden name (notice there was no other option?). The ‘state’ knows that women can’t legally own offspring; only the father has that ability (unless she becomes the Executrix), and that’s how they are pulling off the con.
YAY! Party Hats and Ice Cream for EVERYONE! Little Johnnie is now owned by the ‘state’ and is considered a state/government employee. Now it’s time to take pictures of the new little slave/tax payer, spank his/her bottom, and start with the inoculations and public training centers (public school).
Little Johnnie just became a government employee, but how long will it be before Little Johnnie starts getting his government paycheck? Well, if he’s smart when he turns of legal age, he’ll renegotiate the terms of his employment; take control of his Estate/Trust and start operating is his lawful capacity as the Administrator/Executor to that Trust that was created for him by his employer.
See, when they created that little Trust for Little Johnnie, they conveniently forgot to put the fine print on the back of that document (the birth certificate) telling him it was actually his Trust and when he turned of legal age, he could take his rightful place as the Beneficiary/Administrator of that Trust and quit his job as their employee. Unless of course he presented them with his newly renegotiated terms of conditions that said he now wishes to be paid any amount his little heart desires to continue his employment at the company, and they agreed.
Now you understand why CPS (Child Protective Services) can come into your home and take your (scratch that) .. THEIR … property/slave/tax payer, if they feel you are abusing Little Johnnie. Because you (the unsuspecting mother) in good faith, signed over Little Johnnie to the state. He wasn’t of legal age to manage his own affairs of Administrating that Trust, so you had to hand those duties over to someone a little more qualified than yourself, since you as a woman cannot own offspring.
That’s a pretty cool magic trick wouldn’t you say?American-Birth-Certificate-Bank-Note
Home of the Free, Land of the Slave :)
So the ‘state’ or ‘government’ sends you back a copy of the Trust (birth certificate) that was created for you, by “THEM” and your mother; you go about your merry way using that birth certificate as a means of identity to obtain other adhesion contracts like your drivers license and ss card etc.
So the ‘state’ makes the presumption YOU are operating as a government employee; performing acts of government, etc. It’s your brand new-shiny Government Name Badge; makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn’t it?
So you’re driving around with your government owned vehicle (yes they own it because of the Bankruptcy) ss card, drivers license, and birth certificate and they’re presuming you’re a government employee.
The only problem with this little con is: They are treating you like a government employee by forcing their rules/regulations/statutes/taxes down your throat, but somehow seem to be forgetting one thing:
You’re not getting your government check! Did you ever dictate to them the hourly rate for your services? (Rod Class also explains this if you listen to his archived shows below).
You’re not receiving the FULL benefits of your new job title, but you sure are paying the membership fees :)
Why aren’t YOU getting paid? Why aren’t they taking care of all vehicle maintenance? Why are they charging you with an income tax? Why do they laugh at your “I’m a free man on the land arguments?”
Because YOU haven’t rebutted the presumption that YOU are a government employee; operating in that capacity.

7518_103044289710661_100000152705701_92533_3814603_n 
You must rebut the presumption you’re operating as a government official; performing any act of government; and that you’re being paid to so.
EVEN THOUGH YOU’RE USING “THEIR” MEMBERSHIP CARDS, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO OPERATE IN THAT CAPACITY AS AN EMPLOYEE!
No one can force you to work for free; not even your own government. So if they insist you’re a government employee because you haven’t rebutted THEIR claim, why aren’t they paying you your government check?
Silly Johnnie, you didn’t expect them to just come and offer this did you? Why would they pay you one red cent if they could get you to do it for free?
You’re worth $1.5 Million per hour; they need to agree to the terms of your salary, or you’re not interested in being on their payroll; and if you’re not on their payroll, you don’t have to abide by their corporate rules/regulations/statutes, etc. get it?
Just because you shop at Sam’s Club and buy a membership card; use their bathroom; water fountain; buggies and services, that doesn’t mean you have to abide by their corporate rules/regulations/statutes and invest in their retirement plans; and it damn sure doesn’t give them the right to draft money out of your account without your consent or throw you in jail because you want no part of their little scam.
If you don’t rebut the presumption, they will be more than happy to ‘assume’ you are a government employee; and you should be paying government employee taxes; following their rules/regulations, and statutes.
We’ve all heard the stories of how the UNITED STATES is a corporation that resides in the ten square mile radius of the District of Columbia, and only people living in that district are considered government employees; or government officials that go to work for them.
They just forgot to tell you that those laws only apply in that ten mile radius, and if you’re not an employee of their corporation, their laws don’t apply to you.

36258_169797086398854_100001056916300_367115_1437682_n 
Remember the Sam’s Club analogy?
Wouldn’t it be nice if YOU could start your own business and force your customers to invest in your retirement plan, 401K, pay all your licensing and fees; follow your rules/regulations, and even tax them on their income, all for just shopping at YOUR store?
Well, that’s what’s happening folks: You’re shopping at the corporation known as the UNITED STATES and they created your very own little membership card (birth certificate) and are forcing their corporate rules/regulations and taxes down your throat because you aren’t willing to rebut their presumptions that you are an employee of their corporation.
Pretty cool trick eh?
What they won’t tell you about that little Trust that was created in your name is: That YOU are the Beneficiary and Administrator, and THEY are the Trustee once you become of legal age.
Ah, that kind of turns things around now, doesn’t it?
Yep, when you became of legal age, they conveniently forgot to tell that little tid-bit of information, and have been operating in the capacity as the Administrator to that Trust and you’ve been dumb enough to let them carry on that way. You’re not actually dumb; you just trusted that something like that would never happen to you, especially by your own government.
Never assume anything, it will cost you everything!
But what they’re doing is not against the law you see. They are just assuming (pretty convenient eh?) that you are their employee, and you haven’t rebutted that presumption.
As Dean puts it: If I create some law in my living room and walk across the street to your house; knock on the door and say “Hey Jim, I just created a new law that allows me to take your new 50″ plasma TV for my own and you have to abide by that”. And Jim just scratches his head and says ummmm, der, okay, I guess, go ahead and take the TV.
Did I break a law? Nope! I made a presumption; you didn’t rebut the presumption (look up affidavits) and my presumption became law. Viola! You just got screwed-blued and tattooed because you never said “Hey, wait just a minute” By what authority did you create this new law, and what gives you the authority to shove it down my throat?”
When you’re using THEIR side of the equation, THEY are the Beneficiary and Administrator to the Trust “THEY” created and YOU are the Trustee. They created it, it’s their document; you’re just the Trustee until you become of legal age, at which point you’re supposed to become the Administrator, and they are the Trustee.
Don’t let that bother you; it’s just an honest mistake and they probably just ran out of ink before they could print that little fact on the back of your birth certificate (Uh-Huh :/) giving you the option manage your own Estate.
Can a Trustee tell an Administrator what to do?
Absolutely NOT!
Watch Dean Clifford explain the fraud with a marker board at a seminar so you can better understand the situation and most importantly CORRECT the PRESUMPTION they are ASSUMING.
Silence is acquiescence.

Do You Consent?

World Freeman society

Your CONSENT shapes your life and world. Without your inherent power of consent, you are a slave. If you abandon your Right of Consent you will become a slave to those who would exploit you. All life defends its free will, because failure to do so is suicidal. The maintenance of your Rights is your Responsibility. Yet, most people opposed to onerous government policies, give their consent to those policies anyway. Why? Let’s examine “the system” …

In 1913, the US Federal Reserve was established by private bankers. They planned to indebt the nation and the world by encouraging financial speculation and international capital flows (“Roaring Twenties”), until the global economy crashed (“Black Tuesday” 1929), after which they would foreclose (“New Deal” 1933).

This was their foreclosure plan:

[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a National system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading [Birth Certificate] to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two would figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner; every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America. [attributed to Colonel Edward Mandell House in a letter to Woodrow Wilson (President 1913-1921)]

In due course, Congress confirmed the bankruptcy through the Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause, June 5, 1933, House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192, June 5, 1933, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, Public Law 73-10.

Since the “New Deal” Social Security Act (1933), and the Securities and Exchange Act (1934), systems of Social Security, Social Welfare, Birth Certificate registration, and central bank monitors, have been introduced throughout all Chapter 11 bankrupt nations.

Known as the “New Deal” in the United States, and Social Welfare in Commonwealth nations, the “deal” gave public “benefits”, “privileges”, and debt”, to the people, in exchange for their private “rights”, “freedoms”, and their lifelong “credit” (labour and property).

When a baby is born, the hospital sends the original of the “record of live birth” (not a copy) to the government, which creates a Birth Certificate Bond by claiming the legal title of the baby’s Estate, later appearing as a legal fiction name, i.e. JOHN DOE. This bond is registered as a Security, which the Treasury uses as Surety for new Treasury securities such as Treasury Bonds, Notes and Bills.

As was planned, men and women provide their “commercial value” to the financial masters of the state via the artificial “legal person”created on the Birth Certificate.

The public “registration” of the Given name with the family name creates an artificial “legal personality” administered by the State, so anyone who is unaware of this mirroring device will unwittingly “act” as a “legal person” transferring their “commercial value” to the State. This “transmitting utility” is called a “straw man.”

281352_202901386427482_100001228669690_595062_8160989_n

Straw man.A “front”; a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property, or to accomplish some purpose otherwise not allowed.’ [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p 1421]

The word person is a derivative of persona, which is a theatrical “mask” worn by actors in Greek drama. “Persons” are “actors” often “performing” roles in “costumes” (uniforms) who enact “language” (legalese) to deliver “presentations” (bills), and sometimes they “appear” in a court (theatre).

Any living man or woman who “acts” in the “role” of a “legal person” is an “accommodation party” in “joinder” with the fictional “legal person”. This “joinder” creates an “indivisible duo” (individual), and by this artifice the living jurisdiction (de jure lawful) is surrendered and replaced by the statutory jurisdiction (de facto legal).

A “legal personis a fictional creation of the State, and therefore it is controlled by the State.The “legal person” is the government’s property, employee, debtor and servant, bound to comply with the government’s statutes (acts, bills, rules and regulations), which are the “terms and conditions” of its “status”.

Fictional creatures of the State have “status”, whereas living men and women with flesh and blood arms and legs have “standing”. The “artificial person” has no “standing”.

Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this is that no government, as well as any [government] law, agency, aspect, court, etc. can concern itself with anything other than corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.”[PENHALLOW v. DOANE’S ADMINISTRATORS ]

There is a false presumption that you give up your Right of Consent when a government is elected, which is not logical, because that would allow a government to erode all your rights during its elected term, as a dictatorship.

When we vote at elections, we simply decide which political party will form the Executive, giving that party a conditional mandate to govern subject to our consent for their policies enacted in statutes. Voting in an election does not contractually surrender our inherent right to self-determination until the next election.

Since the government is a creation of the people, it cannot possibly have jurisdiction over its creators, unless by consent. Each and every statute enacted by government legislation requires consent from each and every man and woman, including you!

However, consent is given in many ways, often without fully realising it. The definition of the word “consent” includes to “yield” and to “give way to”. The moment you agree to anything you are asked to do, you are giving your consent. If you get a parking ticket it is an invitation to pay, and if you pay it you are consenting to the ticket contract. Even the Police need your consent before they can arrest you, because before they can arrest you they must read you your rights and then ask “do you understand” (stand under their authority), and if you say “yes” – you are consenting in law.

164709_171111316267431_100001056916300_375242_5131866_n

Maxim in Law: Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.

The statutes, which are not “laws” but contract instruments originally meant to provide common governance to living people by consent, have been corrupted to extract “commercial value” from the people via the legal “persons”. It is PRESUMED, by acquiescence, that you consent to the “person’s” (state’s) debts, unless you say: “It isn’t me.”

Statutory “Law”, or Admiralty Maritime Commercial (Law of the Sea), contains the codes, rules, and regulations of a nation’s legal commerce. The international codification is the U.C.C. (Uniform Commercial Code), without which reliable international trade would not be possible through contracts. The doctrines of the Common Law have been adopted as the essentials of Contract Law. This provides people with lawful protection from exploitation, since legislation, bank “loans”, and all commerce depends on consented contracts.

Common Law (Law of the Land), in New Zealand, is acknowledged in the Imperial Laws Applications Act, 1988. The Common Law contains the precepts of “right and wrong” and “justice”, and holds that a man or a woman should live honourably, hurt nobody, deceive nobody, and render to everyone his or her due. Such laws are Common Sense for living people, who are also subject to higher Natural Laws.

The proper venue of “justice” for a lawful man or woman is a Constitutionally sanctioned, common-law-venue-court. However, the Judiciary comprises a “Commercial List” of judges who primarily adjudicate commercial statutory courts, which are “administrative courts” and UNLAWFUL. Any court without a jury present is an “administrative court”.

‘The law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is no authority for administrative courts in this country, and no Act can be passed to legitimise them.’Halsbury’s Law 2011

Requests by a man or a woman to a judge to convene a Common Law court de jure are routinely denied, breaching the judge’s Oath of Office to uphold the Common Law, which is contempt of court.

A society of “justice” can only be protected when its members retain the knowledge of their “standing” and exercise their lawful Right to Contract. Without consent, there can be no contract, and no jurisdiction. No Contract = No Jurisdiction.

If the people forsake their sovereign Rights, their Nation will be captured, until corruption defiles all the agencies of their government. Deceit for the want of power is a dangerous game, and the masters of “the system” have been careful to provide incentives in the form of “social insurance” and other “benefits” and so-called “privileges”. But the state cannot grant any privilege that a living man or woman does not already have as a Right.

To awaken to your “standing” as a living man or woman is a strange experience, for we are conditioned from an early age to be fearful and compliant, and to trust the “powers that be”. We are daily bombarded with dis-information, entertainments, distractions and trivialities, in a debt-based system that subjects us to scarcity, dependence and control.

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

At first, the deception of “the name” is difficult to accept. However, the documents produced after a baby is born will often reveal that a legal fiction twin was created at a later date.

In New Zealand, your “Notification of Birth for Registration” is your affidavit of Life. This document, which is seldom obtained, established a “public trust” by “operation of law” in which you are the “beneficiary” while all the public officers of the state are your “trustees” with a “fiduciary duty” to serve the trust. This document forms the prima facie evidence for the creation of the Birth Certificate and the legal “person”, through which your living “Estate” is pledged against IMF obligations.

Importantly, you are the “holder in due course” of your “Estate”, and since claims on the living man or woman depend entirely on false assumptions and presumptions, you can rebut any claim and regain your living rights, because plainly you are not a dead legal fiction “person”. Under the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666, IV ‘If the supposed dead MAN proves to be alive, then the title is revested.’

You were born “entitled”. You are the owner of your “Estate” and therefore the legal “person” is your rightful property, with all rights and entitlements owned by YOU, as a Grantor, not a Debtor, to the state.

Disassociating your living self from the dead legal “person” is an adventure in self discovery. The rules of the game are written in a language called “legalese”, and the name of the game, invented in the 1930s, is Monopoly. In this game of commerce you are expected to be a Merchant at Law who is an expert in paper instruments.

3506466721_9b9da19741

Maxim in Law: He who fails to assert his rights has none.

Dealing with the legal “person” “actors” who habitually “presume” that you are consenting to “act” as a legal “person” under their jurisdiction, requires knowledge, patience, backbone, self-possession – literally, and a measure of empathy toward those who falsely believe in their illusory paper world of bondage.

Any state process requiring a signature is a contract by consent, as is simply answering to the spoken “fictional name”.

Legal “person” “actors” who make presentments are ALWAYS looking for a legal “person”. They NEED you in “joinder” because they have no claim against a man or a woman.

When a legal “person” “actor”, or their agency, sends a presentment in the post, it is always addressed to a legal “person”, indicated by the use of all-capital-letters, JOHN DOE, or by the use of a fictional prefix, Mr John Doe. Presentments are offers of contract seeking your “commercial value. They are not addressed to you. However, if you ignore a presentment, you are by inaction giving your “tacit consent by acquiescence”, so it is essential to “rebut the presumption” by writing a letter to the sender in their “private capacity”, or simply by writing ‘No Contract, Return to Sender’ on the envelope.

Just ask them to use your proper English lawful name, John: Doe, and see what happens. Their accounting software seems unable to use proper grammatical, lawful names.

Answering the phone becomes an exercise in caution, because if you answer to the spoken legal “person” name, you are instantly in “joinder”, and having taken the bait you are caught in a legal net. Instead, it is common sense to establish who is calling, and if they are seeking a “publicly registered legal personality created by the state”, at which point you can point out that “there is no one here who is acting in that role.”

In documents, your signature IS your consent to “act” in “joinder” with the fictional legal “person” under statutory jurisdiction, giving up your sovereign living rights to obtain whatever “benefit” or “privilege” is on offer.

Any government/corporate document to which you commit your valuable signature is a contract by consent. You cannot be forced to sign anything without your willing consent, because that would be extortion. If you are told that you must sign a document, that is a lie, and attempted extortion in law.

Your hand-written signature is your contract pledge, your sovereign power, your commercial energy (money), and a record of your Life.

When you sign a contract, you can protect yourself by adding “All Rights Reserved” below your name, as an “unambiguous declaration” of your Life. This creates an “autograph” as opposed to the “sign” of a fictional character by an “actor”. Contracts can only be made between like entities, “human with human”, or “person with person”, and are otherwise void.

States/corporations are legal fictions with no jurisdiction over living men and women.

We are all born equal in the eyes of the law, with inalienable Responsibilities, Rights, and Credit. Governments are instituted by the people and all public officers serve as “public servants” responsible and accountable to the people. Sovereignty resides in the People, whose power is the source of Law.

If the people’s authority, partly delegated to their government, is turned against the people, the “public trust” is betrayed. Sadly, centuries of monetary, legal and political manipulation have deeply subverted our government, establishing a global power elite who rule at the expense of the majority, transferring wealth upward via interest-bearing-debt, and mindlessly destroying people and the natural world.

Nevertheless, the foundation of our government is the “public trust”, which still endows the People with the Sovereign power of the Nation.

The beginning of freedom is the realization that your “public trust” is there to serve your Life, not take it. The power of your Life is found in your knowledge and your non-fictional actions. Freedom is not given, but earned, and it is held by attention to your living Rights. You are free the moment you feel equality and freedom in your heart.

On this journey, it wise to go peacefully with honour, for honour is the foundation of the common law, and that is where you “stand”. Fictions of the state have “status”, while living men and woman with real arms and legs have “standing”.

This article is not legal advice to any man or woman, because we are each Responsible for our own knowledge and actions, and should be.

Ultimately, freedom lives in your heart and is not reliant on written words. All that is written is spelling. “Legalese” is a belief system, and the legal fiction “person” is a prison of the mind.

3507274816_9f1c15f42b

Maxim in Law: Legality is not reality.

Living people have many powers: the powers of Life, Sovereignty, Reason, Decision, Consent, Contract, Attorney, Credit, and many other powers, including the powers of Compassion, Love, and Learning.

But none of these powers exist unless you know who you are.

Many people complain about the corrupt “system”, and yet all who “act” as “persons” literally have no Right in law, no power of Life. Having forsaken their Life, they enable corruption.

The world we create is the one to which we give our consent.

WFS-BANNER-NEW

The next Important Document is a must read for all

MAGNA CARTA LIBERTATUM

Magna Carta Libertatum 1215

(Great Charter of Liberties)

John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciars, foresters,sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and faithful subjects, greeting.

Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honour of God and the advancement of the holy Church, and for the reform of our realm, by advice of our venerable fathers, Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England and cardinal of the holy Roman church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William of London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh of Lincoln, Walter of Worcester, William of Coventry, Benedict of Rochester, bishops; of master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of our lord the Pope, of brother Aymeric (master of the Knights of the Temple in England), and of the illustrious men William Marshall earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warenne, William earl of Arundel, Alan of Galloway (constable of Scotland), Waren Fitz Gerald, Peter Fits Herbert, Hubert de Burgh (seneschal of Poitou), Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip d’Aubigny, Robert of Roppesley, John Marshall, John Fitz Hugh, and of other faithful subjects. [ Latin ]

  1. In the first place we have conceded to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs for ever that the English church shall be ree, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we wish that it be thus observed. This is apparent from the fact that we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English church, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III., before the quarrel arose between us and our barons. This freedom we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs for ever.
    We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs for ever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs for ever: [ Latin ]
  2. If any of our earls or barons, or others holding of us in chief by military service shall have died, and at the time of his death his heir shall be of full age and owe relief he shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient relief, namely the heir or heirs of an earl, 100 pounds for a whole earl’s barony; the heir or heirs of a baron, 100 pounds for a whole barony; the heir or heirs of a knight, 100 shillings at most for a whole knight’s fee; and whoever owes less let him give less, according to the ancient custom of fiefs. [ Latin ]
  3. If, however, the heir of any of the aforesaid has been under age and in wardship, let him have his inheritance without relief and without fine when he comes of age. [ Latin ]
  4. The guardian of the land of an heir who is thus under age, shall take from the land of the heir nothing but reasonable produce, reasonable customs, and reasonable services, and that without destruction or waste of men or goods; and if we have committed the wardship of the lands of any such minor to the sheriff, or to any other who is responsible to us for its issues, and he has made destruction or waste of what he holds in wardship, we will take of him amends, and the land shall be committed to two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who shall be responsible for the issues to us or to him to whom we shall assign them; and if we have given or sold the wardship of any such land to anyone and he has therein made destruction or waste, he shall lose that wardship, and it shall be transferred to two lawful and discreet men of that fief, who shall be responsible to us in like manner as aforesaid. [Latin ]
  5. The guardian moreover, so long as he has the wardship of the land, shall maintain the houses, parks, fish ponds, stanks, mills, and other things pertaining to the land, out of the revenues of that land; and he shall restore to the heir, when he has come to full age, all his land, stocked with ploughs and waynage, according as the season of husbandry requires, and the revenues from the land can reasonably support. [ Latin ]
  6. Heirs shall be married without disparagement. However, before a marriage takes place, it shall be made known to the heir’s next-of-kin. [ Latin ]
  7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage portion and inheritance. She shall not give anything for her dower, or for her marriage portion, or for the inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of the death of that husband. She may remain in the house of her husband for forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall be assigned to her. [ Latin ]
  8. No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she prefers to remain without a husband, always provided that she gives assurance not to marry without our consent, if she holds her lands from us, or else without the consent of whatever other lord she from whom she holds her lands. [ Latin ]
  9. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall seize for any debt any land or rent, so long as the chattelsof the debtor are sufficient to repay the debt. Nor shall those that pledged sureties for the debtor be distrained so long as the principal debtor himself is able to satisfy the debt. If the principal debtor fails to pay the debt, having nothing wherewith to pay it, then the suretiesshall answer for the debt.They shall have the lands and rents of the debtor, if they desire them, until they are reimbursed for the debt which they have paid for him, unless the principal debtor can show proof that he has discharged his obligations to them. [ Latin ]
  10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, dies before that loan can be repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective from whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into our hands, we will take nothing except the principal sum mentioned in the bond. [ Latin ]
  11. And if any one die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left underage, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased. The debt shall be paid out of the residue , save the service due to feudal lords. Let debts due to others than Jews be dealt with in similar manner. [ Latin ]
  12. No scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and marrying our eldest daughter one time. For these, only a reasonable aid should be levied. In like manner it shall be done concerning aids from the city of London. [ Latin ]
  13. And the city of London shall have all its ancient liberties and free customs, by land as well as by water. Furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs. [ Latin ]
  14. And for obtaining the common consent of the kingdom concerning the assessment of an aid (other than in the three cases specified above) or of a scutage, we will cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons, individually through our letters. Moreover, all others who are our direct tenants, we will cause a general summons to be made by our sheriffs and bailiffs, for a fixed date (namely, after the expiry of at least forty days) and at a fixed place. In all such letters of summons we will specify the reason of the summons. And when the summons has thus been made, the business shall proceed on the day appointed, according to the counsel of such as are present, although not all who were summoned have come. [ Latin ]
  15. In future, we not grant to anyone license to take an aid from his own free men, unless to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and once to marry his eldest daughter. And on each of these occasions, only a reasonable aid shall be levied. [ Latin ]
  16. No man shall be compelled to do more service for a knight’s fee, or for any other land free-holding, than is due from it. [ Latin ]
  17. Common pleas shall not follow our court about, but shall be held in some fixed place. [Latin ]
  18. Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d’ancestor, and darrein presentiment shall only be held in their own county courts, in the following manner. We or, should we be out of the kingdom, our chief justice will send two justices to each county four times a year who, along with four knights of each county chosen by that county, shall hold the assize in the county, and on the day and in the meeting place of the county court. [ Latin ]
  19. If any of the said assizes cannot be held on the day of the county court, let there remain as many of the knights and freeholders, who were present at the county court on that day, as are necessary for the efficient making of judgments, according to whether the business is more or less. [ Latin ]
  20. A freeman shall only be amerced for a trivial offence in accordance with the seriousness of the offence. For a grave offence, he shall be fined correspondingly, leaving him hiscontenement. A merchant will be fined similarly, leaving him his “merchandise”; and avillein shall be amerced in the same way, leaving him his wainage—if they have fallen into our mercy. These amercements shall only be imposed by the assessment on oath of reputable local men. [ Latin ]
  21. Earls and barons shall be amerced only by their peers, and only in proportion with the degree of the offence. [ Latin ]
  22. A clerk in holy orders shall not be amerced in respect of his lay holding except as peviously described; further, his ecclesiastical benefice shall not be taken into account. [Latin ]
  23. No vill or person shall be compelled to make bridges at river-banks, except those who from of old were legally bound to do so. [ Latin ]
  24. No sheriff, constable, coroner, or other royal bailiff, shall hold lawsuits meant be held by the royal justices. [ Latin ]
  25. All counties, hundreds ,wapentakes, and trithings shall remain at old rents, and without any increase, except our demesne manors. [ Latin ]
  26. If any one holding a lay fief from the Crown dies, and our sheriff or bailiff produces royalletters patent of summons for a debt owed to the Crown, it shall be lawful for our sheriff or bailiff to seize and catalogue chattels found in the lay fief of the deceased, to the value of that debt, as assessed by law-worthy men. Nothing at all shall be removed from there until the debt is fully paid. The residue shall be left to the executors to fulfil the will of the deceased. If there is no debt due to the Crown, all the chattels shall go to the estate of the deceased, except reasonable shares for his wife and children. [ Latin ]
  27. If any freeman dies intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by his nearest kinsfolk and his friends, under supervision of the church, except that the rights of his debtors shall be maintained. [ Latin ]
  28. No constable or other royal bailiff shall take corn or other provisions from any man without an immediate cash payment, unless the seller permits postponement of this. [ Latin]
  29. No constable shall compel any knight to give money instead of castle-guard, if the knight is willing to undertake the guard himself, or to supply another responsible man to do it, if he cannot do it himself for any reasonable cause. Further, a knight taken or sent on military service shall be excused castle-guard in proportion to the time he was on this service. [Latin ]
  30. No sheriff or royal bailiff, or other person, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport duty, except with agreement from the said freeman. [ Latin ]
  31. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take, for our castles or for any other of our works, wood which is not ours, except with agreement from the owner of that timber. [ Latin ]
  32. We will not hold the lands of those who have been convicted of felony beyond one year and one day. Then, the lands shall be returned to the lords of those fiefs. [ Latin ]
  33. Henceforth, all kiddles shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway and throughout all England, except along the sea coast. [ Latin ]
  34. The writ called praecipe, in the future, shall not be issued to any one regarding any tenement whereby a freeman might lose the right of trial in his own lord’s court. [ Latin ]
  35. There shall be one measure of wine, of ale and of corn (namely, “the London quarter”) throughout our whole realm. There shall also be one width of cloth (whether dyed, russet, or halberget): that is, two ells within the selvages. Let weights also be standardised similarly. [ Latin ]
  36. Nothing shall be paid or taken in future for a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. Instead, it shall be given free of charge, and not denied. [ Latin ]
  37. If a man holds Crown land by fee-farm, by socage, or by burgage, and also holds land of another lord for knight’s service, we will not have (by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage) the wardship of his heir or of such land he holds of the other lord’s fief . Nor shall we have wardship of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage, unless the fee-farm owes knight’s service. We will not have the wardship of a man’s heir, nor of land that the man holds through knight’s service to someone else, because of any small serjeanty that he may hold from the Crown for the service of providing to us knives, arrows, or the like. [ Latin ]
  38. In future, no bailiff shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported words, without credible witnesses being produced to support his word. [ Latin ]
  39. No freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any other way harmed. Nor will we [the king] proceed against him, or send others to do so, except according to the lawful sentence of his peers and according to the Common Law. [Latin ]
  40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice. [ Latin ]
  41. All merchants may leave or enter England in safety and security. They may stay and travel throughout England by road or by water, free from all illegal tolls, in order to buy and sell according to the ancient and rightful customs. This is except, in time of war, those merchants who are from the land at war with us. And if such merchants are found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be detained, without injury to their bodies or goods, until information is received by us (or by our chief justiciar) about in what way are treated our merchants, thence found in the land at war with us . If our men are safe there, the others shall be safe in our land. [ Latin ]
  42. It shall be lawful in future for any one, keeping loyalty to the Crown, to leave our kingdom and to return safely and securely, by land and by water. This is except in time of war, when men may go, only in the public interest, for some short period. (This excludes, always, those imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the realm, natives of any country at war with us, and merchants, who shall be treated as previously stated). [Latin ]
  43. If any one holding of some escheat (such as the honour of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other escheats which are in our hands and are baronies) dies, his heir shall give only the relief and service to us that he would have done to the baron, if that barony had been in the baron’s hands. We shall hold the escheat in the same manner in which the baron held it. [ Latin ]
  44. Men who dwell outside the forest henceforth need not come before our justiciars of the forest following a general summons, unless they are named in a plea or are sureties for any person or persons arrested for forest offences. [ Latin ]
  45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only those who know the law of the realm and who wish to observe it well. [ Latin ]
  46. All barons who have founded abbeys, for which they hold charters from the kings of England, or for which they have long-standing possession, shall have the custody of them when vacant, as they should have. [ Latin ]
  47. All forests that have been created in our reign shall forthwith be disafforested, and similar course shall be followed for river-banks that we have made preserves during our reign. [Latin ]
  48. All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their officers, river-banks and their wardens, shall immediately be investigated in each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county, chosen by the honest men of the county. The evil customs shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be completely and irrevocably abolished. This is provided always that we first informed, or our justiciar, if we should not be in England. [ Latin ]
  49. We will immediately restore all hostages and charters, which were delivered to us by Englishmen as security for peace or for faithful service. [ Latin ]
  50. We will entirely remove from their bailiwicks the kinsmen of Gerard de Athée, so that in future they shall have no office in England. The people concerned are Engelard de Cigogné, Peter, Guy, and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de Cigogné, Geoffrey de Martigny and his brothers, Philip Mark, his brothers and his nephew Geoffrey, and all their brood. [Latin ]
  51. As soon as peace is restored, we will banish from the kingdom all foreign-born knights, cross-bowmen, their attendants, and mercenaries who have come with horses and arms, to the kingdom’s detriment. [ Latin ]
  52. If, without the lawful judgement of his peers, a man has been dispossessed of his lands, castles, franchises or his rights, or had them removed by us, we will at once restore these to him. If a dispute arises over this, the dispute shall be decided by the judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace. Moreover, in all cases where possessions have been disseised or removed from anyone without the lawful judgement of his peers, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and which are retained by us (or which are held by others under our warranty), we will have the usual respite period allowed to crusaders, unless a lawsuit has been started or we had ordered an enquiry before we took the cross [as a Crusader]. However, as soon as we return from our expedition, or if by chance we abandon it, we shall immediately grant full justice. [Latin ]
  53. We shall have the same respite (and the same manner in rendering justice) concerning the disafforestation or retention of those forests which Henry our father and Richard our brother afforested, and concerning guardianship of lands under the fief of another (that is, the guardianships we had up to now because of a knight’s fee someone else held from us), and with abbeys founded in fiefs other than our own, in which the lord of the fief claims to have a right. When we return from our expedition, or if we abandon it, we will at once grant full justice to complaints about these things. [ Latin ]
  54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman, for the death of anyone except her husband. [ Latin ]
  55. All fines rendered to us unjustly and against the law of the land, and all amercements made unjustly and against the law of the land, shall be entirely remitted or else the matter settled by the decision of an majority of the five-and-twenty barons (or all of them) mentionedbelow in the clause for securing the peace. This decision shall be made together with Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he may wish to bring with him. If the archbishop cannot be present, business shall nevertheless proceed without him. This is provided always that, if any one or more of the twenty-five barons are involved in a similar action, they are removed for this particular judgement and are replaced by others. The replacements will be sworn in as a substitute only for this business, after being selected by the rest of the twenty-five. [ Latin ]
  56. If we have disseised or removed Welshmen from lands or liberties, or other things, without the lawful judgement of their peers (in England or in Wales), these shall be immediately restored to them. If a dispute arises over this, it shall be determined in the Marches by the judgement of their peers. English law shall apply to land holdings in England, Welsh law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. Welshmen shall the same to us and ours. [ Latin ]
  57. Further, where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgement of his peers (in England or in Wales), by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and which is retained by us (or which is held by others under our warranty), we will have the usual respite period allowed to crusaders, unless a lawsuit has been started or we had ordered an enquiry before we took the cross [as a Crusader]. However, as soon as we return from our expedition, or if by chance we abandon it, we shall immediately grant full justice according to the laws of Wales and the said regions. [Latin ]
  58. We will immediately return the son of Llywelyn and all the hostages of Wales, and the charters handed over to us as security for peace. [ Latin ]
  59. We will return of the sisters and hostages of Alexander, king of Scotland, his liberties and his rights, in the same manner as we shall do towards our other barons of England, unless it ought to be otherwise according to the charters that we hold from his father William, formerly king of Scotland. This matter shall be determined by the judgement of his peers in our court. [ Latin ]
  60. Moreover, all these previously described customs and liberties which we have granted shall be maintained in our kingdom as far as it concerns our own relations toward our men. Let these customs and liberties be observed similarly by all of our kingdom, by clergy as well as by laymen, in their relations towards their men. [ Latin ]
  61. Since for God, for the improvement of our kingdom, and to better allay the discord arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, and wishing that the concessions be enjoyed in their entirety with firm endurance (for ever), we give and grant to the barons the following security:
    Namely, that the barons choose any twenty-five barons of the kingdom they wish, who must with all their might observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter. Then, if we, our chief justiciar, our bailiffs or any of our officials, offend in any respect against any man, or break any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is notified to four of the said twenty-five barons, the four shall come to us—or to our chief justicicar if we are absent from the kingdom—to declare the transgression and petition that we make amends without delay.
    And if we, or in our absence abroad the chief justice, have not corrected the transgression within forty days, reckoned from the day on which the offence was declared to us (or to the chief justice if we are out of the realm), the four barons mentioned before shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons. Together with the community of the whole land, they shall then distrain and distress us in every way possible, namely by seizing castles, lands, possessions and in any other they can (saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children), until redress has been obtain in their opinion. And when amends have been made, they shall obey us as before.
    Whoever in the country wants to, may take an oath to obey the orders of the twenty-five barons for the execution of all the previously mentioned matters and, with the barons, to distress us to the utmost of his power. We publicly and freely give permission to every one who wishes to take this oath, and we shall never forbid any one from taking it. Indeed, all those in the land who are unwilling to this oath, we shall by our command compel them to swear to it.
    If any one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is in any other manner incapacitated so the previously mentioned provisions cannot be undertaken, the remaining barons of the twenty-five shall choose another in his place as they think fit, who shall be duly sworn in like the rest.
    If there is any disagreement amongst the twenty-five barons on any matter presented to them, or if some of them are unwilling or unable to be present, what the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if all twenty-five had consented in this.
    The said twenty-five barons shall swear to faithfully observe all the aforesaid articles and will do all they can to ensure that the articles are observed by others.
    And we shall procure nothing from any one, either personally or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never make use of it ourselves or through someone else. [ Latin ]
  62. And all the ill-will, hatreds, and bitterness that have arisen between us and our people, clergy and laity, from the date of the quarrel, we have completely forgiven and pardoned to everyone. Moreover, we have fully forgiven and, as far as it concerns us, pardoned all transgressions occasioned by the said quarrel, between Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign [1215] and the restoration of peace, to all, both clergy and laymen, and completely forgiven, as far as this applies to us.
    Additionally, we have had letters patent drawn up for the barons, over the seals of lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, of the bishops mentioned before, and of Master Pandulf. The letters patent concern this security and the concessions previously stated. [ Latin ]
  63. Thus, we wish and we firmly ordain that the English church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these previously determined liberties, rights, and concessions, well and in peace, freely and quietly, in their fullness and integrity, for themselves and their heirs, from us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever, as is previously described here.
    An oath has been sworn, on the one hand by us and on the other by the barons, that all the aforesaid provisions shall be observed in good faith and without evil intent. Given under our hand—the above-named and many others being witnesses—in the meadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign. [That is 1215—the new regnal year began on 28 May.] [Latin ]

LEGALESE

http://www.yourstrawman.com/VeronicaChapman.pdf
Chapter 3: Legalese
I’m going to discuss the English version of Legalese. Every nation on the planet will have its own version. (For reasons which, I hope, will become obvious). The same discussion and comments will apply. Because there is no other way.
Legalese is the language of Statutes. It is assumed that Statutes are ‘the Law’. They are not, as you will see if you keep reading. Statutes are discussed within their own Chapter.
For now, I simply want to confine the discussion to Legalese itself. To show that it is an illusion. Another arm of the Grand Deception.
There is an old Roman Law maxim that states: "Let he who will be deceived, be deceived".
That is so, so true.
What, exactly, is Legalese? Well, first of all it is a language. It looks like English (in the British Isles), but it is no more ‘English’ than is any Foreign Language. French, for example. Or German. Or Croatian.
It is written by those who draw up Bills for Parliament (and Congress). It is assessed by Committees. It is voted on by Members of Parliament (or Congress). If agreed it becomes an Act of Parliament (or Congress). It becomes so-called ‘law’ when it receives the Royal (or Presidential) Assent.
At that point it becomes a Statute. A Statute written in Legalese. A Statute written in a Foreign Language.
Now, you may be forgiven for asking: "How can I be expected to obey a rule written in a Foreign Language? How can I even be expected to understand what I am supposed to obey as an upright, law-abiding, citizen?"
I, personally, would forgive you for asking that. Those who won’t, are Members of your Government, the Judiciary – in terms of Judges, Clerks, Solicitors, Lawyers, Barristers, and Policemen. And the vast majority of your fellow Countrymen, quite probably including your own family & friends. And also including the Media.
But I would forgive you, because you would be exactly right. And so, I think, would any other sane, rational, honest, honourable and decent Human Being. Really anyone still capable of using even just a grain of Common Sense.
Apart from being a Foreign Language (I’ll explain why), it also comprises a number of fictions. As we all know ‘fiction’ is not the truth. ‘Fiction’ is not the reality (I’ll explain this, as well)
Legalese is a Foreign Language because it re-defines or expands the meanings of certain words. English words. It does this for its own convenience (not yours, that’s for sure!). One good example (I’ll give you a better example in a minute) is the word ‘understand’. Legalese expands this to mean ‘stand under’ – specifically (as we will see): "Stand under, i.e. consent to, Legalese". So what does this mean? It means that if a Policeman, or anyone in a Court, asks you: "Do you understand?", and you say: "Yes", then you are agreeing to consent to the application of Statutes drafted in a Foreign Language. (Legalese is nothing if not thoroughly incestuous!).
Here’s the real dooley: In Legalese the word ‘person’ is re-defined by expansion. The word ‘person’ still means what you and I would expect it to mean viz: a Human Being; But in Legalese it is expanded to mean: ‘… any grouping of people, any Partnership, any Company/Corporation’.
(I think those who drafted this standard for their own convenience, were assuming that they could move a word defining a singular, into a plural … taking their cue from the fact that some English words are like that. ‘Sheep’ and ‘fish’ are obvious examples. However, I’m only guessing, and why they thought they could get away with it doesn’t matter anyway).
The idea was, of course, to give Corporations, Companies & Societies the same or similar ‘rights & duties’ as a Human Being. An utterly stupid idea, as I hope you will appreciate, by the time you have read and fully-comprehended this book.
So, let’s use some Common Sense to look into the sanity of expanding the definition of the word ‘person’.
A Human Being has a head within which there is a brain, within which there is – what we would call – a Mind. And a Human Being is ‘aware’, is conscious, and has a soul. A Human Being also has eyes, and ears, and limbs. And so on.
A group of people, taken as a group, has none of these things. The individuals that form the group do (of course), but not the group – of itself i.e. when taken as a ‘legal entity’ in it’s own right. It does not matter how much Legalese would like to grow arms & legs on a group, it cannot happen.
It is physically impossible.
A simple example is ‘deciding to do something’. A Human Being can work out what to do (using the brain), and do it, using its limbs. A Corporation has to firstly, go through the motions of making a collective decision, and then get/persuade/task a Human Being (e.g. an Authorised Company Representative) to actually do whatever has been decided.
More specifically, signing a document. A Human Being has limbs with which to grasp a pen, and a brain to control the necessary hand movements, in order to make his or her unique ‘mark’. A Company has to fall back on tasking a representative to make a ‘mark’ … on behalf of the Company.
When it comes to liability for actions taken, a Human Being can be fairly and squarely placed in the frame. In the case of a Company, buck-passing is the order of the day. Don’t expect any Human Being, who is a part of any Company, to own up to anything!
Consequently, by no stretch, would any sane individual consider a single Human Being to be equivalent to a Group.
And that’s where Legalese starts. It starts with insanity and irrationality … and then steadily gets worse. It layers fiction (calling a Company as ‘person’) upon fiction. It creates what is known as a Legal Fiction Person from each and every Human Being. It does this in order to be able to fictionally equate a Human Being to a ‘single-individual-partnership-or-CORPORATION’ for ‘legal purposes’.
This is done so that any adjudication in a Court de facto (what that means is explained later) is One CORPORATION .vs. Another CORPORATION. Very simply because it is perfectly obvious that no adjudication is possible between the reality of a Human being and the fiction of a CORPORATION.
How can anyone ever adjudicate between a reality & and an illusion? The reality, the Truth, would always win against the fiction, the Untruth, hands down!
A Chapter in this book is devoted to Legal Fiction Persons.
It is also interesting to note that there is an excellent video available, called The Corporation. This video not only explains how and why CORPORATIONs all came about, but goes further to compare the actions of any CORPORATION to that of the real Human Being it purports to impersonate.
The video goes into massive detail in order to explore this concept. And, for that reason, it is highly recommended viewing. And what does it conclude? It concludes that, if a CORPORATION (any CORPORATION) were a real person, it would be a psychopath.
And, furthermore, the definitions change from time to time. That’s why Black’s Law Dictionary is now in its 8th Edition (at the time of writing).
Its 8th Edition of pure fantasy and absurdity.
You want some more? I’m reliably informed that if you look up ‘Human Being’ the 4th Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, it says: "See ‘monster’". Not so, by the time we get to the 8th Edition, of course. It’s a moving carpet.
Of course it is perfectly possible to step back and use a bit of Common Sense. The very fact that Law Dictionaries are necessary, gives the biggest hint. In English we already have dictionaries to define our language, in terms of normal parlance. The Oxford English is probably the best known, but there are many others. They do not define the word ‘person’ as a Corporation.
Because Legalese is a Foreign Language it needs its own dictionary. If it were not a Foreign Language it would not. Languages always need a dictionary. If we could always rely on Oxford English then we would, would we not? What would be the point of Oxford English otherwise?
Legalese is an illusion. A fictional world created for the benefit of mind control and enslavement. It is an English look-alike, and no more than that.
Because it ‘looks like English’, no-one complains.
But we should. We should all complain. We should all say: "This is bloody ridiculous! How dare you impose rules to be obeyed when they are written in a Foreign language? Get outta here!" As you will see later, in the Chapter discussing Promises & Contracts, the vast majority of the so-called ‘Legal Profession’ have not the slightest clue about all this. Which means that if you understand the illusion of Legalese, then you can run rings around them.
I’ve got an idea! Let’s dump Legalese on the Rubbish Tip of History, and stick to Oxford English, shall we? Then we’d all know where we stood, wouldn’t we?
I have seen many examples of letters from Solicitors, Lawyers, and so-called ‘Legal Scholars’, which are a complete mass of double-think. Under careful and critical scrutiny just about anything they write can be shown to be totally contradictory, and thoroughly irrational. The reason for this is because they live in a fictional world, and are always attempting to replace Common Sense with fiction. They achieve little other than disappearing up their own hindquarters.
The benefit to you is that you can write plain commonsense, and they will not understand! They will not understand because Common Sense does not compute in their fictional, illusory, world.
Because they do not understand they will resort to ignoring what you said, and reply to the-question-they-wanted-you-to-ask. And they will reply in their own way. (How often do Politicians do that? How about like: "Always"? It’s the same old smoke & mirrors). What this means is that they have ‘not responded in substance’ to the points you made. They could not ‘respond in substance’ because that would not compute with their illusion.
Since they have ‘not responded in substance’, they have dishonoured, and you have not. In Law: "He who dishonours, loses".
Generally speaking, when it comes down to brass tacks, we have found that – for all their huffing & puffing – they never actually go to Court. Primarily (we think) this is because – at the end of the day – they know, deep down, that your Common Sense trumps their Legalese. Hands down.
One of the biggest questions to arise is: "What’s the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘lawful’?" Well here is one big clue. ‘Legal’ refers to the illusory world of Legalese.
‘Lawful’
means truly bound by Law (long established customs & traditions), in the real, Common Sense, world. The Law established over centuries, by consent (Consensus facit legem in LatinConsent makes Law in English). There is much more about this later.
"Let he who will be deceived, be deceived". Don’t be deceived

LEGALESE

Government Manipulation of Language
Aka “WEASELRY”

A Natural Person vs Artificial Person (A Legal Fiction)

Government Manipulation of Language
Source

Government Tricks:
This is perhaps the most important page on this web-site.
First Trick:

The first “trick” of the Government is the re-definition of certain critical words in each Statute (Act). They (the Government) want you to assume the ordinary meaning of the word so as to trick you into reading and interpreting the Statute in their favour. Here is a summary of some of the Trick Words. Two key words that are re-defined in almost every Statute are the words “person” and “individual”. There are at least two “person” in law:

A natural-person is a legal entity for the human-being.

An artificial-person is a legal entity that is not a human being.

Here are the exact definitions from Barron’s Canadian Law Dictionary, fourth edition (ISBN 0-7641-0616-3):

* natural person. A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties.
* artificial person. A legal entity, not a human being, recognized as a person in law to whom certain legal rights and duties may attached – e.g. a body corporate.

You will observe that the natural-person has the “capacity” (i.e. ability) for rights and duties, but not necessarily the obligation. The artificial-person has rights and duties that may be attached (i.e. assigned) by laws.

Second Trick:

The second “trick” of the Government is to use the Interpretation Act to define words that apply to all Statutes, unless re-defined within a particular Statute. Without this knowledge, you could assume the ordinary meaning for the words you are reading, not realizing that they may have been defined by the Interpretation Act. Unless these words have been re-defined in another Statute, the underlying definitions for the two most important words still apply, either from the Interpretation Act, or the Canadian Law Dictionary. Basically, they are defined as follows:

from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
individual means a natural person,
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition:
individual means an artificial person.

from the Canadian Law Dictionary we find that:
person means an individual (natural person) or incorporated group (artificial person),
from the Interpretation Act we find the re-definition:
person means a corporation (an artificial- person),
from the Income Tax Act we find the re-definition again:
person means an artificial person (amongst other things).

In the Canadian Human Rights Act you will see how individual and person are used and how they apply to natural and artificial persons.

Third Trick:

The third “trick” of the Government is to use the word “includes” in definitions instead of using the word “means”. They do this in some critical definitions that they want you to misinterpret. If they used “means” instead of “includes” then their deception would be exposed, but by using “includes” they rely upon the reader to assume that “includes” expands the definition, whereas in reality it restricts the definition in the same manner that “means” restricts the definition.

Here is a means definition of the word “person” from the Bank Act:
person means a natural person, an entity or a personal representative;
Here is an includes definition of the word “person” from the Interpretation Act:
person, or any word or expression descriptive of a person, includes a corporation
To expose their deception, substitute the word means and you have
person , or any word or expression descriptive of a person, means a corporation (viz. – artificial-person)

Both “means” and “includes” are restrictive in scope because they only encompass part of the whole. Typically they are used in the following form:

person means A or B or C (and nothing else).
person includes A and B and C (and nothing else).

From the above example, you will see the logical difference. The list that follows means is constructed using “or”, whereas the list that follows includes is constructed using “and”.

There is a Legal Maxim that supports the restriction of “includes”:

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another.

The definition of the word include is key to understanding your potential loss of natural-person. This is the major trick used by the Government in an attempt to take away your natural-person rights. Unless you know this, you will voluntarily forfeit your rights.

Forth Trick:
The fourth “trick” of the Government is to modify how the word “includes” is used in order to make an expansion in the definition when such expansion is required. This “trick” helps add confusion to the use of “includes” convincing most readers that “includes” should always be expansive rather than limiting. Here are some legitimate ways in which “includes” is modified to become expansive rather than restrictive:

also includes
and includes
includes, without limitation,
including
including but not limited to

The expansive definitions usually take the following form:

person means A or B or C and includes D. (A,B, C and D)

However, there is also a possibility that “and includes” is restrictive in some constructions. There are some people investigating this possibility right now. Their logic is demonstrated by the following example of a definition that states:

province means a province of Canada and includes Ontario and Quebec.

So, if we presume that “and includes” does provide expansion then we must ask why Ontario and Quebec had to be specifically mentioned when they are already part of a so-called province.

The above construction clearly defines the scope of what is meant by province, that is a province of Canada (it does not say which one), and includes only Ontario and Quebec (compiled from a list of two from the original scope of all provinces). In this construction means provides the scope of the definition and includes provides the list of what is actually included in the definition.

The foregoing analysis is one interpretation, but is not the only interpretation. The use of “includes” in statutory definitions can be argued both ways and is the backbone of understanding interpretations.

With the presumption that “and includes” is restrictive, then we must take a very close look at the following definition, taken from the Interpretation Act:

province means a province of Canada and includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut .

With this presumption what is stated is: unless another statute re-defines province, the default definition of province only includes the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

So in order to not become absurd, we must allow for “and includes” to be expansive, however more work needs to be done on this subject before placing the last nail in the coffin, so to speak.

Definitions:

Barron’s Canadian Law Dictionary does not provide definitions for “include” or “means” therefore we have to look in the next Source for the definitions.

From Black’s Law Dictionary, fourth edition, here is the definition for the word “include”:

* include. To confine within, hold as in an inclosure, take in , attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Including may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used.
* inclose. To surround; to encompass; to bound; fence, or hem in, on all sides.

It is stated in the above definition that the verb include is clearly restrictive and only has limited scope. On the other hand the participle, including (but not limited to) enlarges the scope.

Therefore the conclusion is that when used in a definition, include does not expand the existing definition of the word it is attempting to define. It is easy to be confused because we naturally assume the existing definition of the word, then assume include means to add this new interpretation to the existing assumed definition of the word. Our assumptions fail us in this case.

From now on, when you see the word includes, mentally substitute the word means and you will not be “tricked” by this definition any more.

For the Doubting Thomas:

If you look into any statute, you will be able to find a definition that uses the word includes and when you attempt to broaden the scope of that word to include the ordinary meaning, you will find that the statute will break down because it will not be able to support the inclusion of the ordinary meaning of the word. The breakdown usually occurs when slavery is invoked.

“Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,”
( Preamble – Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

LANGUAGE AND DICTIONARIES

“How’s the dictionary getting on?” Winston asked his comrade Syme, who worked with him in the Research Department.

“We’re getting the language into its final shape,” Syme answered. “By the year 2050 at the very latest not a single human being will be alive who could understand the conversation we are having now.”
1984, George Orwell.

In America we speak three languages: Slang, Formal English, and Legal English, Though simular, if one tries to communicate using one language while the listener is listening using another language, there is great opportunity for miscommunication. This article is written in Legal English.

Slang:

It’s the language of the street. It is a dynamic, loosely defined language, and it can vary considerably from one geographical area to the next. It abounds with special and paradoxical interpretations. Once must “grow up” with the language to fully appreciate its peculiarities.

Foreigners always have great difficulty dealing with the various idioms. For example, if you think something is genuinely wonderful, you could say either, “That’s really cool!” or “That’s really hot!” Another way to express great approval is to exclaim, “That’s B-A-D!” or “That’s G-O-O-D!”

Formal English:

Precise communications require a more formal structure. Formal English is taught in the schools, and it is the language of choice when strangers meet to execute common transactions. It is a stable language that typically requires multi-decades or centuries to evolve its meanings.

Unless otherwise specified, English dictionaries cast all words in Formal English, with the more common usage placed at the beginning of the definition. Dictionaries often will show slang or legal meanings as well. They are placed after the more popular usages.

This author favors Webster’s 1828 Dictionary because it is useful in understanding words used in the U.S. Constitution. G. & C. Merriam Webster’s unabridged dictionary published in 1953 and earlier is great for modern meanings.

Legal English:

When you want accuracy in communication, Legal English is the preferred language. Also known as King’s English, or the Language of the Court Room, Legal English is extremely stable, requiring thousands of years for changes in meaning.

Because accuracy is required for good legal communication, legal definitions tend to be rather verbose. The extended explanations are necessary to achieve that accuracy. Legal dictionaries are not all called dictionaries. The more thorough dictionaries are entitled “Corpus Juris” and “Words and Phrases.” A given word could require fifty or more pages to arrive at its exact meaning. Other dictionaries (in descending order of this author’s preference) include Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1872 Edition), Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, and Black’s Law Dictionary (4th edition or earlier).

Later editions of Bouvier’s Law Dictionary are more like legal encyclopedias

Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th through 7th Editions are not as accurate because references to common law are progressively removed, and Roman Civil Law concepts are augmented in order to conform to the law enforcement needs of political power centers such as the Federal Government and the United Nations.

The rule of thumb is that older dictionaries are useful for understanding natural rights, common law, personal sovereignty, and t                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       nthe people’s point of view. Newer dictionaries are useful for understanding civil rights, Roman civil law, centralized authority, and the government’s point of view. All attorneys are trained in the latter. Judges may go to special seminars to learn the former.

For an excellent research paper on the use of dictionaries in the Supreme Court of the United States, see Kevin Werbach’s LOOKING IT UP: The Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries in Statutory and Constitutional Interpretation (1994).

/////

More of there Deception

The Loan Scam

Here’s how the Loans Scam works

(And why you should NEVER feel sorry for Banks and so on)

(As simplified as I can make it, based on the work of Robert-Arthur: Menard, Mary-Elizabeth: Croft and (to some extent Winston Shrout and Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst), and John R. Dempsey of Sovereign Trust. I’ve just tried to reduce it to absolute fundamentals)

1) Banks: They take deposits. These are held in trust for the depositor. They must, by law, always be prepared to return any and all deposits back to depositors on demand. That’s the LAW. They would not be able to do that if they were ever to lend out any money on deposit to anyone requesting a loan. They cannot, therefore, lend or invest anything entrusted to them. So the question is: Where do they get the money from, in order to loan it to you?

2) Loan Companies, Credit Card Companies, Building Societies: They don’t take deposit money anyway (I’m talking about the ‘older version’ of Building Societies before they became banks. I’m referring to the way they would just issue mortgages. Their ‘banking’ activities are controlled as in (1), above). So the question is: Where do they get the money from, in order to loan it to you as a mortgage?

Leave that question pending for a moment.

3) What is a cheque? Paper, printing ink, somewhere you can hand-write a Payee, and Amount (in numbers and words), a Date, and somewhere to write your signature.

4) What is a Loan Application/Agreement? Paper, printing ink, somewhere a Payee will be written (the name of the Loan Company), somewhere for an Amount (in numbers and words), a Date, and somewhere to write your signature.

Do you see any similarity between (3) & (4)?

A Loan Agreement is a cheque. (Cheques can be written on anything … even toilet paper … provided it contains the essential information so as to enable correct clearance processing)

You send off the Loan Agreement to the Loan Company … and they CASH YOUR CHEQUE! They cash it with an organisation that has the power to issue ‘money’ for that purpose (for example the Treasury, or the Bank of England, etc)

NOW THEY HAVE THE MONEY, IN CASH, TO LEND TO YOU!

Simple. Wasn’t it?

But wait! Sure, they provided the ‘service’ of converting your cheque into funds within an account you can drawn upon (write other cheques against, use a Credit Card against, etc). And they could do that because they knew how to do that. And yes, that was a service. And yes, they should be paid a fee for that service.

But wait again! What is their ‘fee’? Their ‘servicing fee’?

Oh … only THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF YOUR ORIGINAL CHEQUE, PLUS INTEREST!

That’s all they ask for .. in order to provide the original service!

How to do they ensure they collect this ‘service fee’. By giving you a Payment Book! And they make sure they cream off the INTEREST, before applying the remainder as PAYMENT. In fact they even cajole you into never-ending INTEREST by specifying aminimum payment equal to the INTEREST they want. (Knowing full well you’ll often opt for that, thereby allowing them to roll the whole thing on endlessly)

Now let’s view this another way.

If you write a cheque for £100, and send it to someone else (the Payee), and they cash it – DO YOU EXPECT THE BANK TO DEDUCT ANOTHER £100 PLUS INTEREST – FOR ITSELF – AS WELL?

No? You don’t when you write a cheque you ‘see’ as a cheque do you?

Well, then, why should they do that just because you can’t ‘see’ a Loan Agreement as the cheque it actually is?

MONEY IS CREATED WHEN YOU SIGN A PIECE OF PAPER AGREEING TO PAY.

AND THAT’S THE ONLY WAY MONEY IS -EVER- CREATED.

Your ‘promise to pay’ creates money. Yours, and everyone else’s.

So what -should- happen, then?

What should happen is that you write out a cheque – promising to pay – and send it to the Treasury yourself. They would then ‘cash’ it (in the same way they do that for a Bank), by updating an account with the amount you specified, from which you can draw funds as you need them.

That’s it. Your ‘promise to pay’ stands until the end of time. That’s all money is. A ‘promise to pay’, which stands until the end of time.

All money. "All thee bits of it".

Check out a Banknote. What does it say? "I promise to pay the Bearer on demand the sum of so-many-pounds". And signed by the Governor of the Bank of England (in the UK). A banknote is a Promissory Note – just like a cheque or Loan Agreement or any other IOU. An IOU that stands until the end of time.

What should a Bank do? It should simply accept the ‘cash’ from the Treasury, and operate the account for you.

And claim a reasonable – SMALL – fee for providing you with this convenience.

If you agree to some of your funds being invested, the bank should deduct their fees as commission, and not bother you with any other ‘charges’ at all.

THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO GET TO. To be able to convert your SIGNATURE directly, without any Bank or Loan Company intervening.

And now for something completely different

When you sent them your cheque (aka Loan Agreement) and they cashed it, they could have just walked away with your money. If they’d done that, you wouldn’t have known any difference.

They could have just written to you and said "Sorry, we didn’t approve this loan, after all"

You would have been miffed at not getting the loan but, on the other hand, slightly relieved you didn’t have the payments hanging over you, believing that the whole thing was ‘dead’.

Dead? They were ‘up’ by the amount of the loan! And you were empty-handed! And you had given them that amount!

Dead? I should cocoa!

No. They are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They want INTEREST. Never-ending INTEREST. They POSITIVELY HATE IT when you pay off a loan. Have you noticed? Try getting a loan, and then paying it back immediately. TRY IT.

No. They can lend you your own money, and then claim it back PLUS INTEREST, if they don’t just walk away.

That’s why they don’t just walk away.

Every loan taken out generates money for them. Generated by your payments back.

That’s where banks (etc.) get their money from. All they need to do is to make as sure as possible you’ve fallen for this SCAM sufficient times in the past, so as to be pretty sure you’ll fall for it again.

If you ‘default’ on payments, they had ALREADY BEEN PAID IN FULL RIGHT AT THE START. They took the risk with it. Exactly the same risk as when they invest anywhere. If prices go down, they simply lose, write off the experience, and try elsewhere. Do they send bailiffs if ‘prices go down’? Err … no.

They ‘involve’ themselves when (as explained above) they have no need to be. The risks of doing so are, therefore, entirely theirs, and consequently there is absolutely no need to feel sorry for them.

YOU, on the other hand, don’t owe ANYTHING to ANYONE.

What YOU did was to ‘make some money’ – and then spend it the way you wanted to spend it.

And why not? ‘Money was made’ by you SIGNING a cheque and thereby ‘promising to pay’. I repeat, that’s the only way ‘money is ever made’.

They were the ones who jammed their oar into that simple mechanism.

And now for something that gets really silly

Mortgages. The method for obtaining the cash amount is the same as described above. But there is more to mortgages that meet the eye. (More, over and above, straight loans).

Here a property, in the form of a dwelling, is being transferred from one owner to another (actually one keeper to another, not owner, but that’s another subject).

Now, it is illegal to mortgage a property you don’t own. The property is considered to be the security on the loan. How can you be providing ‘security’ when you don’t – at that time – actually own the thing?

And, secondly, it is illegal to transfer a property/dwelling that has not yet been paid for.

So … what does this mean? You can’t establish a loan, because you don’t have any security to offer. Therefore you can’t pay for it, because you can’t get the loan money. (Err … no. You can’t offer you current home as security, because you are probably in the process of selling it!) And, since you can’t pay for it, the Seller can’t transfer it into your name.

But … on the other hand … people can and do establish mortgages, do buy homes, and do move house.

How is this done?

Well … it happens by ‘magic’. The Bank/Building Society uses ‘magic’.

Not really paranormal ‘magic’, of course … more akin to fraud, in actual fact.

John Dempsey, of Sovereign Trust, explains in absolute detail how the Magic Bank operates.

(Sovereign Trust, btw, don’t employ any form of magic/fraud. They do it honestly, openly, candidly, and all above board)

Veronica: of the Chapman family

(January, 2009)

LIE – Legal/Lawful – TRUTH

The legal/lawful dichotomy is one of the more controversial aspects of freemanism since for many, the two words mean one in the same thing. At the beginning of the 21st century, children are still taught at school that the Statutes are the Law, and many of those who go on to practice in the legal profession will fail to consider the implied contradiction of the "law" being "unjust".

The freeman take on this issue is best summed up in the legal maxim

Aequitas nunquam contravenit legem

or

Fairness does not contravene the law.

In the freeman dictionary, the word lawful specifically applies to actions or omissions which are just and fair, where as the word legal refers specifically to actions or omissions which are in accord with the legislation, be they just and fair or otherwise.

While there is overlap between the two, to the extent that the legislation has been codified correctly in accordance with what is just, the dichotomy arises because this is not always the case. Logically and reasonably, where the two concur, the legal is unnecessary and utterly irrelevant – because the situation is covered by lawful anyway.

A good example might be given in the enforcement of legislation forcing a human being to pay for a service which the human being does not use. This example is most frequently incarnate in the enforcement of taxation, where the Taxes have neither contracted for the services so provided by, nor use the services, yet are unjustly, but legally forced to labour in order to pay for services they neither want nor use.

An obvious example of this is the use of money to fund State Schooling when, for example, a child may attend a Fee-paying school. Ignoring discussions on whether or not a parent should be able to pay independently for a child’s education, and whether or not Fee-paid Education is better/worse than State Education – the point is that the burden on the State Education is considerably reduced. And the argument is that it would be fair to reduce the State-enforced burden accordingly, in such circumstances.

There are, in point of fact, three distinct categories for the usage of the word "law". And each of these categories has three major components.

1. Laws of Nature (including Laws of Physics, Chemistry, Thermodynamics, etc), i.e. "lawful":

a) Mankind does not make them. Mankind observes them & their effects, then enumerates and evaluates them; in most cases being able to devise mathematical formulae to express them, utilise them and inter-utilise i.e. apply them. Examples: The Law of Gravity (Newton’s Laws), Boyle’s Law, Maxwell’s Laws, Charles’ Law, Ohm’s Law, etc.

b) They apply universally and unilaterally without fear or favour. No ‘Courts’ are required.

c) There is no penalty for breaking them because they cannot be broken.

2. The Common Law i.e. considered "lawful" by freemen:

a) Mankind does make them, based entirely on Common Sense. Thus they are universal and unchangeable. (What you know to be right, fair, honourable and just, is what I know to be right, fair, honourable and just. And will always be so).

b) They are applied by Courts, called Courts de jure (Courts of Justice). A serious attempt at fairness of application is by means of a Jury of 12.

c) There is always a penalty for breaking them because they can be broken if one is prepared to accept the consequences.

3. The Legislated Rules of Societies (Statutes), i.e. "legal":

a) Mankind does make them. Mankind changes them in accordance with its own desires, wishes, needs, etc. Mankind can wipe them away (repeal them) at the stroke of a pen.

b) They are applied by Courts, called Courts de facto (Courts of Arbitration or Tribunals, etc ). They are not applied equally because they always depend on ‘judgment’. It is often said "There is one law for the rich and one law for the poor".

c) There is always a penalty for breaking them because they can be broken if one is prepared to accept the consequences.

We can see that 2a is the same (to all intents and purposes) as 1a. And that 2b attempts, as far as can reasonably be expected, to emulate 1b. We can see that 2c is necessary in order to support 2a & 2b. Thus to use the same word, "law" to describe both 1 and 2 is not unrealistic.

However, from the above, we can see that 3a, 3b and 3c are the exact inverse of 1a, 1b & 1c. And yet the same word is used to describe them in common parlance! This is surely totally unrealistic, however ingrained it has become. It is similar to using the same word to describe both "fire" and "water".

As a result of this, "Legals", i.e. "Statutes", become imbued with the same characteristics as Law. In other words a Statute becomes mentally considered to be as true, solid, and ‘untouchable’ as (say) the Law of Gravity. Which, of course, is totally undeserved.

 

Societies & Statutes

“Legislation” comprises Statutes. We have got that far. So now let’s examine the definition of a Statute, which is: “The Legislated Rule of a Society”.

Which sounds fair enough. But what is a Society? The definition of a Society is “A group of like-minded people who come together to deliberate, determine, and act towards common goals”.

And, if you think about it, that’s correct. That defines ‘Societies’, in many contexts. Think about the British Medical Association. (“Association” indicates “Society” … the “soc” is in the word). Now, they have their own Rules, don’t they? Rules that Doctors, GPs, Surgeons and Nurses, etc. must obey (or be ‘struck off’!) These Rules are the Statutes of the BMA. The ‘like-minded people’ are the Health Professionals, who have joined the BMA in order to practice professionally. The Rules (Statutes) have been deliberated and determined in the past, and acted upon to publish the common goals into instructions on how Health Professionals must behave (or be ‘struck off’!)

Now, the question is: Are you a member of the BMA? If not, then the Statutes of the BMA do not apply to you, do they?

Let’s look at another example, The Law Society. This Society dictates how Legal Professionals will behave, such as to be able to practice in Courts. It has its own Rules (Statutes) which are not the same as those of the BMA. For example, Lawyers don’t take the Hippocratic Oath, as do Doctors of Medicine.

Now, the question is: Are you a member of the Law Society? If not, then the Statutes of the Law Society don’t apply to you, do they? They don’t apply to your Doctor either – he or she has their own set of Rules, defined by the BMA.

And, similarly, the Rules of the BMA don’t apply to your Solicitor.

And neither set of Statutes apply to your Postman.

And so on, which (hopefully) sets Statutes into their true context. YES – they ARE Law – TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY – but not to anyone else!

Similarly if you work for a Company (which is a Society, in fact), you will undoubtedly receive a Company Handbook, which defines how to behave during your working hours. These are the Statutes of your employer. And there’s another similarity in all of this. Many of these Statute Rules only apply during working hours. In your Social Time, many of them can be disregarded.

Now it’s important to investigate the attributes of any Society. I suggest they are:

1. A Membership (i.e. like-minded people’, to go back to the definition);
2. A distinct Name (so as to distinguish it from all other Groups);
3. A Legislative Body (who ‘deliberate, determine and act);
4. A set of Legislated Rules aka Statutes (which are published as ‘common goals’);
5. A defined method a creating the Membership (i.e. via ‘Applications to join’);
6. A defined method of Resignation.

Now the question is: Can you become the Member of a Society, without you – yourself – deciding to join it, of your own free will? Can someone else decide to join you, and then just say “You’re a Member, so you WILL obey the Statutes!”?

And, even if it is possible for someone else to join you up, what about your ability to resign? Is it possible to prevent the ability to resign?

I think you’ll find that no honourable Society would ever accept Applications to Join other than from the actual person making that Application, out of their own free will. I further think that no honourable Society would prevent Resignations.

But that’s the exact opposite of the Society in which we live, isn’t it? The Statutes decided upon by Parliament (whether you vote or not!) are enforced upon you (even though you never made an Application to Join), and oblivious to the fact that there is no Orthodox Resignation Method (except, presumably, to become a drop-out Hippie!)

This so-called ‘Society in which we live’, which doesn’t even really have a distinct Name, operates in the most DIShonourable manner possible. It decides, of its own accord, to collect you as a Member, enforces its Legislation upon you – whether you agree or not – by means of threats, coercion, extortion and intimidation, and won’t even allow you to resign! If that’s ‘honourable’ then – to quote an American friend from Louisiana – I’m a blowed-out peckerwood!

Yes, Statutes ARE Law – IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY. BUT THEY ARE NOT LAW, IF YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER. That’s where they sit, in “Law”.

Fundamentally, if course, it’s all about consent. If you decide to join a Society, then you must be consenting to its Rules. If you don’t consent, then you don’t join, do you?

So this is how we derive the shortform definition: “Statutes are Law BY THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED”. “The governed” being “those who have consented to be governed”.

But (I scream!) not Law that can be honourably enforced those who have never been consulted, or have withheld consent!

And it is a CRIMINAL ACT to apply or enforce – as “Law” – Rules … on those who have not consented to abide by them, in the first place.

This is not to suggest that we should all ignore all rules of decency, and run riot. Of course it’s not! Go back to The Common Law, and Common Sense. That caters for everything. Who wants trouble? Who wants aggravation? Who wants war? No-one … except Politicians!

I might even be prepared to sign up to a Society that was honourable. One that made sensible Rules in the form of Statutes. One that regarded my Indefeasible Human Rights as paramount. One that allowed me the free will to decide to join. One that allowed me to resign, if I found the Society intolerable at some future time. One that wasn’t utterly corrupt. I might be prepared to join that kind of Society. And obey its Legislated Rules. But that’s not the one I see today … do you?

Perhaps you can begin to understand why myself, and others, are engaged in what is called Lawful Rebellion? We simply wish to rid our ‘current Society’ of corruption, and bring it back to the Rule of Law, to the best ‘justice’ we can find, via The Common Law. But you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. This means we have the break the current stranglehold of Statutes, and fight tooth and nail to utilise The Common Law, as much as possible. Fortunately we still retain vestiges of it, and that is where we can find all of our ‘possible solutions’.


VIDEO: PSYCHOLOGIST CONCERNED ABOUT MENTAL STABILITY OF PRESIDENT: OBAMA MAY NOT BE “SANE”

by MAC SLAVO | SHTF PLAN | JUNE 8, 2014

 


As the U.S. government pushes for regular mental health screenings for American citizens to ensure we are not terrorists and that we are capable of owning firearms or raising children, perhaps we should start at the top of the hierarchy – with the President of the United States.

He is, after all, the “decision maker” for our nation and is the sole person responsible for determining if and when the “red button” needs to be pushed.

But what if such a health screening determined that the American people elected a mentally unstable individual to its highest office?

Here’s the scary version. According to psychologist Dr. Gina Loudon this may well be what has happened.

Speaking on Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dr. Loudon says that President Obama is displaying “erratic” and “irrational” behavior that may be indicative of someone who may not be “sane.”

Lou Dobbs: The President hasn’t mentioned a word about Sgt. Tahmooressi held in a Mexican prison. Your thoughts on the distinction here between the two, in at least Obama’s mind?

Dr. Loudon: You know, I will say to you, Lou, I am very, very concerned about the mental stability of this President at this point. Some of his behavior seems irrational to me. It seems beyond that of just a typical narcissistic, arrogant, sort of, ‘I’m a leader of a big country and I feel tyrannical at the moment’ kind of attitude. It really seems to me like this President is demonstrating behavior that is not only anti-American, but irrational and erratic and perhaps not exactly what we might want to deem sane.


Afghanistan, Garden of Empire: America’s Multibillion Dollar Opium Harvest

By Julien Mercille

Global Research, June 08, 2014

Antiwar.com 21 February 2013

Region: Asia

Theme: Global Economy, US NATO War Agenda

In-depth Report: AFGHANISTAN

poppy

This article was first published by Global Research  on February 25, 2013.

Untitled

Excerpted from Cruel Harvest: US Intervention in the Afghan Drug Trade(Pluto Press, 2013), by Julien Mercille.

As Obama proclaims that the US adventure in Afghanistan will draw to a close over the next couple years, we may look at the balance sheet with respect to one of the occupation’s alleged justifications: the fight against Afghan heroin. The outcome has been a total failure. In fact, whereas Afghanistan is sometimes referred to as the “graveyard of empires” because throughout history, big powers have attempted, unsuccessfully, to invade and control it, the country can already be labeled as the “garden of empire” because the US/NATO occupation has resulted in a drastic increase in drug production.

Opium production in Afghanistan skyrocketed from 185 tons to 8,200 tons between 2001 and 2007 (today it is down to 3,700 tons). Most commentary glosses over Washington’s large share of responsibility for this dramatic expansion while magnifying the Taliban’s role, which available data indicates is relatively minor. Also, identifying drugs as a main cause behind the growth of the insurgency absolves the United States and NATO of their own role in fomenting it: the very presence of foreign troops in the country as well as their destructive attacks on civilians are significant factors behind increases in popular support for, or tolerance of, the Taliban. In fact, as a recent UNODC report notes, reducing drug production would have only a “minimal impact on the insurgency’s strategic threat,” because the Taliban receive “significant funding from private donors all over the world,” a contribution that “dwarfs” drug money.

Addiction Crime and Insurgency The Transnational Threat of Afghan Opium

A UNODC report entitled Addiction, Crime and Insurgency: The Transnational Threat of Afghan Opium provides a good example of the conventional view of the Taliban’s role in drug trafficking. It claims that they draw some $125 million annually from narcotics, resulting in the “perfect storm” of drugs and terrorism heading toward Central Asia and endangering its energy resources. UNODC maintains that when they were in power in the second half of the 1990s, the Taliban earned about $75–100 million per year from drugs, but since 2005 this figure has risen to $125 million. Although this is presented as a significant increase, the Taliban play a lesser role in the opium economy than the report would have us believe as they capture only a small share of its total value. Moreover, drug money is likely a secondary source of funding for them: UNODC itself estimates that only 10 percent to 15 percent of Taliban funding is drawn from drugs and 85 percent comes from “non-opium sources” such as private donations.

The total revenue generated by opiates within Afghanistan is about $3 billion per year. According to UNODC data, the Taliban get only about 5 percent of this sum. Farmers selling their opium harvest to traffickers get 20 percent. And the remaining 75 percent? Al-Qaeda? No: the report specifies that it “does not appear to have a direct role in the Afghan opiates trade,” although it may participate in “low-level drugs and/or arms smuggling” along the Pakistani border. Instead, the remaining 75 percent is captured by traffickers, government officials, the police, and local and regional power brokers – in short, many of the groups now supported or tolerated by the United States and NATO are important actors in the drug trade.

Therefore, claims that “Taliban insurgents are earning astonishingly large profits off the opium trade” are misleading. Nevertheless, UNODC insists on the Taliban-drugs connection but pays less attention to individuals and groups supported or tolerated by Washington. The agency seems to be acting as an enabler of coalition policies in Afghanistan: when asked what percentage of total drug income in Afghanistan is captured by government officials, the UNODC official who supervised the above report quickly replied: “We don’t do that, I don’t know.”

Mainstream commentary blames the size of the narcotics industry and much of what goes wrong in Afghanistan partly on corruption. But to focus on bad apples in the Afghan government and police misses the systemic responsibility of the United States and NATO for the dramatic expansion of opiates production since 2001 and for their support of numerous corrupt individuals in power. The United States attacked Afghanistan in association with Northern Alliance warlords and drug lords and showered them with weapons, millions of dollars, and diplomatic support.

The empowerment and enrichment of those individuals enabled them to tax and protect opium traffickers, leading to the quick resumption of narcotics production after the hiatus of the 2000–2001 Taliban ban, as many observers have documented. Ahmed Rashid has written that the whole Afghan Interior Ministry “became a major protector of drug traffickers, and Karzai refused to clean it out. As warlord militias were demobilized and disarmed by the UN, commanders found new positions in the Interior Ministry and continued to provide protection to drug traffickers.” The United States was not interested in cleaning Afghanistan of drug traffickers either. Thus, to blame “corruption” and “criminals” for the current state of affairs is to ignore the direct and predictable effects of US policies, which have followed a historical pattern of toleration and protection of strongmen involved in narcotics.

In 2004, Afghan forces found an enormous cache of heroin in a truck near Kandahar, but both Wali Karzai, the president’s brother, and an aide to President Karzai called the commander of the group that had made the discovery to tell him to release the drugs and the truck. Two years later, American and Afghan counternarcotics forces seized more than 110 pounds of heroin near Kabul, which US investigators said were linked to Wali Karzai. But Wali Karzai was only the tip of the iceberg, as a former CIA officer asserted that virtually “every significant Afghan figure has had brushes with the drug trade.” In private, American officials acknowledge ties with drug-linked Afghan figures. A Wikileaks cable recounting US officials’ meetings with Wali Karzai in September 2009 and February 2010 stated that while “we must deal with AWK [Ahmed Wali Karzai] as the head of the Provincial Council, he is widely understood to be corrupt and a narcotics trafficker.” But in public, the ties are denied. As Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: “We should not condemn Ahmed Wali Karzai or damage our critical relations with his brother, President Karzai, on the basis of newspaper articles or rumors.”

peachescia

Of the annual $65 billion global market for opiates, only 5 to 10 percent ($3 to $5 billion) is estimated to be laundered by informal banking systems, while two-thirds ($40 to $45 billion) is available for laundering through the formal banking system. A recent UNODC report estimated that about $220 billion of drug money is laundered annually through the financial system. However, only about 0.2 percent of all laundered criminal money is seized and frozen, as governments have other priorities than regulating the banking industry, which benefits from this extra liquidity.

US COUNTERNARCOTICS POLICY

Until about 2005, American policy in Afghanistan was, by and large, not concerned with drugs. General Tommy Franks, who led the initial attack, declared in 2002 that US troops would stay clear of drug interdiction and that resolving narcotics problems was up to Afghans and civilians. When Donald Rumsfeld was asked in 2003 what the United States was doing about narcotics in Helmand, he replied: “You ask what we’re going to do and the answer is, I don’t really know.” A US military spokesman at Bagram base, Sergeant Major Harrison Sarles, stated: “We’re not a drug task force. That’s not part of our mission.” Moreover, the DEA had only two agents in Afghanistan in 2003 and didn’t open an office in the country until 2004.

Several reasons explain the early opposition to counternarcotics on the part of the White House and the military. First, Afghanistan was attacked to show that Washington should not be challenged, and destroying poppy crops and heroin labs contributes nothing in this respect. Therefore, there is no reason why any effort should have been directed toward that task. In late 2005, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, then commander of US forces in Afghanistan, made it clear that “drugs are bad, but his orders were that drugs were not a priority of the U.S. military in Afghanistan.” Furthermore, Washington’s most important target at that time was Iraq, whose oil resources and strategic location in the Persian Gulf region ensured that it would take priority.

Second, many of the United States’ local Afghan allies were involved in trafficking, from which they drew money and power. Destroying drug labs and poppy fields would have been, in effect, a direct blow to American operations and proxy fighters on the ground. As Western diplomats conceded at the time, “without money from drugs, our friendly warlords can’t pay their militias. It’s as simple as that.” According to James Risen, this explains why the Pentagon and the White House refused to bomb the 25 or so drug facilities that the CIA had identified on its maps in 2001. Similarly, in 2005, the Pentagon denied all but 3 of 26 DEA requests for airlifts. Barnett Rubin summarized the US attitude well when he wrote in 2004 that when “he visits Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld meets military commanders whom Afghans know as the godfathers of drug trafficking. The message has been clear: Help fight the Taliban and no one will interfere with your trafficking.” As a result, US military officials closed their eyes to the trade. An Army Green Beret said he was “specifically ordered to ignore heroin and opium when he and his unit discovered them on patrol.” A US Senate report mentioned that “congressional committees received reports that U.S. forces were refusing to disrupt drug sales and shipments and rebuffing requests from the Drug Enforcement Administration for reinforcements to go after major drug kingpins.”

Third, the Department of Defense thought that eradicating crops would upset farmers and hurt attempts at winning Afghan hearts and minds. Indeed, since 2001, the Taliban have sought to capitalize on resentment caused by eradication schemes. For example, in Helmand “they appear to have offered protection to the farmers targeted by eradication” and in Kandahar “they were even reported to have offered financial assistance to farmers whose fields were being eradicated, in exchange for support in fighting against the government.” Thus, it is far from certain that eliminating drugs would weaken the insurgency. In fact, the opposite is more likely, as it would only add to the opposition already generated by NATO operations in the country, as noted by a well-informed analyst: “As the conflict progressed, victims of abuses by both Afghan and foreign troops and of the side-effects of US reliance on air power began to represent another important source of recruits for the Taliban.”

From 2004, counternarcotics started slowly moving up the US agenda. In 2005, Washington developed its first counternarcotics strategy for Afghanistan, composed of five pillars: elimination/eradication, interdiction, justice reform, public information, and alternative livelihoods (although the pillars were not weighted equally: alternative development was relatively neglected, while eradication/elimination was the priority). The Afghan government incorporated this strategy into its own 2006 National Drug Control Strategy, which was later updated and integrated into its National Development Strategy in 2008. Around 2005, counternarcotics operations were still relatively isolated from the broader counterinsurgency strategy. Nevertheless, the Pentagon started to consider the possibility of getting involved in counterdrug missions and issued new guidelines authorizing the military to “move antidrug agents by helicopters and cargo planes and assist in planning missions and uncovering targets,” among other things. A number of counternarcotics units were set up, such as Task Force 333 (a covert squad of special agents) and the Central Poppy Eradication Force, an Afghan team trained by the American private contractor Dyncorp at a cost of $50 million and supervised by the United States through the Afghan Ministry of the Interior, where Washington’s main contact was Lieutenant General Mohammad Daoud. It didn’t seem to be a problem that Daoud was “an ex-warlord from the north who was reputed to have major connections with the drug trade.”

Since 2007, the United States has intensified its counternarcotics efforts and sought to integrate them more closely with the counterinsurgency campaign. In particular, in late 2008, the Pentagon changed its rules of engagement to permit US troops to target traffickers allied with insurgents and terrorists, and soldiers were allowed to accompany and protect counternarcotics operations run by Americans and Afghans. This shift was also adopted by NATO, whose members were allowed to participate in interdiction missions.

Since 2009, the Obama administration’s strategy has deemphasized eradication by ending support for the Afghan central eradication force while focusing on interdiction and the destruction of heroin labs, based on the reasoning that this “would more precisely target the drug-insurgency nexus.” A focus on rural development has also been announced because, as Richard Holbrooke declared, eradication is a “waste of money,” it alienates farmers, and it “might destroy some acreage, but it didn’t reduce the amount of money the Taliban got by one dollar. It just helped the Taliban.” The number of permanent DEA agents in Afghanistan has increased from 13 to over 80 in 2011 and the Pentagon has established a Combined Joint Interagency Task Force-Nexus in Kandahar to provide coordination support and intelligence for DEA interdiction missions and ISAF counterinsurgency operations that target insurgents with links to the drug trade.

Overall, an interesting question is to explain the emergence, intensification and militarization of US counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan. Although such a discussion remains somewhat speculative, what follows discusses possible reasons that may account for the evolution of the anti-drug strategy over time. Some have pointed to the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense in 2006. Rumsfeld had always been strongly opposed to military involvement in drug control and thus his departure is thought to have contributed to a “sea change” in the Department of Defense’s attitude, which then became more engaged in counternarcotics. However, the significance of staff changes should be downplayed when explaining the broad outlines of policy. It is not as if Rumsfeld had prevented single-handedly an army of drug warriors in the US government from carrying out counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan. As seen above, there were clear strategic reasons for the lack of military involvement in counternarcotics in the years immediately after 2001.

Congressional pressures have also been identified as a reason. This political pressure, the argument goes, eventually led the Pentagon and CIA to accept publicly that the insurgency was funded by drugs and to approve the 2005 counternarcotics strategy. Indeed, in 2004–05, a host of critical pieces in the media urged more action in light of the large 2004 opium harvest. For example, Henry Hyde, Illinois Republican, stated that there was “a clear need at this stage for military action against the opium storage dumps and heroin laboratories” and that if the military did not get involved, the United States would need to send “troops from places like Turkey to take on this challenge.” The Democrats also pitched in, as when John Kerry criticized Bush for failing to eliminate narcotics in Afghanistan.

Such explanations might be correct in terms of immediate causes, in that congressional pressures and debates contributed to putting the issue on policymakers’ agenda and generating media coverage. However, they beg the question of why the narcotics issue became a more prominent debate within government circles in the first place? Some have pointed to the explosion of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan and the political pressures it has generated in the United States to do something about the problem. For example, Ahmed Rashid noted how the greater emphasis on drugs in US policy from 2005 onwards was prompted in part by the fact that it had become too obvious that Afghan poppy cultivation was getting out of control. The United States could less easily afford to be seen as doing nothing, for public relations purposes. The 2004 massive opium harvest embarrassed Washington and London enough for them to begin addressing narcotics more seriously: farmland under poppy cultivation had just increased by 64 percent and for the first time poppies were cultivated in all 34 of Afghanistan’s provinces. Similarly, opium production rose to 6,100 tons in 2006 and to 8,200 tons in 2007, the highest amount ever recorded, and Afghanistan now accounted for 93 percent of global heroin production. The skyrocketing of drug production in 2006 and 2007, publicized in UNODC reports, could not be ignored indefinitely.

There is probably some truth to this interpretation. Even if drug control is not a US objective, the discourse that has been created around the issue has acquired a force of its own. Therefore, when poppy cultivation spread in Afghanistan to a point that it became difficult to ignore, Washington was forced to make some gesture seemingly addressing the problem, otherwise, its image as a government allegedly concerned with drug harms could have been tarnished.

Finally, another possible reason is that from 2004–05, it became useful politically to talk about a war on drugs to make the resurgent Taliban look evil by associating them with narcotics. Indeed, the intensification of counternarcotics rhetoric and operations “took place against the backdrop of an upsurge in armed opposition” to the US-backed Afghan government. That is to say, whereas in the years immediately after 2001, the drug trade was largely controlled by US allies (warlords), from the time the Taliban reemerged as a significant force partly financed by drugs, narcotics became an issue that could be used to cast a negative light on them. Indeed, it is interesting that since 2004, the intensification of drug war rhetoric has grown in parallel with the rise of the insurgency.

In sum, while from 2001 to 2005, drugs were simply not part of the US agenda in Afghanistan, since 2005, there has been more talk about drug control, and more counter-narcotics operations have taken place. However, this does not mean that the United States is moving closer to conducting a real war on drugs. It is not the intensification of militaristic counterdrug missions per se that makes a drug war real, but the implementation of strategies known to reduce drug problems. On that count, Washington has failed. Further, the United States has continued to support allies involved in trafficking, and Obama stated explicitly that his drug war is instrumental in fighting the insurgency and not about eliminating drugs per se. Indeed, in 2009, his administration presented its new approach to narcotics and elaborated a target list of 50 “major drug traffickers who help finance the insurgency” to be killed or captured by the military. Therefore, if traffickers help the Taliban, they will be attacked – but if they support government forces, they apparently will be left alone. This suggests that the drug war is used to target enemies.

Julien Mercille is lecturer at University College Dublin, Ireland.


The final, terrifying moments in the lives of three Moncton RCMP officers

Witness: ‘I said what the F is going on here?’

Sue Montgomery

Published: June 6, 2014, 5:03 pm

MONCTON, N.B. — It’s the cold, blank stare of a man on a deadly mission that will haunt Virginia Boudreau for years to come.

Her neighbour, Justin Bourque, who rented No. 13 on Pioneer Ave., a potholed, treeless dirt road lined on either side with rundown trailer homes, walked purposely southwest on the dead-end street about 7 p.m. Wednesday evening, just after he got home from work.

“He was staring dead ahead, with a blank deadly stare on his face with no emotions,” she said. “People have asked me what his emotions were, but that’s the thing.

“There was no expression on his face, it was the lack of expression that tipped me off that this was something serious.”

Bourque’s dress was anything but casual. He wore army fatigues, a bandana on his head, with a long rifle slung over the left side of his chest, a small gun at his waist, as well as various knives, a water can, and a cross-bow hooked on his right shoulder.

Suspect Justin Bourque is pictured in a photo tweeted by the RCMP on Wednesday in Moncton. Photo Viktor Pivovarov/ Times and Transcript

Suspect Justin Bourque is pictured in a photo tweeted by the RCMP on Wednesday in Moncton. Photo Viktor Pivovarov/ Times and Transcript

The admittedly odd sighting and Boudreau’s subsequent phone call to police would trigger a series of terrifying events that would see hundreds of Moncton’s residents cowering in fear in their basements and the city shut down and deserted as swarms of police officers from the region scoured the area during a 30-hour tense manhunt.

When it was all over, three Mounties were dead, two injured, and a young man in his 20s with a love for guns and no criminal record faces charges that could see him spending most of his adult life in jail.

As the traumatized town emerged from its adrenalin-fuelled fog Friday, and the reality of what had befallen it sunk in, a clearer picture of events that gripped the entire country this week began to emerge.

Boudreau realizes now that she could have easily been in the shooter’s sites Wednesday evening as he was close enough to have overheard her phone call to the RCMP. But, she said, it was as if he didn’t even see her.

Moncton

Virginia Boudreau (left) and Connie Bernard. They both have homes on the same street accused killer Justin Bourque lived on and Boudreau called the RCMP after she saw an armed man walk past her home Wednesday. John Kenney/THE GAZETTE

“It will be a while before I feel good about making that call just because the officer gave his life for helping to protect us,” she said. “I had to look at (the officer’s) face, I had to talk to him, I warned him that the guy was heavily armed before he sped up the road.

“I told him, ‘that bullet clip is full of bullets and ammo so be careful!’”

Her neighbour, Connie Bertrand, is convinced the officer was Dave Ross, a 32-year-old married officer and expectant father, who she believes was gunned down when he reached the wooded area at the end of their street. Ross was among the three fatalities whose identities were released by police Friday.

“I have his image burned in my head,” she said.

Minutes after the police car took off, lights flashing, the women heard sirens on neighbouring streets and three separate bursts of gunfire.

“It was only about a minute and a half to two minutes that he was alone dealing with the situation but in a situation like that, a minute and a half could mean life or death and unfortunately it was death for him,” said Boudreau, adding that the situation almost seemed like it was unfolding in slow motion.

Piecing together other witness reports, it seems Bourque then headed in an easterly direction along Mailhot St., and through a more affluent neighbourhood with two-storey houses placed on large manicured lawns.

After 7 p.m. Wednesday, Berry Gibson was getting his truck fixed when he got a panicked call from his wife, Jessica, telling him there was a guy in their trailer park walking down Pioneer Ave. with a gun.

Gibson, with friend Timmy Blackett in the passenger seat and Gibson’s seven-year-old daughter, Erika, in the back seat, drove his burgundy GMC Sierra for home, and as they rounded the curve on Hildegard St., a police car in front of them came to a sudden stop against the curb in the oncoming lane.

“When we got there, we heard one gunshot, then I (saw) the cop’s head go like that,” Gibson said, jerking his head to the side. “He didn’t even put the car in park.

“There were two more shots and police started yelling.”

L-R Cst. Dave Joseph Ross, Cst Douglas James Larche and Cst. Fabrice Georges Gevaudan were the three RCMP officers killed Wednesday in Moncton, N.B. THE CANADIAN PRESS/ho-RCMP

L-R Cst. Dave Joseph Ross, Cst Douglas James Larche and Cst. Fabrice Georges Gevaudan were the three RCMP officers killed Wednesday in Moncton, N.B. THE CANADIAN PRESS/ho-RCMP

Gibson claims he saw the shooter aiming from a swing set in the yard of a home that backs onto Hildegard St. A black metal fence stood between the shooter and his target.

“I said let’s get the hell out of here, I need to change my shorts,” Blackett said Friday, as the two men stood on the tiny porch of Gibson’s trailer home. “To actually see someone get shot like that while they’re moving in the car, buddy must’ve had a scope on the gun.

“That was a scary situation, that was.”

Gibson said another police officer who had been driving an unmarked jeep, jumped out, moved the stricken officer from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat of his cruiser, took the wheel and sped off.

Gibson made a quick U-turn and sped off in the opposite direction.

A few streets over, the neatly kept homes set back from the mature-tree-lined streets of Isington and Mailhot, seemed an unlikely place for a gunman but that is where witnesses say Bourque allegedly struck next.

Vanessa Bernatchez was watching the action unfold from her living room. She tried in vain to alert the police officer outside his unmarked cruiser as the shooter came up behind him. Her description of an emotionless killer matches that of Boudreau and others who saw the gunman on his deadly mission.

“(The shooter) didn’t even run. He literally just walked,” Bernatchez told Postmedia. “I was completely sick to my stomach seeing someone just calmly kill another person, and just calmly leave the scene as if it was no big deal. It was just revolting.”

Moncton

Virginia Boudreau. Photo by John Kenney/THE GAZETTE

It’s unclear whose killing Gibson and Bernatchez witnessed, but if Ross was indeed shot near the trailer park, it was either the death of Fabrice Georges Gevaudan, 45, originally from France, or Douglas James Larche, 40. Two other officers, Darlene Goguen and Eric Dubois, were wounded, but it’s unclear where.

On Friday, the police car hadn’t moved from where its driver had been shot dead. Forensic investigators worked in the bone-chilling rain, photographing the shattered windows of both rear passenger seats, the back, and the driver’s seat. They hunched over their findings in a blue tent set up behind the trunk of the vehicle.

Where the shooter went from there is unclear, but it is speculated he retreated into the sprawling woods that hug the residential area known as north Moncton. Through Wednesday night and throughout Thursday, residents confined to the large area cordoned off by police hunkered down in front of their televisions and computers, hoping for a peaceful resolution to what seemed like an unthinkable occurrence.

But it grew dark again. Residents, as instructed by police, turned on their outside lights so as not to allow the shooter to hide in the shadows.

The hours ticked by and anxiety grew until word began spreading on social media that the killer had been captured. Hopes were raised and, finally, at ten minutes past midnight, Justin Bourque was taken into custody unarmed and without another shot being fired.

Michelle Thibodeau had front row seats to the drama as it unfolded in her Mecca St. backyard.

“I’m done,” is what Bourque said as police took control of him.

Late Friday, as the bouquets of flowers on the steps of RCMP headquarters grew, Bourque was formally charged in the Moncton courthouse with three counts of first-degree murder and two of attempted murder. A town that had just been through an intense, emotionally draining few days could now finally breathe again and residents could come together to comfort one another. They stood silently Friday night outside the police station, the tears on their faces lit by the shimmer of candles. Gradually, the silence was broken as the crowd sang O Canada, Sarah McLachlan’s In the Arms of the Angel, and a Micmac song.

“I felt relieved,” said Boudreau after hearing of the arrest of the man whose empty, dark eyes she can still recall. “But at the same time, it doesn’t end the nightmare for those of us who had to live right in the middle of it.”

moncton manhunt web4 The final, terrifying moments in the lives of three Moncton RCMP officers

smontgomery@montrealgazette.com


ACCUSED CANADIAN COP KILLER PORTRAYED AS “ANTI-GOVERNMENT FREEMAN”
Shooter said to be engaged in “an attack against the state for ideological purpose”

by KURT NIMMO | INFOWARS.COM | JUNE 6, 2014


Michael Arntfield, formerly of the London Police Service, now a criminology professor at Western University, has portrayed Justin Bourque as an “anti-authoritarian” domestic terrorist who follows “a broader forensic spectrum that includes the anti-government Freeman movement, which has long been seen as a modern frontier in violent crime, in which police officers are the obvious victims,”according to the National Post.

Bourgue allegedly shot and killed three Royal Mounted Police officers in New Brunswick, Canada on Wednesday. The suspect was arrested Friday after a massive manhunt. The city of Moncton in Westmorland County in southeastern New Brunswick was put under a police lockdown after the suspect was observed in a neighborhood carrying weapons.

According to the National Post and Arntfield, Bourque was engaged in “an attack against the state for ideological purpose.” Arntfield said the ambush of police “seems paradoxical” and is “domestic terrorism” distinguishing it from other violent crime.

The Freeman movement is diverse and not anchored to one specific ideology. Generally speaking, it consists of anti-government sentiment and the belief the court and legal system under admiralty law is designed to enslave people and natural law overrides the legal constructs of the state.

The FBI has conflated the Freemen movement with Sovereign Citizens. The federal government “considers sovereign-citizen extremists as comprising a domestic terrorist movement, which, scattered across the United States, has existed for decades, with well-known members, such as Terry Nichols, who helped plan the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, bombing,” according to an FBI Law Enforcement Bulletinreleased in September, 2011.

“They may refer to themselves as ‘constitutionalists’ or ‘freemen,’ which is not necessarily a connection to a specific group, but, rather, an indication that they are free from government control. They follow their own set of laws. While the philosophies and conspiracy theories can vary from person to person, their core beliefs are the same: The government operates outside of its jurisdiction. Because of this belief, they do not recognize federal, state, or local laws, policies, or regulations.”

emergency flashing 

Sovereign Citizen or Freeman Movement being Demonized by Mainstream Media and Corrupt Governments

To the Many people in the Freeman Movement Which in Canada has grown by leap and bounds in the last few years estimated numbers 30,000. They are Becoming a great concern for Law Enforcement and  Governments federal and provincial say RCMP officials

Here is the Simple Truth About The Freeman Claim

That When the Government went broke and Bankrupt around 1933 they Created a fraudulent system With the creation of the Birth Certificate Which we are all slaves under it and TAXES are there COTTON

WERE NOT ANTI GOVERNMENT WERE ANTI BAD GOVERNMENT PRO GOOD GOVERNMENT

Like every other group or society of people there are always a few bad apples and always will be but that does not make it fair to demonize the whole group.the Jews would call that Racism and yell Anti Semitism in a second

It is morally wrong for the RCMP to be classifying all freeman to be terrorist   

Now its simple to see if look around you and see with your eyes… What do we pay tax on EVERYTHING and More and More of all the time TAXES…But roads don’t get any better schools get worse and worse, but Police budget just get bigger and bigger and there getting more militarized all the time why Because the Government Know that us the People THERE REAL BOSSES are seeing through there Lies and Deception more and more now because the reality is that the Freeman Movement as Law Enforcement calls it is simply common sense and all you have to do is learn a little bit of there deceptive system and the truth jumps right out at you and there whole system crumbles.The truth is Your Birth Certificate a Bank Note has Value (approx$1,000,000at time of creation your birth) because of a loan from the IMF-United Nations to the government who keep it in trust for you as your Fiduciary… But they neglected to tell you about it, so that they could legally claim your legal right to administer the trust in whatever way they see fit. That is what they don’t want you to know Its that SIMPLE… Now the government is just petrified that we will all realizes this truth It would essentially make instant Millionaires out of each and everyone of us THE PEOPLE and if we all just took all our money we’d kill Canada essentially as well Its not about that anyways. It is about everyone being prosperous and they would be if thing were different. The next two article below show the fear the Government have of the TRUTH… The Government are  now in the mocking and knocking stage of demonizing the Freeman Movement by saying thing like “there all crazy lunatic”,”There listening to Bad advice” And next is the condemnation and criminalization faze. It now seems there at that faze with this Lunatic Gunman Killing 3 Cops and wounding 2 more just gives the Government all the propaganda power they need to proceed against the Freeman Movement(“Condolences to all the families of the Victims”) Its has all the hallmark of a Mossad – RCMP type false flag operation to give the government all the backup and info it needs to try and pass anti Freeman Legislation Its typical “Problem Reaction Solution” Ideology being used on Canadian citizen to DEMONIZE THE FREEMAN MOVEMENT  Well we will just have to wait and see what really happens in the future to Freemen

w2f09y

From

bc gov

The Freeman-on-the-Land movement

musical note we don’t need you
or your rules – this is ours
there’s something to die for… musical note

Lyrics, music and recorded by Integrity

WHO ARE THE FREEMAN-ON-THE-LAND?

This is a new movement that has important implications for both lawyers and notaries. It is not just another fringe group in society. Freeman-on-the-Land is listed on the FBI’s domestic terror watchlist (www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/september-2011/sovereign-citizens). People who have been linked to this movement include Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh (of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing).

According to the FBI: “Since 2000, lone-offender sovereign-citizen extremists have killed six law enforcement officers. In 2010, two Arkansas police officers stopped sovereign-citizen extremists Jerry Kane and his 16-year-old son Joseph during a routine traffic stop on Interstate 40. Joseph Kane jumped out of the vehicle and opened fire with an AK-47 assault rifle, killing both officers.”

hand holding protest sign 
THESE ARE NOT JUST PEOPLE WITH EXTREMIST VIEWS

“Freemen” (or Sovereign Citizens, Living Souls or Natural Persons, as they sometimes call themselves) believe that all ­statute law is contractual. They further believe that law only governs them if they choose or consent to be governed. By implication, they believe that, by not consenting, they can hold themselves independent of government jurisdiction. These individuals believe that they can live under “common (case) law” and “natural laws” (per Wikipedia).

Freemen may number up to 30,000 in Canada and hundreds of thousands in the United States. They believe they can avoid taxes, mortgages, utility bills and more. They state that they have an unfettered right to travel (hence their belief that they do not need driver’s licences, licence plates or insurance). They believe that ­government-issued identification is somehow different from the “natural person.” They commonly list their names in the format of “First:Last” (using a colon in between). They are loosely affiliated with Canadian “detaxers,” whose tenet is that income taxes do not have to be paid to the government.

COMMON SYMBOLS

Freeman-on-the-Land follows a common formula. Symbols that are associated with the movement, and which are found on their documents, include: Biblical references and religious threats, ­postage stamps placed on documents, Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) citations in the US, ­fingerprints and “blood seals” affixed to documents. They use names for documents that are either obscure or not recognized in any legal text.

CLAIMS OF THE FREEMAN MOVEMENT

Freemen claim that the US government (and, in Canada, the Bank of Canada) has established secret bank accounts for ­every person. This idea relies on their “theory of redemption.” For example (fromwww.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2012/09/sovereign-citizens-a-clear-and-present-danger.aspx):

This theory claims that the United States went bankrupt in 1933 when it chose to no longer use the gold standard to back up its paper currency. Needing collateral to trade and conduct commerce with other countries, the United States began to use citizens as collateral to ensure the value of its money. Subsequently, secret bank accounts, containing millions of dollars, were supposedly established by the United States Treasury Department on behalf of each citizen, or “strawman,” used as collateral. Redemption is used as a gateway by sovereigns to commit various fraudulent acts all in an attempt to “redeem their strawman” and access these non-existent secret Treasury accounts to satisfy various debts, including mortgages, cars, and credit cards.

PAPER “ATTACKS”

Notwithstanding that the Freemen reject the authority of the state, they do file many private prosecutions and claims of legal rights in the courts. Typically, they seek costs and orders against public officials, peace officers and whoever seems to be standing in their way:

The filing of frivolous lawsuits and liens against public officials, law enforcement officers and private citizens, on the other hand, has remained a favorite harassing strategy. These paper “attacks” intimidate their targets and have the beneficial side effect of clogging up a court system that sovereign citizens believe is illegitimate. Frivolous liens became such a problem in the 1990s that a majority of states were forced to pass new laws to make filing them illegal, their removal easier, or both. Today, eager sovereign citizens can use the Internet to download a variety of boilerplate forms and documents to wield against the government. More adventurous types can matriculate at “schools” such as the Erwin Rommel School of Law; additionally, a number of activists, ranging from David Wynn Miller to The Aware Group, hold seminars around the country to teach people — for a price — about the latest tactics and weapons. (www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/SCM.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America& xpicked=4&item=sov)

Freemen rely on bogus documents, such as an “ecclesiastical notice of private agreement” (seewww.scribd.com/doc/68105762/Ecclesiastical-Notice-of-Private-Agreement  for an example of one such document against Clarke Burnett, in his capacity as a crown prosecutor) or a mandatariat (a demand made on a peace officer to produce his or her oath of office and qualifications to a Freeman).

They also seek to file liens against individuals, which can severely damage a person’s credit rating. Many individuals who have been the subject of these attacks seek to remove their names from public directories for their own protection. For example, inMeads v. Meads, 2012 ABQC 571, the cover page of the reasons for decision states:

Editorial Notice: On behalf of the Government of Alberta personal data identifiers have been removed from this unofficial electronic version of the judgment.

In Meads, Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke goes into great detail regarding the “Organized Pseudolegal Commerical Argument [“OPCA”] Litigants” and is an excellent review of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement and how it tries to disrupt court operations and frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations and individuals.

These Freeman legal matters are also occurring in BC. BC Supreme Court Justice Dev Dley recently had to deal with one Darwin Sorenson, who would not identify himself and spoke of Freeman principles in court.

“I am a declared sovereign” and “My name is Darwin” was stated in court, according to Cam Fortems of the Kamloops Daily News on November 26, 2012. Darwin refused to step into the area of the court where litigants typically speak to the court, saying, “If I enter this area of the courtroom, do I have a contract with the court?” When Justice Dley warned Darwin that he would have him removed from the court, Darwin responded that this would cost the Justice a $30,000 fine.

In another case also before Justice Dley, another Freeman, Brian Alexander, had his appeal dismissed of a justice of the peace’s decision finding him guilty of failing to produce a valid driver’s licence. His appeal stated that the court had no jurisdiction.

HOW DO LAWYERS AND NOTARIES FIT INTO ALL THIS?

Freemen have attended law firm and ­notary offices, seeking to have their documents “notarized.” The documents have strange wordings, stamps, blood and finger seals, UCC and biblical references and the like. They are usually pseudo-legal and completely unlike any legal document that a lawyer or notary would draw or witness.

In one case in BC, a notary witnessed a series of documents with names such as a “Notice of Non Response,” a “Notarial Certificate of Dishonour” and a “Notarial Instrument of Protest,” which led to the creation of a “True Bill and Notice of Accounting” for the sum of $3.5 billion dollars. These were all stated to be against the BC Court of Appeal. In this case, the notary apparently witnessed the documents in her capacity as “Notary Acceptor.” She was disciplined by the Society of Notaries Public for breach of Rule 11.01 of the Notary Rules, and admitted that her conduct was contrary to the best interests of the public and the notarial profession.

Lest one believe that only notaries have witnessed and notarized these documents, there have been instances when BC lawyers too have been approached about acting in this capacity.

SAFETY

Since one of the tenets of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement is an unrestricted right to possess and use firearms, they raise significant safety and security concerns. They have been known to become angry when lawyers or notaries have refused to notarize their documents or when stopped by police officers.

The CBC did an excellent feature on the Freeman-on-the-Land movement that mentions an affidavit of truth:www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/29/freeman-movement-canada.html. It includes video of a Freeman acting up in court.

YouTube has a video showing a routine traffic stop of a “sovereign citizen” that ended in the death of the two peace officers involved: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sDAyGod5PM.

S. de Léséleuc in Criminal Victimization in the Workplace (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada, 2004http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0033m/85f0033m2007013-eng.pdf) stated that 17 per cent of all self-reported violent crimes occurred at the victim’s place of work. That is over 356,000 incidents of violence in Canadian workplaces in a single year.

While the Freeman movement represents a small but potentially growing threat, there remains the possibility that a law office could face this or other type of security threat. Accordingly, there are two steps that law offices should consider and implement for the safety of their workers.

The first is to have a workplace security plan in place to deal with external threats to those in the office. This plan should include dealing with an angry and possibly armed individual entering the office. It should also extend to dealing with potential bomb threats, suspicious packages being delivered to the office, etc. Everyone in the office should be familiar with the plan and, like a fire drill, it should receive an occasional trial run to ensure that everyone understands their role and what is, and is not, to be done in the circumstances.

Examples of such security plans can be found at:

The second is to recognize when a Freeman or sovereign citizen is attending the office and asking to have documents executed, witnessed and/or notarized and to take appropriate action in the circumstances.

Lawyers should determine when they are being asked to notarize documents that they do not recognize and that appear to have no legal purpose. Lawyers should not be acting in a way that gives a patina of credibility to a pseudo-legal litigant. Above all, “A lawyer owes a duty to the state, to maintain its integrity and its law.” (Chapter 1, Rule 1(1) Canons of Legal Ethics –Professional Conduct Handbook).

Being prepared to deal with the Freeman-on-the-Land is simply prudent business planning. After all, notarizing a document isn’t something to die for.

NIETHER is DECEPTIVE PROPAGANDA

The above article is almost entirely fiction Government Propaganda. For instance:  “People who have been linked to this movement include Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh (of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing). “

For instance: Terry Nichols and Timothy McVeigh were not freeman at all Its well Known they were CIA-FBI affiliated NOT FREEMAN ASSOCIATED and FREEMAN are not Neo-Nazi associated either. Most are Good upstanding people who are intelligent and who have done there Due Diligences and learned the deception and fraud perpetrated on us everyday since our births

This Fraud Is the Biggest Fraud ever perpetrated on all humanity. Believe it!!!

Simple proof of Admiralty Law in our courts When you are called up in court you have to walk through the two swinging door of the court docket in reality upon entering yourstepping onto the deck of a ship Its that Simple!!!

How your name is writing is very important in law On all your Government and Banking ID you will notice that your name is in all Capital letters like below

JOHN JOE JOKE

This Denotes a SLAVE the highest form of Bondage 

from Black Law dictionary:

Blacks Law Dictionary provides the following definition:

Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status) In Roman law. A diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or curtailment of a man’s status or aggregate of legal attributes and qualifications.

Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss of status) – The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss of status. This occurred where a man’s family relations alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation [pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or upon the emancipation of one who had been under the patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2, 3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.

Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of status) – A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

OUR MODERN ID’s ex. JOHN JOE JOKEMAN – Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status) – The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man’s condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.[2]

Capite. – Lat. By the head.[3]

As Black’s Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one’s natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory. The method, by which the State causes a natural person to "volunteer" himself into slavery, is through forming legal joinder, implied or stated, with the entity or legal fiction (name all CAPS). Of course, most natural persons wouldn’t willingly form such an unlawful but legally reductionist joinder, so trickery and obfuscation are used; and this starts when our birth certificates are created.

[The initial joinder is formed when a legal Birth Certificate is issued by the State, name in all CAPS. In fact, both the Certificate of Birth AND Social Security number, are for "inventory" control purposes, similar to the Amistad Schooner’s manifest or those numbers or records used by legal entities or Corporations to track, account for, use and dispose of inventory.]

Due to the UK, Canada and the US being bankrupt countries, yes all these countries have been bankrupt for some time now; they all have currencies that are known as FIAT currency. In other words, all our money is worthless! There is no big Gold or Silver reserves to back it up…look on any UK banknote and you will see the words, I promise to pay the bearer. It is a promissory note…nothing more. Worthless basically!

So when we are registered at birth, the government produces a corporation, a straw-man, by placing our name in all capitals. But why I hear you ask? Well as we are a bankrupt country (just waiting to go into an economic fold – exactly what is about to happen in the US) the government needs collateral to invest and to receive loans on, so we, the people, become slaves in bondage to be used as collateral with lenders.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that still doesn’t apply! Do not make the mistake of taking advice from anyone who studies, or has studied orthodox law, as they especially will not know this…they were kept well away from this deliberately. Police do NOT know that us and them are slaves in bondage, solicitors & lawyers do NOT know that them and us are slaves in bondage, and most government agents do NOT know either.

But the great thing is we don’t have to be. It is as easy as being knowledgeable, aware and then just politely declining their offered contract!

I could go on and on with examples all provable with Black Law Dictionary there own book of Law which uncovers most of there Deception and Fraud but its up to each one of you to do your own DUE DILIGENCE

and Learn all the TRUTH for yourself

Anti-government sovereign citizen movement claims 30,000 members and growing in Canada

Lawyers, notaries, RCMP, police chiefs all warn of disruption and danger from "Freemen."

Brian Alexander, of Kamloops, B.C., is  is a self-proclaimed Freeman-on-the-Land and one of a growing number of Canadian followers of the "sovereign citizen" or "Natural Persons" movement.

DARRYL DYCK / THE CANADIAN PRESS

Brian Alexander, of Kamloops, B.C., is is a self-proclaimed Freeman-on-the-Land and one of a growing number of Canadian followers of the "sovereign citizen" or "Natural Persons" movement.

Freeman, or ‘sovereign citizens,’ say the government has overstepped its bounds, and refuse to be ruled by Canadian laws — a fight in Canada going as far as the courts. One man explains why he’s living as a sovereign citizen.

By: Dene Moore The Canadian Press, Published on Tue Sep 03 2013

VANCOUVER—He introduces himself as "Brian Arthur of the Alexander family," and before he’ll answer any questions, he asks a reporter to declare that she is not a government employee.

He drives without a license and does not pay income tax.

Brian Alexander is a self-proclaimed Freeman-on-the-Land and one of a growing number of Canadian followers of the so-called "sovereign citizen" or "Natural Persons" movement.

Adherents have "freed" themselves from what they see as an overbearing government that has overstepped its bounds.

"People can’t afford to live and they’re basically destroying society, in our view," Alexander says during a lengthy interview at his home in Kamloops, B.C.

"They’ve created it themselves. Most of us are peaceful. We paid our taxes, we love our country and all that but when they start pushing at you, you tend to start asking questions and that’s where this whole movement comes from."

The Law Society of B.C. and B.C. Notaries have both issued warnings about Freemen, which the law society said in a bulletin last year may number as many as 30,000 in Canada.

"Since one of the tenets of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement is an unrestricted right to possess and use firearms, they raise significant safety and security concerns," says the bulletin, which advises lawyers who come across Freemen to take appropriate security measures.

Alexander says violence is not advocated and has no place in the movement, but one official who has followed the rise of the sovereign citizen movement in Canada says there have been a number of confrontations in B.C. and elsewhere during routine traffic stops or legal proceedings.

"We’ve seen that escalation already," says Ron Usher, of the Society of B.C. Notaries.

Notaries have found themselves embroiled as many Freeman attach inexplicable importance to having notaries authorize documents the Freeman have invented to declare their status.

"What we’ve seen over the last year is an increasing level of frustration, an increasing level of desperation. People just don’t like the idea that someone isn’t going to help them with their fantasy," Usher says. The society discourages its members from signing the "nonsensical" legal documents.

"They’re very confrontational. We’ve had a number of instances now where they’ve needed to call police or security," Usher says.

There have been a number of "hard take-downs" by police in B.C. involving Freemen who refuse to have a driver’s licence and, sometimes, automobile insurance.

RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police officers are currently developing awareness materials for frontline officers, and the movement is the subject of upcoming policing seminars in Vancouver and Toronto.

"The RCMP is aware of the Freeman-on-the-Land ideology and the interaction that some police jurisdictions have had with individuals who follow this movement.

“Additionally, in the recent years, the RCMP has received correspondence directly from followers of this movement," RCMP spokeswoman Julie Gagnon says in an email.

"Individuals associated to this movement are a concern because some followers advocate violence to promote their views and this may involve violence toward police officers. There are officer safety concerns when dealing with followers of this movement during routine police interaction."

There’s no indication that they pose a threat to the general public, Gagnon says.

In the United States, the FBI considers the movement a domestic terror threat, and a 2011 FBI report cites several cases where followers have clashed with law enforcement, including the 2010 shootings of two Arkansas officers during a routine traffic stop.

"Although the sovereign-citizen movement does not always rise to violence, its members’ illegal activities and past violent — including fatal —incidents against law enforcement make it a group that should be approached with knowledge and caution," it says.

And it warns the movement will likely grow, fuelled by the recent economic downturn and the popularity of seminars being held across the country.

If there is a guru of the Freeman movement in Canada these days it’s a man named Dean Clifford from Manitoba. In June, about 80 people paid to hear Clifford spread the sovereign gospel at a seminar in Victoria and tickets are now available on his website to another scheduled for Toronto this November.

Details on the Toronto seminar are vague: mid-November and “somewhere central” in the city.

Alexander, 43, has become a pseudo-spokesman in B.C. after running — ironically — for provincial and municipal office under the Freeman banner.

A self-employed father of a teenage boy, he speaks emotionally about the plight soldiers have faced upon their return from Afghanistan and with frustration about the degradation of the environment. And he appears to genuinely disagree with the use of violence or threats in the name of the cause.

"Yes, there has been the odd person here and there that has actually fought back and done some stupid things, but those are individuals. And to paint all Freemen as terrorists, it would be the same as painting all Frenchmen FLQ or all Germans Nazis. It’s kind of ridiculous," he says.

While in the United States the movement has a large following on the far right and among white supremacists, in Canada it has found sympathizers among First Nations, in B.C. in particular, where some have come together under the banner of the "Sovereign Squamish Government."

The Squamish group claims to distribute its own licence plates and one Ontario Freeman is recruiting his own police force with an online video appeal for the Canadian Common Corps of Peace Officers.

The sovereign citizen’s campaign in Canada, however, focuses on the courts, and a quick search of court documents involving Freemen reveals a litany of cases from the East Coast to the West, ranging from the bizarre to the criminal.

Police officers, Crown lawyers and judges have been sued or been named in multimillion-dollar "liens" or "ecclesiastical notices" or other legal manoeuvres.

Dozens of sovereign citizens have found themselves in front of a judge facing tax evasion, contempt or criminal charges.

Last month, Warren Fischer, a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine in Nelson, B.C., broke down in tears in court after being convicted of tax evasion.

An adherent to Freeman philosophies and a member of the Sovereign Squamish Nation, Fischer refused for several years to pay income tax, saying he did not want his taxes to support the war overseas. He will be sentenced in October.

Last year Daren Wayne McCormick was convicted in a Nova Scotia court of uttering threats toward officers and sentenced to just over three years in a federal prison when a judge disagreed with his argument that he’d freed himself of the Criminal Code and federal gun laws.

"It appeals to the angry male whose life isn’t working out very well," says Usher. "You get this spiral of legal mess that the only person that’s benefited is the person who’s taken their money for the seminar teaching them how to do all this.

"It looks like desperate people spending their last nickel on bad advice."

2zpr0ig[5]

There is BS here but who’s telling it really???

Let hear from some real Freemen Now

 

You be your own JUDGE Who’s The TRUTH TELLER here is???

The Government or The Freeman Movement

But do your own Research Don’t take our word for it or the Governments

Find out for Yourself find your Remedy

Due your own DUE DILIGENCE

 


My Banner

1794-1850 GUILLOTINE MODELS

bar011

http://boisdejustice.com/Home/Home.html

Guillotine 1794
Guillotine 1794
Guillotine 1794

The models in this section represent upgraded versions of the basic 1792 guillotine with various features added through the years. Tobias Schmidt’s first two machines, built for Paris and Versailles, were strongly criticized by architect Giraud in an official letter to the Justice Ministry. Schmidt immediately offered an improved machine with many of the changes suggested by Giraud but still lost the bidding to a carpenter named Clairin, a friend of Giraud. This did not prevent Schmidt from going directly to the Provincial governments and selling his improved machine around the Ministry. Since he was prepared to build them immediately, he appears to have outmanoeuvered Clairin. There is good evidence that most of the regional guillotines from the 1792-1794 period were built by Schmidt contrary to some historical accounts that suggest he was pushed out after building the two first machines.
Original 1792 documents from the archives of the Ministere de la Justice give many details of the Schmidt machines through his own hand-written proposals. Among the details given in the quotes are dimensions and sketches of various metal parts. From these and from photos of the Luxembourg, Venlo and Brugge guillotines, which date back to that same period, I have been able to reconstruct the 1794 guillotine.
The 1794 model shown above was sold to best-selling Swiss author Claude Cueni.

Guillotine 1820
Guillotine 1820
Guillotine 1820

A large number of guillotines were built in 1793 and 1794 for regional executioners throughout France. When the number of executions returned to a more normal level, after the 9 Thermidor Year II (27 July 1794), which marked the end of the Terror, France was left with a big surplus of guillotines.
Some were sold to foreign governments, some were sent to the colonies and others were upgraded and used through 1871. The models photographed in this section represent various designs used between 1794 and the 1850s. Upgrades to the basic 1792 model include metal lined tracks, metal lined lunettes, moutons with rollers, bascules with leather straps, zinc head tubs, blade stops with springs etc.
This particular model could be from 1820, 1830 or could even be similar the one that took Lacenaire’s life in 1836.

Guillotine 1848
Guillotine 1848
Guillotine 1848

This third model would probably have been used in the 1840s or 50s. The metal bucket comes straight from the Berger guillotine introduced in 1871. The spring stops and the steel-lined lunette are early improvements, but the taller posts and the spacer bar between the uprights only appear on guillotines in late 1800’s photos. The Metz guillotine (See History Page) was very tall, had a post spacer bar and ressembles this model closely. To further project this as the modern version, I used the brown paint of the Berger guillotines rather that the red paint that was used during the Revolution.



This model is a close replica of the guillotine that was operated on the island of Nou, part of the New Caledonia bagne (penal colony).
The only design information I had to build this model is the photograph on the left, which shows the old executioner, Massé, with his guillotine around 1900 and a few drawings of executions made by inmates.
Read more about the New Caledonia guillotine on the history pages of this website. The model, which also features a metal head tub and a wood body crate, will be exhibited in a small museum located in the restored bakery building of the old penal colony, on the island. The model was purchased by the New Caledonia-based historical organization "Temoignage d’un passé".

Guillotine 1794
Guillotine 1794
Guillotine 1794

Note the partial steel liner on the back of the lunette, a design found on the Geneva guillotine. Note also the leather curtain hanging from a steel hoop. This contraption was described in detail in a 1792 Schmidt quote. It was designed to hide the most violent part of the execution from direct view. A hoop of this type is still visible on the antique French guillotine exhibited in a Nurnberg Museum (See History section).

Guillotine 1794
Guillotine 1794
Guillotine 1794

The mouton on the model above is cast from lead musket balls found on a battlefield of the French Revolution. The 1792 guillotine was designed to always be bolted to a scaffold thus lacks lateral stabilizing braces. This became a problem when the scaffold was eliminated by law decree in 1870. Some French colonies that continued to use older guillotines simply removed the legs from the scaffold but retained its frame and floor planking as an integral part of the machine.

Guillotine 1820
Guillotine 1820
Guillotine 1820

This model also uses the partial liner on the back of the lunette. The rope basket is speculative as there is no irrefutable evidence that baskets were actually used, despite their popularity in cinematographic depictions. The metal lined tracks were described already in a 1792 written quote from Schmidt to the justice ministry. Their use is confirmed by the Luxembourg guillotine but several other surviving 1792 guillotines do not have this improvement.

Guillotine 1820
Guillotine 1820
Guillotine 1820

The spring stops seen here were not used on the original guillotines but they appear on a drawing of the Liege guillotine dating them back to the early 1800s. Before that the mouton slammed down on leather or fabric pads packed into the tracks. The mouton on this model is also equipped with steel guide rollers which were already used on the 1793 guillotine from Nantes. They appear to have been one of the first improvements made to the original guillotine.

Guillotine 1848
Guillotine 1848
Guillotine 1848

The full steel lined lunette was already introduced in late 1792. Schmidt indicates that each steel plate was to be secured to the wood with 6 nails. On this model, I use 12 recessed screws on each plate. The mouton has four the steel guide rollers that do not ride in the tracks but against the inside of the posts. The shape of the chapiteau is copied on the New Caledonia guillotine which may have been built around 1850. The smaller chapiteau appears on photos of guillotines in New Caledonia, Reunion Island, Senegal and in the city of Metz.

Guillotine 1848
Guillotine 1848
Guillotine 1848

Note the release handle with the locking pin, mechanically similar to the one on the guillotines during the Revolution, but with a guarded handle which was in use on guillotines in later years. Note also the metal head tub, the steel lunette liner and the spring stops, all later improvements to the original Schmidt model guillotine.

Guillotine Ile Nou
Guillotine Ile Nou
Guillotine Ile Nou

The machine was built around the core of a 1792-type Revolutionary Guillotine. This machine was designed to always be bolted to a scaffold. When the scaffold was eliminated by the Cremieux ministerial decree of 1870, the older guillotines had to be adapted or replaced. In the case of the guillotine from Ile Nou, a frame was added under the original base, including a cross beam to provided lateral stability. New lateral angle braces span between the beam to the posts. The guillotine also includes two wood cross members between the uprights which were not part of the original core machine. These were likely added to maintain track parallelism as the machine aged and warped.

Guillotine Ile Nou
Guillotine Ile Nou
Guillotine Ile Nou

Other notable “modern” modifications are the footrest on the bascule, the metal head bucket and the slot in the lunette track allowing the lunette board to be removed without disassembling the machine.

HISTORY OF THE GUILLOTINE

bar011

Primitive ancestors of the guillotine were used in Ireland, England and Italy in the 14th and 15th Centuries. Several known decapitation devices such as the Italian Mannaia, the Scottish Maiden, and the Halifax Gibbet are well documented and may pre-date the use of the French guillotine by as much as 500 years. The following deals mostly with the modern guillotine from the late 18th Century until today. It is not meant to be a complete history or even a complete overview of the history as this would take hundreds of pages. Instead consider it a brief introduction to the subject highlighted by a few good pictures.

DOCTEUR GUILLOTIN

Contrary to popular belief, Doctor Joseph-Ignace Guillotin was not the inventor of the machine. He was a medical doctor and lawmaker who in 1790 proposed that the death penalty should be equal for all, regardless of social rank and nature of the crime. It would be carried out by a swift mechanical device to eliminate suffering. His idea was derided at first but later the National Assembly revived it and them adopted it in 1791.
The document making the death penalty "by mechanical decapitation" the law of the land in the Kingdom of France was signed both by Dr. Antoine Louis, secretary of the National Academy of Surgery, and by Louis the 16th., who was still King of France. Dr. Louis was the author of the technical portion of the document. He explained that this method was the only "humane" mode of execution which insured the condemned a swift and painless death. A copy of the law was distributed to all the provinces for immediate implementation. To the right are the four pages of an original 1792 copy of the law sent to the department of Orne and hand-marked as No 76.

The ministry of justice proceeded quickly following the enactment of the law. They assigned the task of designing and building Dr. Guillotin’s machine to Antoine Louis, who hired a German harpsichord maker named Tobias Schmidt to actually construct it from his design. This pair were the defacto inventors of the modern guillotine. The prototype built by Mr. Schmidt may or may not have had the characteristic angled blade. The machine was tested on animals and cadavers to insure its reliability. It was first used in the execution of Nicolas Pelletier, a common criminal, on the 25th of April 1792. The deadly machine quickly moved on to more famous victims such asLouis XVI, Marie-Antoinette,Charlotte Corday, Danton,Robespierre, and many others. Tobias Schmidt lost the contract for building additional machines, therefore we do not know the precise details and appearance of his original apparatus.
A great number of guillotines were manufactured in the following few years to meet the demands of the blood-thirsty Revolutionary Government. Guillotines were dispatched to every province and city in France and soon after to conquered neighboring countries as well.

THE REVOLUTIONARY GUILLOTINE – 1792


These guillotines were all of similar construction using Tobias Schmidt’s principles but maybe not his actual design. They are usually referred to today as "The 1792 Model Guillotine". Due to the large number of these guillotines manufactured during the years of the great Terror (1793-1794), several machines from this early batch have survived to this day. Among the surviving “1792” machines are the ones displayed in museums in Venlo (Netherlands), Liege and Brugge (Belgium), as well as one stored in Musée national d’histoire et d’art in Luxembourg. This guillotine represents one of the best preserved examples of a 1792 machine.
Newer versions of the 1792 design were built in the 1800s and can be seen in photos from New Caledonia, Reunion Island, and Senegal. These photos are dated from the early part of the 20th Century. The design of these machines is very similar to the oldest known 1792 version so they would fall under the general category of a 1792 model. The machine from Reunion Island was used until 1954. It was returned to France in 1984 and is currently stored in the basement of Musée National des Prisons in Fontainebleau along with the Berger guillotine used in Martinique in 1964 and 1965. Both disassembled guillotines are visible in this photo.
The photo on the left shows a nearly complete original 1792 guillotine with its integral scaffold. Photo is undated but probably taken around 1918 inside a cathedral in Northern France or Belgium.

The vertical posts were 3.7 to 4.5 meters tall and made of oak. The grooves for the blade were carved into the wood and are not lined. The boards for locking the head in place (the “lunette”) were also made of oak and had no metal liner as on later machines. Even the lunette tracks were just carved grooves in the wood. There was no mechanism to hold the lunette open or to lock it in place when closed. The front and rear support braces were also made of wood and were pinned in place with dowels making the machine very difficult to disassemble. The bascule (teeter board) was shorter than on the modern machine but tilted and slid forward as on the newer version. The slide mechanism was made up of a wood carriage traveling in wood grooves. The triangular blade was secured to a heavy oak block which traveled up and down in the post grooves. The blade was hoisted up with a rope running over two small pulleys lodged in slots within the top crossbar.



The visible asymmetry in the crossbar is the result of a pulley being fitted within the right overhang. Once aloft the mouton could be locked via a steel linkage mounted on the left post.
A release handle held down one end of a connecting rod. The other end of the rod was linked to a steel pivot arm at the top of the left post. This pivot arm extended under a fixed horizontal steel bar secured to the back of the mouton. When the handle was released from the post the pivot arm tilted and the blade fell to the end of the wooden grooves then stopped rather abruptly. The shortcoming of this design must have become apparent rather quickly. There are reports of stuffing the grooves with fabric or leather to cushion the fall. The wood-on-wood slides in the bascule and cutting assembly also caused problems resulting in recommendation to the executioners to grease the tracks with tallow on a regular basis.
It is likely that the early machines were frequently damaged after just a few operations. This explains why machines like the Brugge guillotine were so extensively modified.
The photos in this section present five Revolutionary-type guillotines that survived until the age of photography. At least three of them still exist today:
– Top left is the Luxembourg guillotine which has been restored in the last 60 years. Note a strong resemblance to the Liege guillotine in the lower right corner. It appears that some of the restoration work was inspired by this guillotine, in particular the chapiteau, which was missing and had to be reconstructed, now has the same unusual shape as the one on the Liege machine.
– Lower left is the guillotine used in the Grand Duchy of Berg until 1813. The Duchy was a French satellite state and had a French Tribunal during the Napoleonic wars. The guillotine is sometimes refered to as the "Nuremberg guillotine" because it is currently displayed there.
– Upper right is the Metz guillotine. It is notable for its extreme height and for the odd steel arches that connect the uprights to the scaffold. It was used ten times by the Germans in occupied Lorraine between 1880 and 1914 and taken out of service when Lorraine was returned to France in 1918.
– Center right is the Butzbach/Mainz guillotine, a French-type guillotine dating back to 1803 and used by the Germans into the 1920s. Note the wood shield used to hide the blade from the condemned.
– Lower right is the Liege guillotine. This Revolution era guillotine was used for the last execution in Liege in 1824. Currently on display in the Musée de la vie Wallonne.


THE BRUGGE GUILLOTINE – 1862

To the right is a close-up of the Brugge guillotine bascule and lunette. This machine was bought by the city of Brugge from France in 1796, four years after the first guillotine execution took place in Paris. The years 1793 and 1794 had seen an incredible number of guillotine executions under the "Terror". It is estimated that over 10,000 people lost their heads to the slanted blade in those two years. Lesser and lesser crimes became punishable by death as the struggling Revolutionary Government attempted to quell internal unrest while fighting a war against all the other European nations. The Revolutionary Tribunals around France first sentenced Royalists and counter-revolutionaries to death, then rebellious and rioting

citizens, then priests and nuns refusing to pledge allegiance to the new "Cult of the Supreme Being", then people trying to flee France and anyone helping them, then people expressing any disagreement with the government. As political intrigue infiltrated the Revolution, the Committee of Public Safety, its the defacto governing body, had rival factions within the movement executed. Hébert, Chaumette, Danton and Desmoulins are among those who ended on the guillotine as a result of this internal power struggle.
These purges also triggered the reaction from those who saw themselves as the next victims. The coup of 9 Thermidor (27 July 1794) removed Maximilien Robespierre, the head of the Committee, and his followers from power and swiftly sent them to join their victims.


In a final ironic twist, the prosecutor of the Revolutinary Tribunal, Fouquier-Tinville, as well as the judges and jurors were themselves guillotined to close the book on that dark period in French History.
The Terror finally ended and the "Directoire" took control of France before Napoleon’s rise to power. At this time the guillotine returned to its roots as a tool of judicial enforcement. It also spread to neighboring states as a means of swift and merciful justice. This was the time when the city of Brugge purchased their guillotine from France, which must have had a large surplus after the dramatic decrease in executions. The entire machine is shown to the left and clearly ressembles the classic 1792 model seen above. Records show that the guillotine was purchased "damaged" and the current state of the machine shows a lot of "improvements" which were probably made in Brugge between 1796 and 1862 when its blade fell for the last time.

The nature of the improvements attests to the large number of design flaws which probably caused trouble over the years. The picture above shows that metal blade tracks were added extending all the way to the ground. Also notable is that the bascule was modified to tip down and the space between the support frame beams was carved out to allow dropping the body through a hole in the scaffold. The picture on the right shows that rollers were retrofitted to the sides of the bascule board and steel brace plates were attached to the front of the lunette board possibly to repair cracks. Several additional changes were made to the back side of the lunette (not shown). The lunette was also lined with metal as it is on later models. The boards could have arrived damaged, but more likely that the repeated soaking with water caused them to expand, crack or warp into the path of the blade.


Substantial bumpers were added at the end of the tracks. This improvement pre-dates the use of spring stops in the 1868 and 1872 guillotines but must have been a major area of concern. The blade assembly weighed about 90 lbs. with a terminal velocity in the range of 22-26 Feet/second. Stopping it in a few inches is not an easy problem to solve. Personally, I am not sure it was ever resolved very well as even the late 20th century guillotine was reported to have problems in that area. Fortunately for the executioners, the machine only had to function once or twice in most situations before it could be repaired.
There was also an additional steel plate on the back side of the lower lunette slightly offset towards the back. It provided a secondary support under the neck during the cutting. The blade would fall into the narrow slot between the two plates and stop when the wooden mouton landed on the stop blocks. The additional plate was probably the answer to the numerous reports of partially severed necks in early executions. Full metal tracks replaced the old wood grooves from top to bottom. The Brugge guillotine does give a lot of insight into many of the gradual developments that led to the modern guillotine.
To the left are pictures of the original mouton and lunette from one of the revolutionary guillotines which is said to have been used in Paris. It was purchased by Madame Tussaud from executioner Clement Sanson in 1858. The lunette appears to be made of stacked oak planks. The mouton has a very noticeable slanted lower edge which was used on many of the 1792 guillotines. The steel holding bar was secured to the back of the mouton and rested on a pivot attached to the left upright. The pivot turned when the hold bar was released allowing the blade to drop. The rope hook and the top-mounted lead weights are also visible in the photograph. These artifacts were later damaged in a 1925 fire at the museum.

EXECUTION IN ARRAS – 1869

The photo below was taken on "La Grande Place" in Arras, most probably on October 21th, 1869 just before the execution of Charles Carpentier. This execution was carried out by "Monsieur de Paris", Jean-Francois Heidenreich, assisted by the regional executioner from Amiens, Nicolas Roch. Both were soon to become head executioners for all of France. Heidenreich was nominated to the top position in late 1870 and Roch was chosen as his successor when he died in 1872.
The guillotine is visible and has the assymetrical chapiteau of an 1792 model. Two carriages are waiting at the foot of the guillotine and a white shadow is visible on the steps leading up to the machine. This could be the white shirt of the condemned blurred

by motion during the exposure of the plate. Carpentier was sentenced to death for the murder and robbery of a farmer coming home from the market with his earnings.
One remarkable thing about the picture is the use of a high scaffold, which was eliminated in 1870, at the same time as the Berger-designed guillotine was chosen to replace the old 1792 machine. From then on all executions were to take place at ground level to reduce the "spectacular" aspect of the events, which is clearly visible here. According to the local newspaper "l’Avenir", it took all night to erect the scaffold and the guillotine. This was one of the main reasons it was eliminated when the guillotine and the executioner started to travel all over France.
Only once again, in 1923, did a French executioner operate on a scaffold, as Anatole Deibler was called to execute a German murderer in Sarrebruck, then occupied by France, and operated in full daylight on a scaffold as was the German tradition.
This photo was part of a pair of pictures sold for viewing on a stereoscope, a primitive 3-D optical device. I have not seen it published before so it is probably quite rare. It is one of a few surviving photographs of French guillotine executions on scaffolds. Here is a second photograph of the same execution, taken a few moments earlier, before the arrival of the carriage.

NEW CALEDONIA GUILLOTINE – 1910

The machine shown below is another strange hybrid derived from modifications of an older model. This machine operated in the "Bagne"(penal colony) in New Caledonia, which is in the south Pacific east of Australia. The Penal Colony was established in 1864 and consisted of three primary camps: Ile Nou for hardened criminals, the Ducos Peninsula for dangerous political deportees and Ile des Pins for deportees considered not dangerous but undesirable in France. The Penal Colonie Administration and main arrival camp were located in the town of Bourail.


Two large groups populated the Penal Colony: Survivors of the Paris Commune Insurrection deported from 1871 to 1874, and the survivors from the Algerian Kabyle Insurrection of 1871. The guillotine was used to punish violent crimes among the detainees. As in Guyana, the local population included a large contingent of former detainees who were liberated but not allowed to return to France. This resulted in high crime rates and a high number of death sentences.
The photo was probably taken at Ile Nou around 1910. The executioner, Macé(or Massé), a detainee himself, is claimed to have carried out at least 74 executions but he appears to be past retirement age in this photo. The machine is an 1800’s version of the 1792 model which had the narrow top crossbar and slightly lighter construction than the earlier machines. Unusual features of this machine include the addition of two improvised cross braces between the uprights as well as lateral braces extending to grade on both sides of the uprights. The improved 1872 model included both of these features and used bolted steel braces at both locations. We can conclude that prior to the improvements there must have been real problems keeping the oak posts aligned and the uprights vertical. This was possibly exacerbated by the tropical climate of the island. The mechanism on the left post is the classic 1792 design, although the top pivot should face the opposite direction. On July 17, 1886, convicted assassins, Luigi Mosca and Joseph Veschi were executed on Ile Nou on this guillotine. Here is a photograph of their bodies in the morgue taken right after the execution.(WARNING: Graphic Photo)

A newer Berger-type guillotine was brought to New Caledonia in the early 1900s. Its design is identical to the guillotine sold to Sweden in 1903. Marcel Deschamps probably built both machines. At this time executions were moved from the isolation of Ile Nou to the town of Bourail, to the great dismay of the locals. The guillotine operated there through 1940 and also traveled to neighboring French-controlled areas such as Port-Vila in the New Hebrides Islands. Six "Tonkinese" slave laborers convicted of two murders were executed there on July 28, 1931. This guillotine can be seen in the Bourail Museum. Click the picture on the right to see the beautiful photographs of this guillotine by Patrice Morin.

THE FIRST BERGER GUILLOTINE – 1868


Alphonse Léon Berger was an assistant to the executioner of Corsica and also a skilled carpenter and cabinetmaker. He built a completely new guillotine in 1868 for the regional executioner in Agen. It is unclear how and when this machine ended up in Algeria but there is strong evidence that it was already in use there by 1870: A decree abolishing the position of regional executioner and eliminating the raised scaffold was issued on November 25, 1870. As part of this decree, Cremieux, Minister of Justice, ordered the construction of "two new guillotines based on the Algerian Model".
This machine preserved the same operational functions as the 1792 model yet was completely new in overall dimensions, mechanical features, and appearance. The materials and construction style of the early industrial revolution are very apparent in the concealed mechanisms, bolted connections, coil spring shock absorbers and cast bronze rollers. Berger made extensive use of steel, brass, bronze and zinc for his apparatus. There are many complex metal parts that were absent in the original machine. The new machine was designed to be quickly disassembled for transportation to the locale of execution. Its most unique features were the "spike and claw" release system housed inside the chapiteau and the spring stops embedded in the uprights. The new machine was similar in size to the old one except for the addition of a massive cross beam. It provided better lateral stability to a machine that would no longer be bolted to a scaffold.
Alphonse Léon Berger was also chosen to build the two machines for France’s newly appointed National Executioner in 1870. The primary feature distinguishing the 1868 model from the new design that Berger created in the 1870-1871 period is the location

of the mechanism. In the 1868 version the mechanism was mounted on the front of the chapiteau which required the locking spike to overhang the upper half of the mouton. The mechanism itself worked flawlessly but its location was a problem. The open lunette was directly in the path of the metal spike protruding from the mouton. The spike would collide with the lunette as the blade fell if the lunette was left open (and this did occur several times during actual executions). The flawed design was corrected in Berger’s newer machines by relocating the mechanism to the back side of the chapiteau. The picture above shows the original 1868 Berger machine identified by the distinctive notched top lunette (where the spike would otherwise hit the lunette), the indented cross brace (to let the spike through) and the front mounted mechanism. Other noticeable differences from the 1870-1871 model include the oversized lunette hole, the lunette release mechanism located much higher on the left post, the round headed bolts holding down the chapiteau, the rectangular bascule board without the familiar semi-circular cut-out, and the box-like shield around the zinc tub. Less noticeable is the fact that the posts are about half a meter taller than on the later version of the machine. The model 1868 machine remained in use in Algeria until 1959 and was the only guillotine used in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco from 1870 to 1957.
The two first improved Berger machines under construction in 1871 were seized in the rue Folie-Mericourt workshop by the "Communards" during the bloody uprising in Paris. They were "sentenced" to be destroyed then burned in a big public ceremony dedicated to the "New Freedom". The guillotine, symbol of equality and of the overthrow of the nobility during the Revolution of 1789, had become a symbol of government oppression just 82 years later. Two replacement machines were completed after the fall of the Commune and entered service in the fall of 1871.
The close-up photo of the machine (above) was probably taken in the Barbarossa prison courtyard around 1910. The three photos on the right were taken during a double execution in Tunisia (or possibly Algeria).
The top photo shows the ready guillotine and the crowd awaiting the arrival of the fourgon with the condemned and the executioners. The style of the colonial uniforms and the rifles date the picture to around 1915.
The second photo shows the fourgon stopped next to the machine and the condemned being helped down the steps by two assistants while the photographer awaits him behind the lunette. As in the first photo the guillotine is ready to function.
The identical position of the fourgon and of the spectators in the third photo indicates that it must have been taken within a few seconds of picture No.2. The lunette is still closed but the bascule plank has been returned to vertical and the executioners are raising the blade. This implies that they a readying the machine for another execution and that a second man must be awaiting his turn in the fourgon. If this was a single execution they would be preparing to carry the body away in the closed basket, not re-arming the machine. You can recognize executioner Pierre Lapeyre by his distinctive the black beard. He held the position of "Monsieur d’Alger" from 1886 to 1928.
A number of machines based on the 1871 redesign have survived to this day. To my knowledge the Algerian machine is the only example of Berger’s first design that exists today and probably the only one of that type built. It is currently exhibited in Le Musée de l’Armée in Algiers. This actual machine was used in the execution scene of the 1966 movie "The Battle of Algiers". I am also convinced that all the execution pictures taken in French North Africa show this same machine.
Many people have been credited by the press for the design of the new guillotine including Heidenreich, Roch, Anatole Deibler, and Leopold Desfourneaux. Some of these may have contributed minor alterations or supervised construction of some of the later built machines.



However, there is little doubt that Léon Berger is the author of the original design. This is confirmed by hand-written notes left by his grandson, André Berger, who was the Algerian executioner from 1944 to 1956.
This photograph is taken at an indetermined location in Algeria. The modern uniforms of the gendarmes and the fact that execution is public narrows the timeframe when the photo could have been taken to 1925-1939. The guillotine is clearly the same machine that is seem in the photos above with the notch in the top edge of the lunette and the distinctively tall uprights. The condemned man, with his torso bared, is being led to the bascule as the photo is taken.
A large number of spectators wear arab clothing which further confirms the location of the execution. The photo has previously been claimed to be the execution of Elie Lagarde, in 1933, in Vendome. This is of course erroneous, as the guillotine in the photo is unique and has never left North Africa between 1870 and today.
I am still seeking information regarding the location and the identity of the condemned. If you have knowledge about this photo or recognize the building or the mountain in the background please contact me via the E-mail listed on the site.

LA VEUVE DE SAINT-PIERRE 1889


The only time the guillotine was used in North America was on the 24th of August 1889 when Auguste Neel, a fisherman convicted of murdering another fisherman the year before, was executed in the French town of Saint-Pierre, located a few miles off the coast of Newfoundland. The events are loosely portrayed in the movie "La Veuve de Saint Pierre" which was released in 2000. To read about the real story and see pictures of the real Berger model guillotine from Saint Pierre, built in 1889, click here.

VARIOUS EXECUTIONS – 1891 TO 1929

This poorly framed picture was taken at the execution of François Onésime Baillet, in Douai, on the 28th of August 1891. I have included the picture, despite the fact that most of the machine and the head-executioner were cut off because it still is a great picture. The dynamic of the execution is clearly seen in the blurred outline of the assistant, wearing a top hat, and holding the condemned by the ankles as the bascule is tilted and rolled forward. On the side the gaping basket sits ready to swallow up the decapitated body. The blade is just a mere second or two away from falling as seen by the outstretched necks of the spectators, trying to catch a glimpse of the gory spectacle. The scene is just amazing in its’ portrayal of human indignity. Its’ exceptional sharpness lets us see the excitement in the faces of the people, adding to the sheer horror of the spectacle. In case you start feeling bad for the performer, Mr. Baillet, it may comfort you to know that he assassinated six people to get here…


This picture is said to have been taken on December 29, 1894 as Pierre Mazué, triple assassin, walks from the fourgon to the guillotine on a small square of Châlon-sur-Saône. Mazué was Anatole Deibler’s 69th customer. He was still an assistant to his father at the time.
The picture is not of exceptionally good quality, but is a much better copy than those I have seen in the past. So, when I found it at the Police Museum in Paris, I felt I should make it available to others through this website.
There is some question in my mind as to the authenticity of the picture. Notice that there are just a couple of mounted gendarmes to the left and a few spectators standing in the street, unrestrained by the usual line of police or military. Contrary to all other execution photos, there are no spectators either in the windows of the building behind the machine. This may have a logical explanation but it still raises a suspicion that the photo may be staged. The two or three figures that are walking behind the guillotine are a bit sketchy but not as obviously fake as those that were added to the Languille photo of 1905. On the other hand, the guillotine and the fourgon appear to be real enough so if it is not a photo taken during the actual execution, it was most likely still taken on the day of the execution.

This old postcard was published in Colonial Algeria around 1900. The photo depicts the execution of Areski L’Bashir, a sort of Algerian "Robin Hood" or "Jesse James" character. Areski was born in Kabylia a region of eastern Algeria which was annexed by France in 1857. The region rebelled again in 1871 and the ensuing French repression sent many Kabyles to the bagne in New Caledonia. Around 1880 Areski rose against the injustices of the French colonial administration and led a band of over 300 rebels fighting a guerilla war against anyone supporting the French. The French regarded them as common "bandits" because they stole food, money and supplies in order to survive and often killed both the French colonists and their Algerian helpers, military or civilian. With his repeated success and the inability of the administration to capture him, he grew into a legend and a local hero. He became "the law" in the remote areas of

Kabylia, where the colonial power could not reach. In 1893 the Governor of Algiers decided he had to put an end to Areski’s free reign. A large expedition was mounted against him and after being on the run for a month and a half he was finally captured. Some of his men fell in combat with the French while the rest dispersed and tried to evade capture. His trial in Algiers in January 1895 ended with death sentences for himself and 9 of his followers and deportation to New Caledonia for the remainder of his gang. He was transferred from the Barbarossa prison in Algiers to the Gendarmerie in Azazga in front of which he was executed together with five of his lieutenants on May 14, 1895.

This photo shows the assembly of the guillotine prior to an execution, apparent from the number of spectators, including one hanging in a tree and one laying on a roof. The execution was recently identified as that of Jean-Baptiste Dagorne on June 3, 1896 in the town of Saint-Brieuc in Brittany.
The first clue was the advertizing painted on the building refering to a "Gd Hotel de la Croix" (Grand Hotel of the Cross) and "Verde Soeurs", which was tracked down to the Hotel de la Croix-Rouge owned by the Verde sisters and located in Saint-Brieuc. The Hotel is advertized in the 1892 Jouanne travel guide. The word "Rouge" is missing in the photo as it is outside the frame. The hotel is located on Place Duguesclin, where the execution took place and the architecture of the building in the photo is compatible with that of the Hotel as seen in photographs dating from the 1930s.
The location is further confirmed by the low houses on the left of the photo which are an exact match for those on Rue de Gouedic facing the hotel.
The "kepis" worn by the Gendarmes were identified by the owner of the photo, himself a retired Gendarme, as 1880-1890s vintage, because they are taller than the model worn after 1900. The rest of the picture is typical of a "Deibler-era" execution. The guillotine assembly is almost complete. The person in the light suit appears to be working on something sitting on the bascule, possibly removing the blade from its case in order to install it. The basin and shield sit in front of the machine, to the right, waiting to be moved into place. The body basket is not visible in the picture, probably being unloaded from the fourgon outside the field of vision.


This picture was taken in Lons-le-Saulnier on April 20th, 1897 when the murderer, Pierre Vaillat, was executed by Louis Deiblerassisted by his son, Anatole. The "fourgon" (Horse-drawn closed carriage), seen on the right, was used to transport the guillotine to the place of execution, sometimes as far as 500 miles from Paris where the machine was stored (until 1911) in a garage at 60bis Rue de la Folie-Regnault. After the execution, it was also used to take the body away for medical examination and burial.
The picture is detailed enough to show the outline of the top-mounted pulley, the distinctive 3-bolt mouton and the metal claw under the crossbar. The brass lined lunette, the body basket and the metal braces on the uprights are also visible. There are no visible differences between this guillotine and the ones seen below in newer pictures. It does appear that from 1872 to 1939 the guillotine did not undergo any significant changes, if any at all.

The improvements rumoured to have been made by Anatole Deibler, and reported in a few books, are the addition of rollers to the mouton (in 1899), the brass tracks, the rollers on the bascule and the spring buffers. All these claims are refuted by the fact that the guillotine from Saint-Pierre, which was stored on the remote island without being used from 1889 to the 1990s, already had all the "Deibler improvements" and is in fact identical to the guillotine photographed in 1907 and 1909. With those facts we can safely label the "Deibler rollers and other improvements" as yet another guillotine myth.


This photograph was taken just 21 days after the one above, on May 11th, 1897. The guillotine returned to Paris and about two weeks later made the journey to Marseilles by train and then continued on the steamer Lebanon (Liban) to Bastia on the island of Corsica.
Corsica no longer had its own executioner (since 1872) so Louis Deibler arrived with his aides on the same ship. The guillotine was assembled on Place d’Armes near the harbor. On the photo, Jean Bartoli, convicted of a hideous torture-mutilation-vengeance murder appears to be on the bascule (the white object would be his shirt). The photo must have been taken at the exact moment of his execution.
The island of Corsica was in many ways similar to Sicily, with criminal families, blood feuds (vendettas) and a large number of famous bandits. Bartoli had formed a criminal association with two other individuals and operated in the area for six years before being captured by police in a shoot-out that left his two associates dead.

The following two pictures are taken in 1899 during the execution of Aloïs Zuckermeyer in the small town of Remiremont in the Vosges mountains. In the first photo, the machine stands ready to operate, blade raised, lunette and panier open, bascule in vertical position. The shiny pavement and the many umbrellas confirm the very rainy weather reported by the newspapers. This has not deterred the crowd of spectators piled up everywhere in sight of the Guillotine even on the slick roofs of every house. The military holds the crowd back as they await the arrival of the fourgon carrying the condemned and the executioners. Zuckermeyer (or Zuckermeier) was a German citizen. I tracked down his prior criminal record in the archives of the Bavarian police with arrests for theft and fraud in 1896 and 1898. He deserted from a regiment stationed in Strasbourg in Alsace, a part of France that was under German rule


between 1870 and 1918. He found work as a stone mason on the French side of the border, then raped and murdered a seven-year-old girl in Remiremont. She lived long enough to identify him before dying.
In the second photograph, taken a few minutes later, Zuckermeyer has just been executed. His body, dropped into the large wicker basket, has already been loaded into the fourgon, which is preparing to depart for the cemetary.
The guillotine blade rests in the dropped position. One of Deibler’s assistants appears to be washing the machine with a bucket of water prior to starting the disassembly work. A municipal employee stands nearby with a cart of sand or sawdust to soak up any blood from the pavement.
Although the spectacle is all but over the crowd has not started departing.

The guillotine was erected on Place de la Tour Carrée, a few blocks from the Remirement prison. The location was chosen by Anatole Deibler the day before the execution. This rare photograph shows him inspecting the site and discussing it with Remiremont mayor, Argant, the judge, Noisette, and the Chief of Police, Iverlet. Also present are the prosecutor, the city engineer, a journalist and the prison chaplain who will assist Zuckermeyer the next day.
Thanks to Gaëtane, the Remiremont Historical Society and the Remiremont Municipal Archives for the use of these photographs.

This seldom seen picture of a French execution was taken in Toulouse on May 2nd 1901 as Jean Allières approaches the guillotine for his fatal meeting with Anatole Deibler. Allières had murdered his elderly handicapped mother with an axe just five months earlier… the justice system in France was rather swift. Being a "parricide" – one who had murdered one of his parents – Allières would have gone to the guillotine barefooted and worn a black veil over his head as he was considered unworthy of seeing the light of his last day. This veil was removed just before the execution. Prior to 1832 the Napoleonic judicial code followed this ritual by the axe-amputation of the condemned’s right hand, followed immediately by his beheading. This horrible ritual was a left-over from a time, before the Revolution, when the death penalty was applied with various degrees of cruelty and torture to "fit the crime". A parricide was considered an especially vile criminal thus entitled to this extra attention.


This photo is a well known picture taken before the execution of Henri Languille, in Orléans, on June 28th, 1905. The picture was admittedly touched up by Photography Studio Joseph to add figures of Languille, his executioners and a priest because the photo they had taken during the actual execution did not turn out. The anecdote validates the widely circulated postcard photo, with the obviously fake handpainted figures, as having been taken before that execution.
Languille is famous for being the object of the "Beaurieux experiment", in which a doctor tried to establish whether there was survival of consciousness after decapitation. There has been much discussion about the veracity of his report and this photo adds to my suspicion that the reported experiment may never have taken place.

One will notice that the guillotine is properly set up, with the tub and shield ready to receive the head, no special provision for the experiment. Beaurieux precisely describes his interaction with the decapitated head: "…The head fell on the severed surface of the neck and therefore I did not have to take it up in my hands… …I was not obliged even to touch it in order to set it upright… …Next Languille’s eyes very definitely fixed themselves on mine and the pupils focused themselves…". The fact that the head would have landed in the zinc bucket behind the shield makes it impossible for Beaurieux to make eye contact with Languille without picking up the head.
The second photo of the Languille execution below gave me some grief. Although it is obviously taken at the same location, I noticed that the guillotine is installed behind the lampost and not in front of it as in the picture above.

I could think of no reason why the machine would have been moved before the arrival of the condemned neither did I understand why the ladder was moved from laying down behind the lampost to leaning up against it between the photos. Finally, it appears that the row of soldiers holding back the crowd has moved significantly closer to the machine in the second photograph. All these inconsistencies lead to a bit more research and to the theory that the second picture may have been taken at the execution of Sylvain Laroche in 1910. Both executions were performed on Place Bel Air, in Orléans. Laroche was executed in late May, which would account for the lighter foliage on the trees while the 5 years time span explains why the trees are slightly taller in the second photo.


This new photograph was taken the 26th of January 1909 at Carpentras, where double-murderer, Rémy Danvers, is about to be executed. This occurred just two weeks after use of the death penalty resumed in France with the quadruple execution of the Pollet gang in Béthune. From 1905 to 1909 president Fallieres systematically commuted every death sentence that came across his desk, until he was forced to relent by public opinion and a decisive vote (against abolition) in the Assembly.
The great public interest in the executions and associated pictures was deemed indecent by the government, which moved to prohibit the taking of pictures (movie or still) at all executions in 1909. This move was what led to the birth of movie censorship in France. After 1909 all pictures and films of executions were taken illegally.

This newspaper front page relates the execution of Henri Besse and Pierre Simorre in February 1909 at Albi in Southern France. The title states that "the assassins of guard Mouttet died with courage". The rest of the story, related in Sylvain Larue’s book "Les Grandes Affaires Criminelles du Tarn", is that Besse and Simorre, both small time crooks, did not know eachother before they were sent to the Albi prison. Besse had been sentenced for burglary in 1908 and Simorre for rape that same year. They were both awaiting deportation to Guyana at the prison in Albi, when they connected. They decided that neither of them was ready to take the trip to the "dry guillotine", the Bagne, which, in those years, meant certain death for a high percentage of the deportees. They planned to escape by overpowering the guards who numbered only three for the entire small regional prison. They managed to overpower both guards on duty, but the third guard alerted the gendarmes who recaptured the two inmates within the prison walls. In the process, one of the guards, Mouttet, died from a blow to the head with a paving stone.
Besse and Simorre were sentenced to death on October 28th, 1908. The execution took place in front of the same prison where the murder was committed.


This photo of the guillotine being erected at the prison for the Besse and Simorre execution is not very well known. Note that the door and lantern above the door can also be seen in the newpaper photo above although the paper places the guillotine on the wrong side of the door.
In the photo the specially-built ladder, with the top cross bar and metal stakes, is leaning against the wall of the prison. It can often be seen in the background of execution photos. It was used to install the chapiteau and was designed to lock into two holes in the guillotine frame with the cross bar spanning the uprights so it was very stable when an assistant climbed up with the heavy chapiteau. Andre Obrecht makes a note about that exercise being quite dangerous and one of his assistants nearly breaking his neck in the process. He notes: "Petit George (Ribour) is a good butcher but a bad acrobat – avoid putting him on the ladder in the future".
The horse-drawn carriage in the foreground would have left the garage, Rue de la Folie-Regnault in Paris (where "les Bois de Justice" were stored until 1911) a day or two earlier and travelled by train to Albi. The travels and arrival of the guillotine was followed by the population always eager to discover the location and time of an upcoming execution. The carriage was a rather non-descript transport vehicle of the time and could easily be overlooked. Deibler tried his best to conceal his own arrival often travelling and registering under a false name. Nevertheless the attendance at these "events" grew larger and larger over the years.
Many thanks to Sylvain Larue for the information and newpaper clipping.

This next photo is of the guillotine being dismantled in front of the prison main gate, in the city of Nevers, on July 11, 1914 after the execution of Robert Fabrewho murdered a psychiatric hospital orderly in order to escape. Fabre was only 19 when he was executed but already had committed a great number of robberies and burglaries and had spent a lot of time in prison.
One of Deibler’s assistants has been left behind to take the machine apart while the fourgon is away, carrying Fabre’s body to the cemetery. All the familiar pieces of the machine can be seen stacked on the sidewalk or against the prison wall and door. A few onlookers are still hanging around the scene. According to the legend on the photo, the darker spots on the street, in front of the door, are blood from the execution. Other photos in the set confirm that the guillotine was installed there.
This was the last public execution in Nevers.


This photo shows the guillotine being disassembled in front of the main gate of the Valence prison. The prison architecture and the streetcar tracks in Avenue de Chabeuil are unmistakable. Since the position of the guillotine is directly in front of the portal and not to the right side where it was for the famous 1909 executions, I believe this photo was taken in February 1929 after the execution of René Frédillon. The heavy coats and hats of the onlookers would indicate a winter setting. The only other execution that it could possibly be is that of Mathias Hadelt in July 1892.
21-year old René Frédillon murdered two people to rob them and attempted to murder two others. He didn’t show much remorse and refused to speak to the priest on the morning of his execution. He complained about departing for the hereafter on such a cold morning and said, as he was being bound, "You’re all wrapped up like a sausage, your gizmo there isn’t any fun".

ANATOLE DEIBLER 1885-1939
Anatole Deibler was the head executioner for the French Republic from 1899 to 1939. Before that he was an assistant to his father Louis Deibler for eight years after spending 6 years learning the "family trade" with an uncle in Algeria. During his fifty-four year career he executed almost 400 criminals and is the quintessential French "bourreau". The following link takes you to a page where you can see many of Anatole’s "clients" (All pictures taken when they were alive): Anatole’s 400 heads.

THE CAYENNE GUILLOTINES

French Guyana was used as a deportation site for undesirables as early as the 1760s. During the French Revolution a number of royalists, disgraced republican politicians, and priests were also deported to Guyana. Deportations continued on a small scale in the first half of the 19th century until "Le Bagne" was officially created in 1854 prompted by the desire to close similar prison camps in metropolitan France. The word "Bagne" comes from Italian "bagno" or bath, the name of a prison in Rome which had formerly been a Roman bath. It designated any penitentiary used for the detention of criminals sentenced to hard labor. France systematically deported all hardened criminals to the three colonial bagnes in Guyana, New Caledonia and Indochina from 1854 to 1938. A large population of criminals under less tight supervision than in a conventional prison created the need for harsh discipline, including imposing the death penalty for severe crimes.

This picture shows one of the Berger guillotines that were sent to French Guyana between 1890 and 1900. One was used in the Bagne’s Transportation Camp in St Laurent-du-Maroni, and the other on Ile Royale where the maximum security penitenciary camp was located. They replaced a 1792 type machine which had been in service since the Revolutionary years. The old machine was rumored, as were so many others, to be "the original one built by Tobias Schmidt" and "the one that decapitated Louis XVI".
The only evidence of the guillotines left today is two sets of concrete pedestals designed to support the machine found in the Camp in St Laurent and on Ile Royale. Information surrounding executions in Guyana is sparse and less reliable than information on executions in

France because of the secrecy surrounding the operation of the Bagne. A complete and detailed record exists of all executions in France between 1870 and 1977 while very little information about the bagnards executed in the same time frame has been kept.
It is estimated that around 200-250 prisoners were executed in French Guyana between 1890 and 1944. Most were sentenced to death for murdering fellow inmates or guards while in detention. These sentences were pronounced by a military court known as the "Tribunal Maritime Special", established by the decree of November 4, 1889. This tribunal exclusively handled disciplinary sentences against Bagne inmates during incarceration. It did not rule on guilt or innocence but only on the severity of the disciplinary action which ranged from limited confinement to total silent confinement to death.
The machine seen in these pictures is typical of the batch of Berger guillotines called the 1889 model by the workshop that built them. Chapiteau, mouton, release mechanism, pulley and bascule seen in this picture all match up to the 1907 and 1909 photos of the Parisian machine. Only the straps on the bascule are unique.
The machine was assembled on a set of raised concrete pads set in the ground. The aides seen assembling the machine in this photo and the one below are all convicts. They are identifiable by their striped suits and wide brim straw hats.
The bare-headed man in the photo appears to be Louis Ladurelle, the second to last executioner from the Bagne. Ladurelle held the job from 1923 to 1937.


The Bagne executioners were recruited among the prisoners themselves in both Guyana and in New Caledonia. Isidore Hespel (The Jackal) was the most famous of them all. He was a colorful character who took his job so seriously that he was called "Monsieur de St Laurent" by some. He executed 50 of his fellow prisoners between 1898 and 1921. He was ultimately freed long enough to murder a civilian and return to the penitenciary to be decapitated by his assistant, Ladurelle, on his own machine in 1923.
The words "Tribunal Maritime Special" can be seen in the background of the left photo on the mantel of the porch. This identifies the building as the place where the death sentences were pronounced.
Albert Londres, a famed journalist, started bringing the horrible conditions in the Bagne to the attention of the French public in 1923. Public pressure on the government rose over the next 15 years and in 1938 deportations to the Bagne ceased. But the Bagne wasn’t closed immediately. In 1940 the Guyana colony found itself cut off from France by the war. Nearly half of the prisoners died of malnutrition and disease between 1940 and 1945. The Bagne was officially closed in 1946 and the last surviving prisoners returned to France in 1953.
Some have asserted that the guillotines were returned to France around 1953 but one machine still remains in Saint-Laurent. This machine was unpacked and photographed by journalist Yvan Marcou during a 1996 visit to Guyana.

Locals suggested it was the guillotine from the Civil Prison in Cayenne which had never been used, but the photos tell another story. A close comparison of the photos with the old B&W photos reveal a small fabrication error that identifies this guillotine as the old St Laurent guillotine.
From his 1996 aerial photo of the Saint-Laurent transportation camp, and the water tower visible in the background of the photo below, Yvan determined that the entire series of photos was taken right outside the camp at the rear entrance of the TMS building. This was the location where freed convicts, such as Isidore Hespel, were executed. Convicts sentenced while serving their detention time were executed inside the camp.
When the Bagne was closed in 1946, there was no guarantee that the guillotine would not be needed in Guyana for regular death penalty cases, so the machine was simply turned over to the Civilian justice system and became the Cayenne prison guillotine, which was never used after 1946.
These photographs, except the one at the top of the section, were all taken during a staged mock execution authorized by the Bagne administration. An article accompanying them states this fact and notes that it is illegal to photograph a real capital execution, thus this officially-sanctioned re-enactment.


I confirmed this recently but have always suspected it as the "atmosphere" and the "actors" seem much too relaxed for it to be a real execution. A small movie sequence was filmed at the same time and shown in the "March of Time" newsreel series. The photos were likely taken in the 1933-37 timeframe and the article was published in September 1939.
Another detail about this guillotine intrigued me. Contrary to all other known Berger guillotines the mouton on this machine was not painted. At first, I supposed it was a new machine that had never been painted, but this made no sense as it was fabricated in France by the same experienced team that made all the other Berger guillotines and they would not have shipped an unpainted mouton. The mouton was probably painted but then was stripped and polished by a man obsessed by "his" guillotine: Isidore Hespel. This obsession transpires in the account of his last day when he asked to assemble the machine for his own execution but was denied. His last words were to scold Ladurelle for having assembled it "as a pig".
The staged photo on the left, shows kneeling prisoners forced to witness the "execution". That scene was reconstructed for the execution in the famous Steve McQueen/Dustin Hoffman movie "Papillon". It appears to have been the standard protocol for executions at least until the early 1900s.

LES CHAUFFEURS DE LA DROME – 1909

The following group of photographs is probably the best set of pictures taken of a guillotine execution. They were taken in Valence (South eastern France) in 1909. The triple execution took place much after sunrise contrary to protocol and the daylight gave the photographers a great picture opportunity. The condemned assassins, Pierre Berruyer, Octave David and Urbain Liottard ran the gang known as "Les Chauffeurs de la Drôme". Chauffeurs translates as "heaters" and refers to their practice of torturing their victims by burning their feet to make them reveal where they had their money hidden.
The gang had committed numerous murders in the process of robbing isolated farmhouses throughout the region. When they were finally caught they had a sensational trial in Valence and were sentenced to death. The year was 1909 and President Fallieres had been pressured by public opinion into letting some executions proceed despite his personal opposition to the death penalty. Eight people had been executed earlier in the year, including the four members of the Pollet gang, which had committed similar crimes in the North of France.
When the President turned down their appeal for clemency, Deibler was immediately dispatched to Valence with his machine and his team. They set up on Avenue Chabeuil in front of the prison in the early morning hours of the 22nd of September.
Octave David was executed second after Pierre Berruyer and before Urbain Liottard. The four photographs to the right retrace his final minutes.
At the top, he exits the prison main gate, escorted by two of Deibler’s assistants. The guillotine is on the right, less than 30 yards from the door. A crowd of onlookers form a hedge along his path. The final preparation took place in a small room just inside the front gate. There, the condemned were offered cigarettes and rum, time to write a last letter and an opportunity to confess and hear a short mass. Thereafter, legal documents were signed transferring custody of the condemned from the warden to the executioner. The prisoner was then tied with string at the wrists and ankles, the collar of his new shirt was cut off and any hair at the neckline was shortened.
The second photo is a remarkable close-up of the same scene. The prison street address, number 79, is visible on the wall to the right. David’s shirt has been pulled down, leaving his shoulders and chest exposed. Deibler has stepped forward from the guillotine and is waiting on the right, looking at David as he approaches. There a vile feel to this photo, maybe from the apparent excitement and eagerness of the crowd, coupled with the desperate and fearful look of the man who is about to die. David is described as being boastful and crude during his final minutes, but in this picture he doesn’t appear to be.
On the third photo, David has reached the guillotine and is about to be "tipped" over on the bascule by two of Deibler’s assistants, Louis Rogis, Deibler’s brother-in-law, and Marcel Deschamps. Anatole Deibler, with the very recognizable "bouc" (goatie) stands ready at the lever, while the first assistant, Léopold Desfourneaux, is waiting to pull the man’s head into the open lunette. Note the streetcar tracks running under the guillotine and the storm drain in the curb behind the machine. Soldiers from the 75th Infantry Regiment form a square to keep back the onlookers. The big wicker basket is open, which means that David can probably see the decapitated body of his accomplice, Berruyer.
In the last scene, the blade is down and soiled. Justice has been served! Desfourneaux is bending over handling the tin tub and preparing to transfer the severed head into the big zinc lined basket, where it will join the body. Deibler stands behind the basket and holds it open while the two other assistants are looking on. The splatter shield has been moved aside to retrieve the tub and sits on the ground to the right. The bare-headed officer in the foreground appears to be strolling casually over to look at the proceedings…






The next three photographs were taken between executions, but not clearly identified sequentially. The hand drawn numbers in the left corners are not chronological.
In the first photo, Desfourneaux and Deibler are standing behind the guillotine right after one of the executions. Deibler (on the right) appears to be securing the rope to the mouton hook in preparation for re-arming the machine. Desfourneaux may be about to remove the shield, to reach the bucket and remove the severed head or he may just have replaced the shield around the bucket for the next execution.
This second photo was scanned from a large, high resolution print dated 1923. The photo series from Valence was made into postcards for broad distribution and most digital copies are scanned from the postcard version. In this photo, Desfourneaux and Deibler are cleaning the machine in preparation for their next "customer". Deibler has partially raised the mouton using the rope and pulley system and holds it at face level while Desfourneaux wipes down the blade with a wet sponge. This macabre ritual, using two buckets and a sponge, which left the surrounding area soaked in blood and water, has been recorded by witnesses to the French executions in several books and newspaper articles. Many considered this process to lack the dignity required by capital executions. Contrary to contemporary executions in other countries, the French did not do much to spare the condemned from the gruesome scene of preceding executions. The large basket was designed to hold four bodies and at this point there is already one body in it, which the next man will see as he prepares to meet the same fate.
In the third picture Deibler is unhooking the rope from the mouton after having locked it into position in the jaws of the mechanism. The rope will then be stored on hooks attached to the left upright so it won’t interfere with the freefall of the blade. The assistant, Léopold Desfourneaux, is bending over to be wash his hands in one of the waterbuckets, most likely after handling the nasty sponge washing job. The machine will soon be ready to dispense justice to the next assassin.
The triple execution took exactly 6 minutes. To my knowledge there are thirteen photographs of these executions, including three facing the prison gate, one close-up of David and one from a distance overlooking the entire area. This set of pictures caused great outrage in French government circles as it was illegal to photograph executions. André Obrecht, nephew of Anatole Deibler and future chief executioner himself, recalls seeing these pictures as a child and having nightmares about his uncle cutting people’s heads off.

THE GRIM REALITY

This picture depicts the real "work" of the guillotine. The body resting on the morgue slab is Albert Fournier, triple murderer and rapist, executed by Anatole Deibler, at Tours, in February 1920 . WARNING: the picture is very graphic.

bar011

bar011[15]


bar011[17]

Here is a collage of some of the heads claimed by the guillotine over the years (Left to Right, Top to Bottom): Juan Vidal (1910), Auguste DeGroote (1893), Joseph Vacher (1898), Canute Vromant (1909), Lénard, Oillic, Thépaut and Carbucci (1866), Jean-Baptiste Picard (1862), Abel Pollet (1909), Charles Swartewagher (1905), Louis Lefevre (1915), Edmond Claeys (1893), Albert Fournier (1920), Théophile Deroo (1909), Jean Van de Bogaert (1905) and Auguste Pollet (1909) – Lefevre’s head underwent a brain autopsy after the execution, which explains the incision across the forehead (Not a botched execution as claimed by the French magazine that published the photo) WARNING: the pictures are very graphic.

bar011[19]

bar011[21]
Another pair of ugly pictures from the autopsy of the Pollet gang, executed in 1909 in Béthune. On the left Canute Vromant’s decapitated body on the examination table. On the right the severed heads of the Pollet brothers. This picture is much less known than the famous one that is found in nearly every guillotine book. WARNING: the pictures are very graphic

bar011[23]

bar011[25]


bar011[27]

The last photo is of the heads of the two other members of the Pollet gang, Canute Vromant and Théophile Deroo taken – according to the note on the picture – just a quarter of an hour after the execution. WARNING: the picture is very graphic

EUGENE WEIDMANN – 1939


The picture to the left is probably the most famous picture of the guillotine ever taken. It is a photograph of the last public execution to take place in France. The date is June 17, 1939, the location is Versailles, southwest of Paris and Eugene Weidmann, six-time murderer, is about one second away from losing his head. The new chief-executioner, Henri Desfourneaux, is poised to pull the lever. His first assistant, later to become chief executioner himself, André Obrecht, has just stepped back from the lunette after positioning Weidmann’s head between the uprights. The Berger guillotine in the picture is very similar to the 1909 model above but does have a sort of wood shield at the base of the bascule. This same arrangement can be seen in the pictures of the Gorguloff execution in 1932 and on the last pictures of the guillotine taken at Fresnes in 1981, but not on other execution pictures from before 1932, so it is probably a an add-on piece improvised by Deibler at the time. The execution took place later in the morning than scheduled giving the photographers plenty of time and light to get lots of pictures and even to shoot two motion pictures. One of these film clips can be downloaded here (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT). The machine was improperly assembled and the bascule jammed when tilted to horizontal requiring the assistants, Georges Martin and Henri Sabin, to drag Weidmann forward on top of the jammed plank. This is clearly visible here as his feet lay on top of the board instead of hanging over the edge as they would normally. As the headless body was tipped in the basket the bascule board started tilting up and almost

caused the body to fall off.
This second photo of the execution taken by a photographer positionned directly behind André Obrecht shows Desfourneaux’s hand still pulling down on the release lever. The mouton has just passed in front of Obrecht, the metal spike attached to its top is still visible right above his hat. Given the position of the blade the picture is in fact recording "the exact instant of death".
Henri Sabin, wearing the beret, is holding Weidmann’s feet while Georges Martin is weighing down on his back ready to push the body into the basket. André Obrecht is standing far back from the machine, a move he probably made to avoid being splattered with blood. He has been criticized, by Fernand Meyssonnier among others, for not remaining at his post through the entire execution. This was Desfourneaux’s third execution as chief, or fifth counting the two executions he performed as interim chief before being officially nominated, so it may only have been the fifth time Obrecht held the position of first assistant and photographer.


A huge crowd gathered the night before, but was kept out of the street by a police barrier so the larger view of the execution scene, on the right, shows only a half circle of a few hundred spectators, the ones with official passes, allowing them through the police blockade. The government downplayed the story and to this day the picture with the small crowd is still used to dispell the "myth" of the near-riot situation that occured that morning. The reality was that around 30-40,000 rowdy, drunken, screaming and singing "would-be" spectators spent the night partying in the surrounding streets. The photo below was taken at 1:30 am about 100 yards from where the guillotine would be set up. After the execution was over and the guillotine had been dismantled, this bloodthirsty crowd invaded the area. Reports of women dipping handkerchiefs in the bloody water on the sidewalk were, in fact, true.
It is not known if the crowd’s undignified behavior, the illegal photography and filming, the flashy press coverage or the new executioner’s apparent incompetence prompted it, but the government put an end to public executions by the following

month. All executions, through 1977, would take place behind the prison walls and beside a few pictures of the guillotine being dismantled after the 1946 Petiot execution, there are no known pictures or film of the French guillotine during that time period. The secrecy around the executions became such that the prison courtyards were ordered covered with a black tarp prior to the erection of the timbers of justice to prevent any viewing from above. At the time of the abolition of the death penalty, in 1981, there was a short relaxation of the rules allowing a few people, including Jean Ker, to view and photograph the instruments in Fresnes prison before the total blackout was reinforced. Until 2010, the exact whereabouts of the two last French guillotines was unknown and getting access to them was near impossible.

MARCEL PETIOT – 1946


This photograph was captured – inconspicuously – through the main gate of the Santé prison in Paris on May 25, 1946. The guillotine is being dismantled after the execution of the most infamous serial killer in French criminal history. Marcel Petiot was a shady doctor who, during the occupation of France, preyed on people seeking to escape from the Germans. These included Jews, members of the Resistance and common criminals. He lured them to his office under pretense that he could help them escape to South America then murdered them with poison, incinerated their bodies and stole their belongings. He was caught after the liberation of Paris, tried and sentenced to death for twenty-six murders, although he probably had committed many more. He has the dubious honor of being the first person executed by guillotine after the War.
Four photos were taken at the same time showing the execution team working in the courtyard. These are the only known photos of the French guillotine taken between 1939 and 1981.

THE LAST GUILLOTINE – 1981

When Jules Henri Desfourneaux died in 1951, André Obrecht was chosen as the new chief executioner of France among 400 candidates for the job. He had been assistant to both Anatole Deibler (his uncle) and Desfourneaux (his cousin), but had resigned twice, in 1943 and 1947, because of strong personal disagreements with the latter.





During Obrecht’s tenure not much was known about the guillotine and the executions hidden behind the prison walls. Obrecht’s memoirs were only published after his death in 1985. In 1981, the public got a brief glance at "Obrecht’s guillotine" before the government ushered it away to secrecy. The guillotine remained in secret storage, first at the Fort d’Ecouen then at the Musee des Civilizations d’Europe et de la Mediterranee. In 2010 it was brought out for the first time since 1981 and displayed at the Orsay Museum as part of special exhibit on Crime and Punishment.
From the five 1981 pictures shown here (Taken in the Fresnes prison storage shed) I note that the machine appears very old. The lateral metal supports bars have been drilled like swiss cheese. The blade has been widened to the point of almost touching the uprights. Note in the two top pictures that a second disassembled guillotine is visible in the background. This is the backup machine that was probably never used.
There is an unusual assymetry in the blade bolt pattern, with one bolt significantly offset to the right. This is particularly visible in the picture of the mouton (Left side, 3rd down) when compared with the close-up picture of the 1907 mouton (Left, Bottom). At first I assumed this was part of the blade modifications made by Obrecht, but eventually I realized it made no sense for him to move the mounting holes and modify the mouton front plate just to widen the blade. Then I came across the 1905 picture of a Berger blade (Right side, 3rd down) with the same bolting pattern. Note that not only is the hole offset laterally, but it is also located slightly higher than the other hole, an exact match of the bolt arrangement seen on the Fresnes photos. This makes it virtually certain that the blade belongs to that particular guillotine. The blade has keyed holes to prevent the bolts from turning when the nuts on the back of the mouton were tightened down. It has a center reinforcing plate, which was used on some Berger blades. Installed as shown in the 1905 picture it would have been visibly offset toward the side with the long edge, with a significant gap between the short side and the other upright. This may explain why Obrechthad a strip of steel welded to the short side. This could have been done to visually "balance" the blade between the uprights. In his book, Obrecht claims he did it to remedy a technical cutting problem. This retouchedphoto shows what the blade/mouton assembly would have looked like in 1891 before Obrecht "fixed" it.
Because the asymetrical bolt pattern would be easy to spot even on a picture from far away and because the blade for the machine already existed in 1905, I searched through all my old guillotine pictures for a machine with offset bolts. I finally came across one picture (Right, Bottom), probably from the execution ofPierre Joseph Merger at Arras in 1891, showing the same bolt offset. The old picture confirms that the machine Obrecht and Chevalier used until 1977 was probably an older machine, pre-dating the 1907-1909 Deibler machine and different from the one used in 1939 (Weidmann) and 1946 (Petiot). Incidentally, these were two last executions from which photos are known to exist.
Both of the "Obrecht" modifications are mostly cosmetic and are the last known changes made to the 1872 Berger guillotine. One can only speculate that his purpose may have been to leave "a mark" on his trade, a sort of "signature" to differentiate "his" guillotine from earlier (and later) ones. Note also that the assembly job for the Fresnes photos was botched: The lower C-brace and the bumper springs are missing so there is no way to operate the machine without causing serious damage.



THE HANOI EXECUTION VIDEO – APPROX 1915

A new incredible filmed document has surfaced in the last 5 years, documenting the guillotine execution of two men. The people who made the film public have asserted that it is the 1933 execution ofVeteau and Martin, by Anatole Deibler, in the city of Angouleme. The film is of poor quality but an incredible document from a historical standpoint. As I viewed it, I came to the immediate realization that it could not be the execution it claims to be. The first issue is the type of the equipment used. The jerky pictures, grainy quality, wildly varying speed and exposure from frame to frame points to a hand-cranked camera of pre-1920 vintage not what would typically be used in 1933. The opening scene, pictured on the right, shows the guillotine in a brightly lit dirt venue in front of a prison gate. Deibler carefully notes in his "carnet" that Veteau and Martin were executed at 3:50AM on July 20th, in total darkness. The architecture of the prison, with the vertical slit wall openings, the arched gateway and the characteristic base stonework is near identical to the modern shot of the "Maison Centrale" in Tonkin (Hanoi) shown below. The first letter of the word "MAISON" can be discerned over the door inside the red circle. Click here for an older photo. The "Maison Centrale" later became known to captured US aviators as the "Hanoi Hilton". Other issues such as the clothing worn by the spectators and the unpaved city street do point to a colonial setting rather than to a 1933 French provincial town. The guillotine is definitely a real model 1872 Berger and there is little doubt about the authenticity of the footage itself. The following scene takes place right after the opening general scene above, before either of the two executions has been filmed. The camera has been moved closer and becomes completely stationary for the remainder of the sequence. This camera is obviously on a fixed tripod and not handheld by an amateur standing in the middle of a crowd of onlookers. There are no people between the movie camera and the guillotine. Considering the outrage caused by the
bar011[33]

bar011[31]


bar011[29]
filming of the Weidmann execution in 1939 (Done secretly from an apartment window) it is impossible to imagine how a professional cinematographer could have been allowed to set up a fixed camera, practically overhanging the zinc tub, in France in 1933… This is the kind of thing that could only happen in a colonial setting far away from the eyes of the French government. The scene shows an aide leaning into the basket and also the blade in the dropped position. In the red circle we can clearly see that the blade is bloody, which is inconsistent with the fact that this scene precedes the first of the "two" executions. Immediately following this scene a bucket of water is thrown on the bascule and blade, obviously to wash off the blood of the first victim (before the "first" execution). Noteworthy also are the facts that the ropes are not "stored" on the hooks as they would normally be but instead are draped over the back of the bucket and also that there is no shield around the tub (Possibly an arrangement between the photographer and the executioner?). Such "sloppiness" is not likely from Deibler’s well-trained team of professionals. After this, the first condemned man is brought forward and as he is "tilted" on the bascule one of the aides whips open the basket and reveals what we already suspected, the foot of a corpse in the basket (in the red circle). This is the final confirmation that we are dealing with a triple, not a double execution. Other notable facts are that the condemned men wear no shoes and that the executioner’s aides wear loose fitting canvas uniforms similar to what was worn at the Bagne in Guyana. My best guess is that the film clip is from 1915 to 1920 and shows a triple execution of "forcats" at the Maison Centrale in Tonkin, Northern province of French Indochina. This does not lessen the historical value of the document in my view so I felt I should help set the record straight. A copy of the film clip can be downloadedhere (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT).

LES GUILLOTINES D’ INDOCHINE

From around 1900 to 1952 the French used guillotines in Indochina, both to punish common criminals, but also to execute political prisoners, which were causing unrest in the colony. There were at least three guillotines used in Indochina, one built in 1930 and used in Saigon until 1960 and two machines probably built in 1889 and used in Maison Centrale in Hanoi, later known as the "Hanoi Hilton" and "Hoa Lo Prison". The machine on the right has been known for a while. It is the one exhibited at Hoa Lo prison museum and probably the machine that is seen in the old film clip discussed above. It is in quite good condition although it is improperly assembled: The blade is installed backwards, the C-brace designed to surround the lower part of the posts is mounted at the mid height where the cross-brace should have been and the lateral and rear T-braces have been swapped, leaving both sets crooked.
This machine does have special retainer plates to hold the buffer springs in place and keep them from buckling. This is possibly a local fix to the ever present spring problem as these plates are not used on any other Berger guillotine. The machine is definitely a very close relative of the machines used in France, most probably being constructed by the same Paris shop that built the metropolitain machines.


The second guillotine from Maison Centrale is probably the one that is now being exhibited at the Revolutionary War Museum and shown in the photograph on the left. It is another Berger type machine, painted black or dark grey. It also has been improperly assembled, with the blade mounted backwards and the C-brace sitting in mid-air between the posts. This guillotine is much less known than the one at Hoa Lo Prison and I didn’t discover its’ existence until a few months ago. It is equipped with an unusually large head tub, which includes an elevated back wall and stepped sides which make the front part of the tub much wider than the spacing of the posts. This design would preclude the installation of the standard photographer’s shield used in France. It is likely that the oversized tub with the high ledges was designed to completely replace the shield.
The machine also has the same spring buffer retainer plates as the one exhibited at Hoa Lo prison. The construction is otherwise typical of that of a standard 1889-era Berger model from France. The hinged sideboard is missing but the hinges are still visible on the side of the bascule support. The base frame is of the type with the transversal tension rods as all the older guillotines, visible on the picture below and to the right.
Other interesting details that can be seen are the embedded bolts holding the laminated posts together, visible on the photograph to the left.


The photograph on the left shows very good details of the mouton and spike construction. The spring retainer plates can be seen inside the post on the right side.
The photograph on the right, shows the bascule plank which appears not to have the semi circular cut-out of the later Berger models. It also gives a very clear picture of the three hinges lining up along the right side of the base frame. These hinges allowed the post and the front and rear brace to tilt outward as one unit. Whether this was used as a means of erecting the posts or just a way to install and remove the mouton is still a bit unclear although the design is clearly purposeful.
Visible on the left side of the frame is the steel ball, located at the end of the rear tensionning rod. A lever was inserted through the hole in the ball and used to turn the rod which pulled the frame together. This was particulary useful to take up slack as the wood aged and contracted over the years.

This photograph was taken around the turn of the Century on the Grande Place in Saigon and shows an execution with a Berger guillotine, probably one of the two machines photographed above. The two guillotines built in 1889 were ordered for "Le Tonkin" (Northern Vietnam) and "La Cochinchine" (Southern Vietnam and areas of Laos and Cambodia) but are now both exhibited in museums in Hanoi.
The photo was published as a postcard by Planté, a local Saigon editor.
The setting seems more casual than for executions in France. A few "priviledged" spectators, mostly military officers, have been allowed inside the line of troops keeping the crowd away. A close examination shows the ladder laying on the ground in front of the machine. It also appears that the cane basket is just being opened to receive the body while two assistants are pushing the condemned forward on the bascule.

bar011[37]

bar011[39]
This newly acquired photograph shows a crowd massing around the guillotine in the port city of Haiphong in Tonkin (North Vietnam). The photo quality is consistent with a 1890-1920 time frame. The helmets worn by many in the crowd is an unusual design introduced in 1888 and known as "casque pain-de-sucre" due to its tall, domed, shape. It was used mostly by Marine Infantry and also by a few colonial units until the end of The Great War.
There are no spectators in identifiable local clothing and the entire crowd appears to be European. The box in the foreground is not the body basket as one would expect, but rather a crate, used to store the body basket. The actual basket is apparently what draws the attention of the cluster of people in the foreground. Note that the mouton/blade assembly is down indicating that the execution has already taken place.

A second photograph of the same execution in Haiphong recently surfaced and I was fortunate to be able to acquire it. The low building in the background on the left is clearly the same as the one in the picture above although the camera position and angle are very different. The crowds in the two photos include some of the same people, which precludes the picture from showing another execution at the same location.
One can note, from their clothing, that the workers disassembling the guillotine are "Annamites" (the name that the French gave to the Vietnamese people) but they are the only ones present, except for the lone silhouette in the foreground.
The photo was taken by R.Bonal, photo-editor based in the French Tonkin province. He is well known for a series of photos taken at a sword execution that resulted from a failed 1908 poisoning plot.
bar011[45]

bar011[41]

bar011[43]
This postcard is from a unknown execution, most likely in Haiphong between 1905 and 1914. I purchased it from a post card dealer in Paris who knew it came from a large lot of cards, all from Haiphong. The design of the postcard dates it to the years listed above.
It is not taken at the same location as the two other postcards so it is a different execution. We see the same marine infantry/colonial helmets as on the three pictures above.
The photo is remarkable, taken in the midst of the execution. The executioner and assistants were moving swiftly during the exposure and appear only as blurry areas behind the guillotine. The condemned man is on the bascule and was motionless long enough to be clearly seen, with his head entering the open lunette and his bare feet overhanging the back of the machine.
A man wearing a cap and driving goggles stands right behind the executioners. To his left a group of Annamite helpers are preparing to take down the guillotine as soon as the execution is over. A young spectator in the foreground hangs on to a metal lightpole get a better view.

MUSEUM QUALITY GUILLOTINE MODELS

Guillotine 1907

bar011[47]

Execution 1909

bar011[49]

    Custom Guillotine Models, handcrafted in Hardwoods, Steel, Copper, Brass and other metals.

    True to the original "bois de justice" or "timbers of justice", the legal name given to the guillotine in France.
    Most parts are made by hand. Only basic hardware parts, such as screws, nuts, springs and hinges, are sourced commercially.
    Very accurate working copies of the original guillotines used in France from 1792 to 1977.
    Standard working scale is 1/6th. Larger and smaller scale guillotines can be built to order, please inquire.

    Each guillotine is built to your specifications.

    Enter the Gallery pages to see more detail shots of my various guillotine models.
    Can be customized to match any specific guillotine, including the 1868 Berger guillotine, a German fallbeil or the Swiss Lucerne guillotine.

    My guillotine designs are based on real historical photographs and scale drawings.

    Design details of several known guillotines can be incorporated into your model.
    See my History page for some historic insight into the guillotine.
    Model guillotines are powerful and very realistic. They are not toys and should be handled with care.

    Each guillotine takes from 100 to 400 hours to complete and is made of up to 500 individual parts.

    The finished guillotines are signed, numbered and shipped with a brief History of the guillotine and detailed assembly instructions.
    My guillotines are incredible conversation pieces that will draw a lot of attention. Guillotines also make unusual cigar cutters.
    Guillotine models can be built from many types of wood including oak, rosewood, mahogany, maple and teak.
    Prices start around $500.00 for a 1792 revolutionary model guillotine.
    Go to the Workshop page for current backlog of models and approximate waiting time.

    Guillotine History Page – Lots of photographs and facts about the French guillotine from 1792 to 1981.

    A copy of the legal document that made the guillotine the official instrument of capital punishment in France for almost 200 years.
    The Brugge guillotine – The guillotine in the French Colonies – The guillotine in North Africa.
    Photos of what is probably the only real guillotine in North America.
    Actual execution photos from 1869, 1891, 1894, 1897, 1899, 1905, 1909, 1910, 1914, 1939. A photo gallery of severed heads.
    A photo gallery of almost 200 criminals executed by Anatole Deibler between 1885 and 1939.
    Pictures of the guillotine that was used for the last execution in 1977.
    Vintage photos of two German fallbeils from the 1920s. Photos of two guillotines used in Vietnam.

    GUILLOTINE

     Guillotine du Senegal Guillotine 1903 Guillotine 1889

    Fallbeil 1946 Guillotine 1794 Guillotine 1907

    Guillotine 1860 Guillotine 1872 Fallbeil 1854

    Guillotine 1907 Guillotine Reunion Guillotine 1810

    Guillotine 1810 Guillotine 1889 Guillotine 1810

    Click on any picture above to see more details of that model.
    This website is continually being updated. Check back frequently for new information.
    For a historical information and photographs of the real machine go to the History Page.
    For information and photos from my trip to see the Saint-Pierre guillotine click here.
    To purchase complete construction drawings of an 1872 guillotine click here.
    To see photos of the Swedish guillotine, used once in 1910, click here.
    To see historic photos of various types of German fallbeils click here.
    For a photo gallery of over 200 of Anatole Deibler’s "clients" click here.
    For a visual dictionary of frequently used guillotine terms click here.
    Please address any inquiries to: boisdejustice@verizon.net or info@boisdejustice.com

    1872 Guillotine Drawings

    FALLBEIL: THE TEUTONIC GUILLOTINE

    Historical documents and one old engraving suggest that the Germans may have used a primitive decapitation machine in the middle ages, but it was all but forgotten when the Germans rediscovered the guillotine in the late 1700s. It was reintroduced thanks to the French Revolutionary armies fighting their way into Western German areas and spreading "Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité" along with a new justice system to all their neighbors.
    The guillotine was adopted in several German States and coexisted with the more traditional hand-axe (Richtbeil) in other states as the primary execution method for over 140 years.
    Starting out as an exact copy of the French 1792 guillotine, the German guillotine (or Fallbeil) gradually evolved in different directions leading to several unique designs, both of the tall wooden and of the shorter metal type. The following section highlights a few of these.

    THE HAMBURG FALLBEIL 1856-1933


    The French guillotine spread to surrounding countries at the time of the Revolution, either through the spreading of French law to areas conquered by the armies of France or through the legal reform that the Revolution inspired. Despite the excesses of the Terror, many of the basic ideas of the Revolution were progressive and sound. Some areas of Germany embraced the legal reforms and adopted a uniform death penalty statute and the guillotine by the early 1800s. In German, the guillotine was renamed "Fallbeil", literally translated "Drop-Axe". Over the years the German Fallbeil evolved along its own path separately from its French cousin. Early Fallbeils were identical to the 1792 guillotines that inspired them, but by the mid 1800s Prussia used mostly a short fallbeil constructed entirely of metal. The picture on the left is quite different. Although the machine is tall and made mostly of wood it is not a French design at all but a completely German design used in Hamburg from 1856 to 1933. The blade shape, release mechanism, U-shaped mouton, bascule frame extensions with the fabric funnel and the dual cross braces clearly separate it from the 1792 design. The permanent scaffold included a trap hatch allowing the body to be dropped into a box in the room below. In the background the tall prison walls can be seen, topped with cloth screens to prevent any viewing of the execution from the outside. The machine only was used in 18 executions from 1856 to 1917. After this time, the executions started becoming more frequent and when the Nazis took power in 1933 the Fallbeils started working around the clock claiming far more victims than the guillotine did during the Terror years of the French Revolution.

    GRETE BEIER EXECUTION 1908

    This photograph has been identified as showing the preparations for the execution of Grete Beier in the interior yard of the regional courthouse in Freiburg, Saxony. Grete Beier was a young socialite, daughter of the mayor of Freiburg, who poisoned and shot her fiance because she did not love him but would not defy her family who wanted her to marry him. She forged a note to make the murder appear to be a suicide and almost got away with it, but was ultimately caught and confessed. She was sentenced to death and beheaded on the 23rd of July 1908 at the age of 22 by executioner Moritz Brand.
    The guillotine is similar to a French "Schmidt" design but has taller posts, two track spacer braces, a wood shield to hide the blade and a foot rest on the bascule plank. This could bethe same guillotine that was later used in the town of Weimar. Weimar was part of the Kingdom of Saxony between 1806 and 1918.

    THE REICHHARTS OF MUNCHEN


    These old photographs both show Bavarian executioner Franz Xaver Reichhart with a Mannhardt type fallbeil. On the left photo Franz, standing to the left of the fallbeil, is a young assistant to the Bavarian sharfrichter who is wearing the top hat. It could be Lorenz Scheller. The photo was probably taken between 1885 and 1895. The photo appears staged, ie not taken at a real execution. The awning is an unusual touch. Note the blade with the curved hand-holds which does not appear in the other photograph. This may indicate two different fallbeils and ,possibly different locations, Munich and Würzburg for example.
    In the photo on the right Franz has been promoted to head executioner and has inherited the privilege of wearing the top hat himself.


    The rough scaffold, the pile of sand/sawdust under the head bucket and the transport crate in the foreground seem too real to be staged, so I believe this photo was taken before a real execution. Franz was the Bavarian sharfrichter from 1894 to 1924 and is fairly young in this photo, so it probably dates back to 1900-1905. It is possible that this photo was taken before the execution of famous Bavarian outlaw Mathias Kneißl in February 1902.
    The next photo shows the same execution team about 15-20 years later. Franz Xaver is an old white-haired man and his young assistant from the last photo is a now middle-aged man. This again appears to be a staged execution.
    When Franz Xaver Reichhart retired in 1924 at the age of 73, his nephew, Johann Baptist Reichhart took over the office. Comparing this photograph to the one below it is remarkable how similar the two fallbeils are, down to the scratches in the paint on the blade and the blemishes on the right post. These could have been taken the same day except for the different execution teams…

    This photo presents good view of the entire fallbeil with the all-metal frame and mechanism. Only the bascule and support "table" of the machine are made of wood. The metal "sledge", a sort of gliding frame to which the blade is attached, is shaped like and upside down "U" and comes to rest at the base of the tracks in two boxes stuffed with felt and leather, thus dampening the impact of the 68 kg "drop axe". A winch with a hand crank (Laying on the floor under the machine) and a rope are used to raise the blade assembly. The condemned stepped on the footrest before being strapped, with two leather belts, to the cradle-shaped bascule. The upper lunette board was held open by a simple pin on a chain and the release was a vertical lever arm tilting the big curved "hook" which can be seen going through the hole in the top of the blade.
    This machine type was designed by clockmaker Johann Mannhardt in 1854 and this particular one operated through 1945. It was used in Munich by both Franz Xaver and Johann Reichhart and probably two executioners before them. The photo was most likely taken in 1924 in the courtyard of the Regensberg Prison. The man on the right, holding the lunette pin, has been identified as Johann Reichhart but is in fact his assistant, Huber. The man in the top hat, at the execution lever, is actually Johann. The picture is almost certainly staged and may have been taken to commemorate Johann’s nomination as chief-executioner. The third man would be Donderer, the assistant who got Reichhart into trouble by getting a side job demonstrating a mock fallbeil at a wax museum in Munich.


    A second photo taken the same day, shows the fallbeil at a different angle, giving a clear view of the fabric "tub", the square shock absorber tubes and the blood "gutter" protruding under the lower lunette. This gutter connected to a hole at the front of the table and directed the blood to the scaffold floor in front of the machine where a pile of sawdust or sand was placed to capture the spillage.
    Above the executioner’s head there is a small bell attached to the prison wall. The "Armesuendersglocke",or Poor Sinner’s Bell, was an integral part of the execution ceremony, and was rung continuously during the execution. A black curtain visible on the left side of the photo was also a symbolic part of the ceremonial, which remained religious in nature until 1940. The black veil remained even after that time in the Nazi execution rooms.
    Johann went on to become quite infamous for executing about 3,000 people, most of them political opponents of the Nazi regime, including members of the "White Rose" anti-nazi movement. After the Allied victory, he continued his grim trade for the other side by hanging Nazi War Criminals at the Landsberg prison.
    This actual fallbeil was reported destroyed at the end of WWII. One of identical design, from the prison of Würzburg, was transferred to Breslau in 1937. It was captured by the Soviets at the end of WWII and is currently exhibited at the War Museum in Kiev.

    THE MANNHARDT FALLBEIL

    The first steel guillotine constructed in Germany was designed by clockmaker Johann Mannhardt in 1854 and remained the only type used until around 1936. The original drawing on the right is from 1854 and stamped by the Royal Bavarian Justice Ministry. The drawing was titled "Fallschwert", Falling Sword, at the time although "Fallbeil" – or Falling Axe – was the name that was ultimately retained.
    The design was adopted in several German States while others retained the older French design. By the end of World War 2 Mannhardt-type fallbeils had been used at Stadelheim, Plotzensee, Hamburg, Bruchsaler, Wolfenbuettel, Strasbourg (France) and Wroclaw (Poland) so there were at least six of these machines in existence at some time. To my knowledge only four have survived to this day.
    When the Nazi justice ministry "standardized" on the guillotine as the official the death penalty method throughout the Reich in 1938, the Mannhardt machines were the only ones they deemed re-usable.


    Older wooden guillotines were retired and replaced by the new "Tegel" design, which is described in the section below. Some of the Mannhardt machines were modified to match the new design. The bascules were removed and replaced with a fixed wooden tables and some machines received a blade shield and a metal head bucket in lieu of the fabric one.
    This photograph shows the Mannhardt machine from Wolfenbuettel which was also used by the Nazis during the war but was not modified when this photo was taken. The freestanding metal bucket is probably a goofy idea by the photographer, and was not part of actual guillotine accessories.
    Note that the frame is welded, not bolted, the sledge crossbars having circular protrusions around the bolt holes and there is a small hinged spatter shield attached to the left post. Because of these fabrication details this fallbeil is not one of the original Mannhardts. Its exact origin is unknown.
    This fallbeil was captured by the Allies in 1945. It was put back into service in the British sector where it was used to execute criminals sentenced under German law for crimes committed during and after the war, as opposed to those sentenced by Allied War Crime tribunals, who were hanged.


    These two photos show the same Wolfenbuettel fallbeil after modification. Note the metal bucket, the added downspout to the floor and the lack of a tilting plank. The original bench was reused but its center track is filled in with a wood plank.
    The photo on the right was taken in the Wolfenbuettel prison execution room, around 1947 when the British were using it.


    The photo on the left shows an unusual modified Mannhardt with a steel table and steel tilting plank. In 1944, this fallbeil was transferred from Strasbourg, France to the new execution center at Bruchsaler where it was used to execute 55 people. There is some evidence that it is the fallbeil that was used in Strasbourg between 1890 and 1914 when Alsace-Lorraine were under German rule.
    The second photo shows a damaged Mannhardt fallbeil in the death house of the Plotzensee prison, where thousands were murdered by the Nazis. The machine has the fixed table, blade shield and metal bucket. It was transfered from Bruchsaler to Plotzensee before the war and is probably the restored fallbeil currently displayed at the Brandenburg memorial. This photo was taken by the Soviets shortly after the capture of Berlin.

    THE TEGEL FALLBEIL


    This fallbeil is "THE" Nazi guillotine. After 1933, when Hitler and his henchmen refashioned the German judicial system in the image of their oppressive regime a lot of new crimes became capital offenses, leading to a drastic increase in the number of executions in the Reich. To meet this new demand for "justice" many prisons were designated as execution sites (Sixteen such sites by 1942) and equipped with metal fallbeils as required by the standardized procedure.
    These fallbeils were first built by the inmates of the Tegel prison in Berlin, hence their name. They were more crude than the Mannhardt design, lacking the hinged bascule and the external pulley frame. The visible "pivoting hook" release mechanism was also replaced by an internal system triggered by a pull rod.
    Other changes include a geared winch to reduce the force required to raise the sledge, a lunette with an oval opening and a push button release and a hinged sheet metal shield to protect the executioner from blood spray.
    The Tegel guillotine shown on the left was used at the Brandenburg prison and is currently displayed at the Deutsche Historisches Museum. It is very well preserved and contrary to most other Tegels it is not painted and does not have the blade shield. The crude bench made of wood planks with four hefty wood legs is characteristic of the original Tegel design. On some restored Tegel fallbeils (Pankrac, Vienna) the rear legs have been replaced with square metal tubing.


    These are two infamous Tegel fallbeils from Poland. The one to the left is being examined by Red Army soldiers after the capture of Poznan. Note that the crank rotation is parallel to the blade and not perpendicular as on the Mannhardt system. The soldier on the left is pulling the release system which looks much like an old fashioned toilet pull. There is no blade installed on the sledge. The soldiers provide a good scale to see of how short the machine actually is (about 8 feet).
    On the right is the Tegel fallbeil from the town of Katowice, nicknamed "the Red Widow". (Photo by Adam Cyra). It was used to execute over 550 people accused of resistance against the Nazi occupation between 1941 and 1945. The machine is currently stored at the Auschwitz-Birkenau holocaust Museum.

    The rear view shows the metal tub with lateral cut-outs for the head strap, an adjustable leather belt that passed under the forehead of the condemned to prevent him from lowering his head. This strap is very visible on the photo of the Wolfenbuettel fallbeil above. Also visible are the shock absorber tubes, the blade shield and the nearly vertical blood deflector under the tub. The diagonal steel braces designed to stiffen the bench legs are missing on both of these machines.


    These modern photographs depict two additional Tegel fallbeils exhibited in museums. To the left is a close-up of the blade of the Vienna fallbeil, which was pressed into service in 1938 shortly after the Anschluss. It claimed many victims among opponents of the Nazi regime in Austria. It is currently displayed at the Vienna Museum of Criminology. The head bucket is a reproduction and is not properly designed. The top of the bucket should have been secured to the metal supports visible above the head strap post thus it is mounted much too low. In addition the bucket should not have a rear wall. It was designed to catch the head and direct the spillage down to the floor drain located under the deflector spout. It was never intended to contain the blood.
    On the right is the Tegel fallbeil from the Moabit prison in Berlin. In addition to being used by the Nazis, this one also was used after the war and became the last fallbeil to claim a life under West German law, when murderer and rapist Berthold Wehmeyer was beheaded in West Berlin on May 12, 1949. The fallbeil is currently exhibited at the Strafvollzugsmuseum in Ludwigsburg.

    THE PANKRAC FALLBEIL


    The Nazi fallbeil also made its way to Czechoslovakia when it was annexed as the "Reich Protectorate of Moravia and Bohemia". The fallbeil was of the standard "Tegel" design and is shown in the Pankrác execution room, on this 1943 photo (Left). Between April 5, 1943 and April 26, 1945 a total of 1,075 people were executed in Pankrác prison, located in southeastern Prague.

    Most of the victims were Czech citizens resisting the Nazi occupation.
    Just 12 days before the capitulation of Germany, the machine was used to execute 5 people. It was then broken up and its wood parts were burned while the metal parts were thrown in the Vltava River in an attempt to conceal the Nazi war crimes.
    After the liberation of Prague its remains were retrieved from the river. The guillotine was reconstructed from the parts and is currently displayed in the original execution room preserved as a Memorial to the victims of the Nazis. The Memorial is located within the still-functionning prison of Pankrác and is highly revered among the Czechs as a symbol of the sacrifices and hardships endured by the people during the war.
    The three other photos (by Vladimir Sebecek) show the modern memorial with the gallows and the rebuilt fallbeil.


    The wood bench and lunette are reproductions which explains why they are so different from the original ones seen in the black & white photo above.
    It appears that other parts, like the head tub and winch, also were lost and have been replaced with reproductions, however the core of the fallbeil on display is still the original machine brought to Prague in 1943.

    POST-WAR FALLBEILS

    For four years after the end of World War II the death penalty remained on the books in West Germany. While the War Crimes Tribunals run by the Allies mostly used hanging as the execution method, the German courts and the court operated by the French occupation authority retained their traditional method of execution by beheading.


    Although numerous fallbeils captured from Nazi prisons were available, there was some reluctance to use these instruments on common criminals and especially war criminals. Prior victims were considered martyrs and heroes by the victors and using the same instruments in this manner could dishonor their sacrifice. Some were however reused, among them the ones from Moabit and from Wolfenbuettel. The East German STASI also used one Tegel fallbeil in Dresden until the 1950s.
    At least two new fallbeils were built after the war by locksmith firm Otto Tiggemann in Hamm/Westfalen. The machines were hybrids, mostly based on the old Mannhardt design but with the metal buckets of the Tegel version.
    The photo on the left shows the Rastatt fallbeil which was used nine times between 1946 and the abolition of the death penalty in 1949. It is on display at the Strafvollzugsmuseum in Ludwigsburg.
    On the right is the Mainz fallbeil, also known as the Rheinland-Pfälzische fallbeil, which was completed right after the abolition and never used. It is exhibited at the Landesmuseum in Koblenz.

1907 Guillotine

SAINT-PIERRE ET MIQUELON

The Islands of Saint-Pierre, Miquelon and Langlade lie off the southern coast of Newfoundland in the waters of the North Atlantic. They were the only portion of "New France", the French colony in North America, that remained in French hands at the end of French and Indian War in 1763. Those windswept rocky knolls had a hidden economic value to France: they gave the French fishing fleet access to the Grand Banks and their huge cod population. The islands were occupied by the British several times between 1763 and 1815, when they were permanently returned to France. The population of the islands has fluctuated between 4,000 and 6,000 over the years and consists mostly of local fishermen and government officials dispatched from Paris for tours of duty of various lengths. Very cold winters, cool and wet summers, stormy weather, rocky coastlines and lack of vegetation makes the land inhospitable and life for the fishermen of the 19th century was not easy. Many split their time between forrays into the dangerous waters of the North Atlantic and drinking binges in the few local taverns on the islands.

Saint-Pierre in the 1890s
Saint-Pierre in the 1890s

The picture on the left is a detail of a huge painting (24Ftx100Ft) showing life on the island, made for the Saint-Pierre and Miquelon pavillon at the 1900 Exposition Universelle in Paris. The original has been returned to Saint-Pierre and now hangs in the exhibit hall of the Musee de l’Arche. Photo on right shows the bay of Saint-Pierre and part of the town in winter around 1890 when the Neel affair took place.

L’AFFAIRE NÉEL

On december 30th, 1888, two fishermen, Louis Ollivier and Auguste Neel, after a night of heavy drinking, decided to go eat dinner at the cabin of Francois Coupard, Louis’ fishing boat captain. The cabin, located on l’Ile aux Chiens, across the bay from the harbor of Saint-Pierre, was expected to be vacant. The two arrived to find the door locked. Dismayed they proceeded to kick in a window and, crawling inside, they came nose-to-nose with Coupard, knife-in-hand, ready to defend his property. Neel disarmed the old man, picked up the knife and stabbed him. Ollivier did the same, at the instigation of Neel, who wanted his companion to share the blame for the attack. The two drunken men then got into an argument over whether Coupard was fat or just big. In an effort to find out they mutilated the body, then left it under a sail in the corner of the cabin. They stole whatever they could find then took Coupard’s boat to sea in an attempt to reach Newfoundland. The wind and the rough seas threw them back on the coast of Saint-Pierre where they were arrested the next day.
Their trial was held in February 1889 and resulted in a sentence of death for Neel and ten years Hard Labor for Ollivier. Neel’s sentence seemed harsh considering that the murder was not premeditated and not committed for the purpose of robbing Coupard but the horrible mutilation of the body seemed to have weighed heavily on the court. His appeal was rejected and the Governor of the islands made a recommendation of "no clemency" to the President, because it was felt that a rise in criminality on the islands had occurred since a few recent death sentences had been commuted because of a lack of means to carry them out. French law in 1889 not only required that "tout condamne a mort aura la tete tranchee" – every person sentenced to die shall have his head severed – but also that the sentence must be carried out in a public venue near the place where the crime was committed. Despite the inconvenience an example had to be made. The President rejected the clemency and the Governor then requested that Louis Deibler, Executeur des Hautes Oeuvres de la Republique, be sent, with his equipment, to Saint-Pierre to carry out the sentence. This request was turned down (Deibler did not travel outside metropolitan France) but arrangements were made to ship a guillotine from Martinique. The Governor was also told to find a local person to perform the grim task.
Meanwhile, Neel spent his days in the prison in Saint-Pierre in the care of Sigrist, the warden and his wife. The rehabilitation of Neel, which is portrayed in the 2000 Patrice Leconte film "La Veuve de St Pierre", did not really take place neither did his "adoption" by the local population. The guillotine arrived on the island on August 22nd 1889 and Neel was executed two days later by a pair of local fishermen, of dubious reputation, who were paid 500 francs and given a pardon on a 3-month petty larceny sentence after the Governor failed to find an executioner among the local tradesmen and the military personnel stationned on the islands. The two headsmen were despised by the islanders for what they had done and everyone refused to accept their "blood money", forcing them to leave the islands before the winter.
Contrary to widespread reports, the execution was rather uneventful, although the head did remain attached by a thread that the executioner had to sever with a knife. The protocol followed "standard" French procedure, with the awakening before dawn, the mass, a glass of wine and a bowl of tea, the "toilette", a chew instead of the traditional last cigarette, the ride in a carriage to Place de l’Admiral Courbet where soldiers formed a square around the guillotine and most of the population of Saint-Pierre had come to see the event. Neel thanked the Sigrists for their care, told unlookers "Learn this lesson: I killed and now I will be killed, don’t do like me" and then said to the executioner "Do not miss" before being basculed.
The above statement of facts is a summary of the full report, written in 1938, by an eyewitness and member of the court, Emile Sasco. The full report (in French) can be downloaded here.
Sasco indicates that the guillotine was an old machine from the French Revolution but the machine that I found in Saint-Pierre is a newer "Berger-type" machine of post 1872 vintage. The Museum personel assured me it was the machine used for the 1889 execution. Subsequent research, by Mr.Rodrigue G., irrefutably proves that the guillotine arrived in the island in 1890, nearly a year after the execution of Neel. He also uncovered a February 1890 article in a local St Pierre paper describing SIX guillotines lined up in the famous garage, Rue de la Folie Regnault, waiting to be tested by Monsieur Deibler. The six new Berger machines were ordered by the Justice Ministry and destined for Cochinchine, Tonkin, Tahiti, St Pierre & Miquelon, St Laurent and Cayenne. Workers were painting numbers on the machines to facilitate assembly and prevent the mixing up of the parts. The explains the number "4" painted everywhere on the machine I saw in St Pierre. It turns out this guillotine was never used and has remained on the island since 1890. It was stored in a museum basement for a number of years but is on display since June 2008.

LA GUILLOTINE

I was fortunate to be given the opportunity to examine "La Veuve de Saint-Pierre" in detail by Le Musee de l’Arche . I spent two days measuring and photographing the machine and was also given access to some documents dating back to the time of Neel’s trial and execution. In exchange, I was able to identify the machine, which was thought by most on the islands to date back to the French Revolution – per the eyewitness account referenced above. I also uncovered a few minor assembly errors and pointed out a couple of missing parts. I am in the process of producing a full documentation package on the machine for the museum. The guillotine is exhibited at Musee de l’Arche, open to the public during the summer months, and is to my knowledge the only place in North America where a real guillotine can be seen. Access to Saint-Pierre is a bit difficult (ferry or small plane from Newfoundland) but well worth a detour if you want to experience a French village in the middle of North America and see "The Guillotine".

Guillotine 1889
Guillotine 1889
Guillotine 1889

The guillotine is exhibited in the stairwell of the museum making it difficult to take a full height photo. The headtub is missing as is the hinged sideboard and the ladder. These parts are all listed on the shipping list that came with the machine. On the other hand the blade case, the toolbox which contains the various bolts and pins needed to assemble the machine and the large zinc-lined cane basket were all there, but are currently not exhibited with the machine. The hooks for the rope are not installed but I found them in the museum warehouse. The wood is in very good condition with no sign of rot or insect damage, just a few cracks and splinters here and there resulting from rough handling. The original paint includes a series of stenciled letters and numbers on the parts matching the ones on the assembly instructions. The number "4" also appears repeated on nearly every part.

Guillotine 1889
Guillotine 1889
Guillotine 1889

For safety reasons the mouton has been locked in place with wood sticks screwed into the tracks on both sides so I had to forego an actual blade drop test. One of the blade nuts is missing and has been replaced with a new nut of smaller size. One fact that makes this machine very interesting is that, unlike other Berger guillotines, this one is known to be in its original 1889 state having never been used or modified. Like all the newer machines the mouton is equipped with brass rollers, disproving the claim by several authors that Anatole Deibler was the one that had the rollers added to the mouton. Due to age, a few of the bolts are a bit tough to thread like this one on the bascule pedestal.

Guillotine 1889
Guillotine 1889
Guillotine 1889

The braces are hinged as on all the pre-1900 Berger type guillotines. The hinge pins have a kind of "side barb" to facilitate removal using only a hammer. I verified that, when the bolt securing it to the frame is removed, the brace pivots out in a 90 degree arc. On the next picture you can see that for once, the C-brace got installed in the proper position! The spring buffers have much shorter springs than on the 1907 guillotine. Contrary to the newer machine they have no rubber anvils. These were probably an improvement added later to remedy the ever-present problem with broken springs.

Guillotine 1889
Guillotine 1889
Guillotine 1889

The brass tracks are asymetrical, which I had never realized before. On this machine they are held by two rows of twelve screws. The release handle is made of forged steel and can be removed so the post is easier to handle during transportation. Here it is secured with two of the cylindrical brace bolts, but this is an error. When they assembled the machine they came up short two of these bolts for the cross brace, but had square head bolts left over… From the well known 1907 picture it appears that the lever should be attached with the square head bolts and the cross brace with the two last cylindrical bolts.

Guillotine 1889
Guillotine 1889
Guillotine 1889

The folding shield that surrounds the head tub served a double purpose of protecting the executioner’s first aide from splashing blood and hiding the most graphic view of the execution from onlookers. The folding sides overlap thanks to a small wood block offset on the right panel that allows the contraption to fold completely flat. The massive grab that hold the mouton in place. The top mounted pulley that was used to hoist the mouton and blade up to the grab. The rope should have been tied to an "8-shaped "ring, as was clearly explained in the operating instructions, but the ring is missing. As I suspected the pulley frame is forged of one straight length of steel bar.

bar011[51]


THE NON VIOLENT REVOLUTION BEGINS JULY 5th REALLY

Untitled403

Untitled397

The non-violent revolution begins July 5.

Celebrate the 4th like its the last one ever. Then … Saturday and Sunday, you stay home.

No gas station, no supermarket, no spending…..NONE.

Corporations are designed to make money off us…. the GOVERNMENT became an ‘inc.’ in 1871….

TO ABOLISH THE ACT OF 1871 Where Democracy was born , We the people do want a democratic republic of 1776
not a Democracy

From this point forward… we all must push for the abolishing of the corporation which is literally a MONOPOLY.

July 5th (saturday), July 6th (sunday).

————————-

Since 1871 the United States president and the United States Congress has been playing politics under a different set of rules and policies. The American people do not know that there are two Constitutions in the United States. The first penned by the leaders of the newly independent states of the United States in 1776. On July 4, 1776, the people claimed their independence from Britain and DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC was born. And for 95 years the United States people were free and independent. That freedom ended in 1871 when the original “Constitution for the united states for America” was changed to the “THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”.

The Congress realized that the country was in dire financial straits, so they made a financial deal with the devil – international bankers — (in those days, the Rothschilds of London ) thereby incurring a DEBT to said bankers. The conniving international bankers were not about to lend the floundering nation any money without some serious stipulations. So, they devised a way of taking back control of the United States and thus, the Act of 1871 was passed. With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia.

With the passage of “the Act of 1871” a city state (a state within a state) called the District of Columbia located on 10 sq miles of land in the heart of Washington was formed with its own flag and its own independent constitution – the United States’ secret second constitution.

The flag of Washington’s District of Columbia has 3 red stars, each symbolizing a city state within the three city empire. The three city empire consists of Washington D.C., London, and Vatican City. London is the corporate center of the three city states and controls the world economically. Washington’s District of Columbia city state is in charge of the military, and the Vatican controls it all under the guise of spiritual guidance. Although geographically separate, the city states of London, the Vatican and the District of Columbia are one interlocking empire called “Empire of the City”

The constitution for the District of Columbia operates under tyrannical Vatican law known as “Lex Fori” (local law). When congress passed the act of 1871 it created a separate corporation known as THE UNITED STATES and corporate government for the District of Columbia. This treasonous act has unlawfully allowed the District of Columbia to operate as a corporation outside the original constitution of the United States and in total disregard of the best interests of the American citizens.

POTUS Obama at the Vatican Corporate headquarters

POTUS is the Chief Executive (president) of the Corporation of the United States operating as any other CEO of the corporation — governs w/a Board of Directors (cabinet officials) and managers (Senators/Congress) Obama as others before him is POTUS — operating as “vassal king” taking orders once again from “The City of London” through the RIIA (Royal Institute of Intl Affairs). The Illuminati (founded by the The Society of Jesus or Jesuits, the largest Roman Catholic Religious Military Order headed by the Black Pope) created the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) in 1919. The American equivalent to the RIIA is the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). The RIIA and CFR set up Round Table Groups (based on the King Arthur myths).

What did the Act of 1871 achieve? The ACT of 1871 put the United States back under British rule (which is under Vatican rule). The United States people lost their independence in 1871.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the Republic. It does not! Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring to a legal document. This seemingly “minor” alteration has had a major impact on every subsequent generation of Americans. What Congress did by passing the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government.

Instead of having absolute and unalienable rights guaranteed under the organic Constitution, we the people now have “relative” rights or privileges. One example is the Sovereign’s right to travel, which has now been transformed (under corporate government policy) into a “privilege” that requires citizens to be licensed – driver’s licenses and Passports. By passing the Act of 1871, Congress committed TREASON against the People who were Sovereign under the grants and decrees of the Declaration of Independence and the organic Constitution. The Act of 1871 became the FOUNDATION of all the treason since committed by government officials.

As of 1871 the United States isn’t a Country; It’s a Corporation! In preparation for stealing America, the puppets of Britain’s banking cabal had already created a second government, a Shadow Government designed to manage what “the people” believed was a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC , but what really was an incorporated UNITED STATES. Together this chimera, this two-headed monster, disallowed “the people” all rights of sui juris. [you, in your sovereignty]

The U.S.A. is a Crown Colony. The U.S. has always been and remains a British Crown colony. King James I, is not just famous for translating the Bible into “The King James Version”, but for signing the “First Charter of Virginia” in 1606 — which granted America’s British forefathers license to settle and colonize America. The charter guaranteed future Kings/Queens of England would have sovereign authority over all citizens and colonized land in America.

After America declared independence from Great Britain, the Treaty of Paris, signed on September 3, 1783 was signed. That treaty identifies the King of England as prince of U.S. “Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America“– completely contradicting premise that America won The War of Independence.

Article 5 of that treaty gave all British estates, rights and properties back to Britain.

It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty’s arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that persons of any other decription shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States and therein to remain twelve months unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights, and properties as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent not only with justice and equity but with that spirit of conciliation which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several states that the estates, rights, and properties, of such last mentioned persons shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights, or properties since the confiscation.

And it is agreed that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights.

It is becoming increasingly apparent to American citizens that government is no longer being conducted in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, or, within states, according to state constitutions. While people have recognized for more than 150 years that the rich and powerful often corrupt individual officials, or exert undue influence to get legislation passed that favors their interests, most Americans still cling to the naive belief that such corruption is exceptional, and that most of the institutions of society, the courts, the press, and law enforcement agencies, still largely comply with the Constitution and the law in important matters. They expect that these corrupting forces are disunited and in competition with one another, so that they tend to balance one another.

Mounting evidence makes it clear that the situation is far worse than most people think, that during the last several decades the U.S. Constitution has been effectively overthrown, and that it is now observed only as a façade to deceive and placate the masses. What has replaced it is what many call the Shadow Government – created with the illegal passing of the Act of 1871. It still, for the most part, operates in secret, because its control is not secure. The exposure of this regime and its operations must now become a primary duty of citizens who still believe in the Rule of Law and in the freedoms which this country is supposed to represent.

When the president takes the oath of office he is swearing to defend the Constitution of the District of Columbia, the INCORPORATED government. He isn’t promising to preserve, protect and defend the original Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. See for yourself – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It doesn’t state – “Constitution for the United States of America” which was drafted for “We the People of the United States”.

It is for this reason that Obama never got a declaration of war from Congress for Libya. He didn’t need one. Under the corporation constitution, the Constitution of the United States, Obama is the CEO and master of his corporate domain called the United States. His loyalty is to the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government which is financially controlled by London and their Federal Reserve bankers, which is controlled by the Vatican. Obama is president of corporate America – looking out for its corporate interests.

When the International bankers (London) wanted more money they had their banks Goldmen Sachs and Bank of America (taken over by Bank of Italy in the 1920s) falsely declare $billions in losses. The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve revealed that London has received more than $16 trillion in U.S. funds under the guise of government bailouts. $16 trillion had been secretly given out to US banks and corporate interests and international bankers everywhere from Germany, Italy, France, Sweden, the UK, and Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and September 2011, the Federal Reserve had secretly laundered out over $16 trillion to international banks, corporations, and on the take governments.

If the American people want to know where their money went take a look at the Vatican. The Vatican bank is where most of that $16 trillion went to. Their vaults hold secret numbered accounts (Roman numerals of course) for George W Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, George HW Bush, Barack Hussein Obama, Timothy Geithner, Henry Paulson, Tony Blair, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel (born Angela Dorothea Kasner). Look also at Citigroup – that bank is used to money launder $billions to the CIA (Knights of the Holy See) for arms dealing, drug trafficking and covert terrorist operations against the United States people – CIA code named al Qaeda. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner ignored President Barack Obama’s order to consider dissolving Citigroup because it is the CIA’s financial pipeline.

YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE ORGANIC ACT OF 1871

THIS IS THE PDF HERE: DCOA-1871

[gview file="http://www.teamlaw.org/DCOA-1871.pdf"%5D

organic act 1871 1 Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

Continue reading the bill:

organic act 1871 2 Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

organic act 1871 3 Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

organic act 1871 4 Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

organic act 1871 5 Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

organic act 1871 6 Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

organic act 1871 7 Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

organic act 1871 8 Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

organic act 1871 9 Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

organic act 1871 10 Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

organic act 1871 11 Text of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871

############


Your Birth Certificate Was Made Into a Bond…it’s Worth Billions!

February 1, 2014 tatoott1009 4 comments

Untitled8

When the UNITED STATES – CANADA (or any other country with Bank Note Birth Certificate it works the same way) declared bankruptcy, pledged all Americans as collateral against the national debt, and confiscated all gold, eliminating the means by which you could pay, it also assumed legal responsibility for providing a new way for you to pay, and it did that by providing what is known as the Exemption, an exemption from having to pay for anything. In practical terms, though, this meant giving each American something to pay with, and that \”something\” is your credit.

Your value to society was then and still is calculated using actuarial tables and at birth, bonds equal to this \”average value\” are created. I understand that this is currently between one and two million dollars. These bonds are collateralized by your birth certificate which becomes a negotiable instrument. The bonds are hypothecated, traded until their value is unlimited for all intents and purposes, and all that credit created is technically and rightfully yours. In point of fact, you should be able to go into any store in America and buy anything and everything in sight, telling the clerk to charge it to your Exemption account, which is identified by a nine-digit number that you will recognize as your Social Security number without the dashes. It is your EIN, which stands for Exemption Identification Number.

This post is getting much attention on my blog at the moment. The sooner this information gets out to the masses, the sooner we will be able to put an into the fraud, lies, deceit and corruption, once and for all. For those in doubt, don’t take my word for it, conduct your own research and I’m certain you will draw the same conclusions.. ~BK

http://briankellysblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/your-birth-certificate-was-made-into.html

Who knew, it says “American Bank Note Company” right there on our birth certificates!? I’m connecting so many dots today I think my head might start spinning around and puking green vomit, like the little girl in the Exorcist. Ok I’m sorry, that’s gross. But that’s how disturbing this stuff is. This type of awareness should not leave the reader feeling powerless, but em-powered. The reason this has gone on for so long is a direct result of our collective ignorance. I realize this stuff is not easy to believe and even harder to understand, especially to the newly awakened, and even more so to the still asleep. This is a quote I forced myself to memorize for this very reason:”A truth’s initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn’t the world being round that agitated people but that the world wasn’t flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

When the UNITED STATES declared bankruptcy, pledged all Americans as collateral against the national debt, and confiscated all gold, eliminating the means by which you could pay, it also assumed legal responsibility for providing a new way for you to pay, and it did that by providing what is known as the Exemption, an exemption from having to pay for anything. In practical terms, though, this meant giving each American something to pay with, and that \”something\” is your credit.

Your value to society was then and still is calculated using actuarial tables and at birth, bonds equal to this \”average value\” are created. I understand that this is currently between one and two million dollars. These bonds are collateralized by your birth certificate which becomes a negotiable instrument. The bonds are hypothecated, traded until their value is unlimited for all intents and purposes, and all that credit created is technically and rightfully yours. In point of fact, you should be able to go into any store in America and buy anything and everything in sight, telling the clerk to charge it to your Exemption account, which is identified by a nine-digit number that you will recognize as your Social Security number without the dashes. It is your EIN, which stands for Exemption Identification Number.

Is it starting to make sense now? Why it’s not too far fetched to imagine the day when you will be able to walk confidently into your bank to legally, lawfully and ethically deposit some of YOUR value into your account? Why should we not be able to cash out a few billion dollars that we have created, backed by our labour, only to be stolen from us by the very people who claim to represent OUR collective best interests? The whole concept of “energy harvesting” is starting to make a whole lot more sense now, isn’t it? 

============================

More about the Strawman in this article:http://briankellysblog.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-story-of-your-enslavement-meet-your.html

“The birth certificate created a FICTION (the name of the baby in upper case letters). The state/ province sells the birth certificate to the Commerce Department of the corporations of USA, which in turn places a bond on the birth certificate thereby making it a negotiable instrument, and placing the fiction, called a STRAWMAN, into the warehouse of the corporations of USA. Representation for the created fiction was given to the BAR (British Accredited Registry/Regency), owned and operated by the Crown, for the purpose of contracting the fiction (which most of us think is ourselves) into a third party action. Do not underestimate the power behind this trick. It is to con us into contracting with the feds so that they can ‘legally’ confiscate our property. All these contracts have only our signatures on them because corporate fictions cannot contract (only natural beings have the right to contract – and the right not to contract). Because there is no full disclosure – we are never told that we have just signed away what we believe to be our property – these contracts are fraudulent, and hence, we are still the lawful owner and the profit earned by the feds from selling securities (our property) belongs to us and must go into a fund for our benefit, otherwise it would be fraud. Not wanting to be charged with fraud, the feds had to create a remedy for us … and hope we wouldn’t discover it.” For even a deeper understand of the Birth Certificate (registration) process click here.

“The best example of the effects of registration is the birth certificate. A bankrupt entity – city, state/ province, country – cannot operate in commerce. So how do they manage? Since USA has been bankrupt for decades, having no substance such as gold and silver to back it, the only asset it has are men and women and our labour. We are the collateral for the interest on the loan of the World Bank. Each of us is registered, via the application for a birth certificate. The Treasury issues a bond on the birth certificate and the bond is sold at a securities exchange and bought by the Federal Reserve Bank which then uses it as collateral to issue bank notes. The bond is held in trust for the Feds at the Depository Trust Corporation. We are the surety on said bonds. Our labour/energy is then payable at some future date. Hence we become the ‘transmitting utility’ for the transmission of energy. The United States Government, in order to provide necessary goods and services, created a commercial bond (promissory note), by pledging the property, labour, life and body of its citizens, as payment for the debt (bankruptcy). This commercial bond made chattel (property) out of us all. We became nothing more than ‘human resources’ and collateral for the debt. This was without our knowledge and/or our consent, via the filing (registration) of our birth certificates. When mums apply for a birth certificate, the application is registered. The legal title of her baby is then transferred from mum to the State. Mum is left with equitable title of her baby whom she can use for a fee – a ‘use tax’ – and since the property does not belong to her, she has to treat it in the manner which the owner wants.”

prepaid

Proof ALL of Your Debt is PRE-PAID!

Your debt is PRE-PAID!
August 2, 2013
posted by Brian Kelly
Reblogged from Brian Kelly’s Blog

I had a discussion with a friend the other day when I asked the question on Facebook, ”If you found out your mortgage, car loan, student loan, credit card was fraudulent debt, would you keep paying it?” I included a link to the post I put out about Key Bank waiving a $32K loan. This was his response:

“If I borrow money from someone, I’m going to repay it. I don’t care if it’s the mafia, some made-up big brother organization, or a bank. Stealing is stealing, regardless what you believe, two wrongs don’t make a right.”

The problem with this response is that it’s based on a backwards view of what money and credit REALLY is. What if everything we’ve ever been taught by the system to believe about money and credit is an illusion? Well, it is. Many of those who will read this article already know that. Yet even those who do know, still can’t quite wrap their heads around how the system works in actuality. Believe me, “they” do an extremely good job of keeping these Truths very well hidden. This article does a phenomenal job at breaking it down in very simple, easy to understand terms. All of the facts presented are supported by hard data. Also included is an example of a response letter from AT&T to a charge being disputed, whereas the disputing party requested funds be taken from their “Prepaid Treasury Account,” to settle the “alleged” debt. What is not shared by this blogger is the documentation submitted to AT&T, which I am working on trying to retrieve from him now.

Before I get to the meat and potatoes of this brilliant article, here are a few facts to consider in the response to my friend on Facebook:

“A deposit created through lending is a debt that has to be paid on demand of the depositor, just the same as the debt arising from a customer’s deposit of checks or currency in the bank. Of course they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers’ transaction accounts. – Federal Reserve Bank, Chicago, Modern Money Mechanics, p. 6

Banks are prohibited from lending their ‘own money’ from their own assets, or from other depositors. So from where did the $$ come? The contract we signed (our promissory note) was converted into a ‘negotiable instrument’ by the bank and became an asset on the bank’s accounting books. According to the UCC 1-201(24) and 3-104, it was our signature on the note which made it $$.

Our promissory note (‘money’) was taken, recorded as an asset of the bank, and sold by the bank for cash without ‘equal valuable consideration’ given to us for our note. The bank gave us a deposit slip as a receipt for the money we gave them, just as the bank would normally provide when we make a deposit to the bank. It then created an account at the bank which would contain this $$ which we just created. A check on this account was issued with our signature and this account is the source of funds behind the cheque which we received as a ‘loan’.

The bank risked none of its own assets in the so-called ‘loan’ to us; rather it used our note to pay the seller, in order to raise an asset for itself, and also used the face value of our note as ‘principal’ which it claims it ‘lent’ us and against which it charged interest. Consideration on the part of the bank is non-existent so the bank has nothing to lose. It can not possibly sustain a loss. Since consideration is essential to an enforceable contract and the note was obtained from us via fraud, the entire transaction/ contract is fraudulent.

Mortgage contracts are written in such a way to appear as if the bank lent us funds before they received our promissory note/ mortgage contract so that the bank can use it as a receipt which they can sell. The contract reads, “For a loan I have received…”, but, you haven’t received it yet. So in fact, we signed and gave the mortgage contract/note to the bank prior to their giving us the funds. So, the application for the loan created the funds (it has our signature on it) and the note (with our signature) covered the funds to ‘repay’ the loan. Again, constructive fraud.”

Here is the link to the original article. On this blog there are also many other great posts to research. One point I do want to make is that this gentleman on many occasions suggests filing a UCC-1 financing statement to reclaim rights to your Strawman account. However, the UCC filings submitted by The One People’s Public Trust have effectively taken care of this step for EVERYONE on the planet. Therefore, it is no longer necessary for individuals to file their own. ~BK

Right now even though they have no legal right or claim or lien, the bankers hold the “title” to YOU through your birth certificate. You can regain control by simply filing a notice of lien against the birth certificate. Filing notices of lien is done every day. Banks regularly file notices of liens with the Department of Commerce to prove and establish their interest in all kinds of property… homes, cars, tools, equipment. This is done very simply by contacting the Secretary of State or Department of Commerce and filing a UCC-1 financing statement and listing the property as collateral on the statement. The same can be done with your birth certificate, which is your property. You and only you can file this notice of lien… You and only you can determine the value of the property. Since you are priceless in God’s eyes the value of your UCC-1 should be UNLIMITED.

In this case, the “company” is the government. Because you “agreed” to work for the government, the company, for the rest of your life, the government (company) agreed to “pay” all of the debt you incur in your lifetime. Is that a bit of a surprise to you? It should be. No one has told you or showed you how use this information. In exchange for your birth certificate and your application for Social Security, which they used as collateral to reduce their debt with the bankers, the government (company) promised to pay your debts. You work on behalf of the US government AS COLLATERAL ON THE NATIONAL DEBT owed to the bankers.

Whatever your debt, it’s actually prepaid.

That’s right, your debt is “prepaid” with what is known as “money of account.” There is no real substance or “money of exchange” such as gold or silver; only accounting adjustments and set offs. The US government agreed to do this for you with the passage of House Joint Resolution (HJR) 192 back in 1933 shortly after the National Emergency and Bank Holiday declared by President Roosevelt. You’re already signed up for this program from birth; it’s just that no one told you about it, UNTIL NOW! 

Like all good companies though, the US government offered to its “worker bees”, insurance benefits. They offered insurance to us if we would fill out an SS-5 form, also known as “Application for Social Security Benefits”. It’s also the hook they use to get us to sign up as their collateral on the national debt. This all originated from the “Shepard Towners Maternity Act” that was to help new mothers with the care of their children if the mother was unwed. (This is why they ask for the maiden name of the mother on the “application for live birth”. All of us are considered to be “bastard children” with the government (company) as our “daddy”)

The SS-5 is really a Power Of Attorney (POA) for the company that issued the insurance benefit to You, the real man or woman. POA was assumed by the company, the government. When they established the new account they styled the name in ALL CAPS. Very few people normally sign their name in ALL CAPS. Your JOHN H. DOE is really a corporation. Print your name in ALL CAPS if you intend to express the name/ title of Your corporation. You’ll find it on “your” driver’s license, “your” social security card, “your” bank statement, “your” check blanks, “your” tax statements, etc. The Social Security number is evidence that there is an insurance policy. The benefit you are receiving is the privilege of an army, navy, police, fire protection, Medicaid, medicare, SSI, pension etc.

So far it has worked quite well for the government (company)… they just didn’t tell you how to go about getting your debt set off and how to access and use the pre-paid account, all the more money for their pet projects…wars of pre-emption, international intrigue, control and domination of the global markets, etc. You/ve perhaps read about this in the news or seen it on the evening news. You’re letting them use your money for crimes against humanity.

attletter

***********************************

A Caution To people Claiming there Freeman Sovereign Status in Canada There is word that in dealing with police be cautious and careful as supposedly the Police have been instructed to just arrest and detain anyone producing paper such as Affidavit and Notice of Understanding and Intent, Freeman Licences and Plates,  ID’s and any other Strawman stuff etc. At which point it is said that they are taken to an unknown location in Quebec and then who knows what happens.

Understanding the birth registration “DECEPTION” process

Remember in Admiralty, Vessels documented by registration under the laws of the United States are entitled to privileges and subject to the obligations prescribed by the laws of the United States for merchant vessels.
To start out with, your parents due to their prior birth registration were already considered being registered documented vessels/mentally incompetent wards of the State, being under the guardianship of the State, who by legal marriage, where the State is a third party to the marriage contract, had an offspring/ward which they brought into this world by delivery[1], the act by which the res the subject matter of a trust, or substance thereof was placed within the actual or constructive possession or control of another in the delivery room of the maternity ward of the hospital, the port of entry for vessels/wards. Then they asked your mother for your legal name[2] in Upper Lower case which consists of one Christian name and one surname which is the name on the RECORD OF LIVE BIRTH written in upper and lowercase letters. What your mother was not told is that she delivered you to an agent/licensed doctor of the State, in a federally funded hospital, an act by which the res[3] the subject matter of a trust or substance thereof was placed within the actual or constructive possession or control of another, the State, for which in equity they created a Certificate of Live Birth with the all CAPITAL LETTERS and recorded that warehouse receipt in the commercial registry as cargo under transportation.

The hospital documented your birth with the legal name Title[4] in a distinctive style or appellation, Upper Lower case, the name by which anything is known, and because under trust law whenever title or money is transferred, a trust is created by operation of law, representing you, for which they created a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH in all CAPITAL LETTERS, which was filed with the local Registrar and registered with the State, via Certificate of registry[5], in commercial maritime law which is a certificate of registration of a vessel according to the registry acts, for the purpose of giving her a national character i.e. U.S. citizen born in a federal zone, hospital zip code, in the judicial district in which the birthing of the vessel occurred identified by the filing with the Florida State Department of Health, Office of Vital Statistics within 5 days after your delivery, and then sent to Washington, D.C., for which the hospital receives a check for that vessel.
Then the local registrar issued your parents a copy of the warehouse receipt for the cargo, the CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH from the State of Florida in all CAPITAL LETTERS, representing a vessel/ward of the State representing the abandonment of your title by registration. The State of Florida the Creator/Trustor then created a Cestui que trust (constructive trust) behind your back after the fact, with the all Upper Lower case name, and placed a value on it, based on actuarial estimates of your future labor/human resource. Then they issued a Bond against the trust’s asset, a certificate of indebtedness[6] and funded the bond through the IMF based on your future earnings from your labor as the contributing beneficiary, which is a trust asset, and set up a Federal Reserve account for the same. So now the IMF has a beneficial interest in and out of the trust estate, the legal title is now vested with the State of Florida, and held by the Alien Property Custodian in Washington, D.C.; equitable title copy of CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH held by you representing equity/labor; the Governor acting as the managing fiduciary trustee; the Secretary of State Registrar acting as fiduciary trustee until you turn of legal age; and you acting as fiduciary trustee for the trust with duties and obligations once you turn of legal age, and the Secretary of Treasury in charge of the Federal Reserve account.
That ward/vessel is a now a Vessel of the United States, documented by registration under the laws of the United States and subject to its laws and jurisdiction, and the Title goes to the Alien Property Custodian in Washington, D.C. In a maritime in rem action, jurisdiction over the person of the "defendant", the vessel, is premised upon the presence of the vessel within the district in which the court sits. The only vessel they have jurisdiction over is the trust, that is evidenced by the CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH, establishing the three points of jurisdiction NAME, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER and DATE OF BIRTH, the Federal Reserve account under the supervision of the Secretary of the Treasury who is also the managing trustee for the Social Security Administration and governor for the IMF.
Up until you turned of legal age to work, the deputy Registrar on behalf of the Registrar/ Secretary of State, or the Registrar/Secretary of State whichever signed the CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH has been the fiduciary trustee for that trust created behind your back and securitized where the government owns it in part and you own it in part. Meaning the Registrar had the fiduciary duty and obligation for that Trust up until you started your first job. That is why the State can take the child away from the parents, because it is the duty and obligation of the fiduciary trustee as guardian, to look after the ward, and make sure he or she is taken care of properly.
When you filled out the Application Form SS-5 for a Social Security Card, the Registrar turned over the duty and obligation of the fiduciary trustee over to you, because he did not want to be responsible as fiduciary for anything you do in commerce using that SS Card/number. You then became the contributing beneficiary and fiduciary trustee for that trust with the duties and obligations for filing and paying the licensing taxes, registration taxes, and taxes on profits, gains and income generated for the trust once it starts to operate in commerce with a Social Security Card/number on all commercial transactions, because you on behalf of the beneficial owner “the trust”, which is resident within a territory occupied by military forces with which the United States is at war, or a resident outside the United States, for which you are considered an enemy doing business with a license and tax identifying number for the purposes “of trade” effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within said territory for which you are granted a license under the authority of the President pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, as an enemy in order to trade, or attempt to trade with the enemy for the beneficial owner the “trust”, and as the fiduciary trustee paying, satisfying, compromising, or giving security for the payment or satisfaction of any debt or obligation, and for drawing, accepting, paying, presenting for acceptance or payment, or indorsing any negotiable instrument or chose in action on behalf of the trust.

 

LETS GO PEOPLE WE HAVE THE REAL POWER WE JUST HAVE TO CLAIM IT


Executive Order Gives Obama Authority To Seize Your Assets If You Criticize US Policy In Ukraine

1092 823 35Reddit63

(Daniel McAdams) Do you, like 56 percent of the US population, believe that the US should “not get too involved” in the Ukraine situation? Do you think that the US administration putting us on a war footing with Russia is a bad idea? Are you concerned that the new, US-backed leaders of Ukraine — not being elected — might lack democratic legitimacy? Are you tempted to speak out against US policy in Ukraine; are you tempted to criticize the new Ukrainian regime?

Be careful what you say. Be careful what you write. President Obama has just given himself the authority to seize your assets.
According to the president’s recent Executive Order, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine” (first reported by WND’s Aaron Klein), the provisions for seizure of property extend to “any United States person.” That means “any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.”

Declaring a “national emergency” over the planned referendum in Crimea to determine whether or not to join Russia, the US president asserts that asset seizure is possible for any US person “determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State”:

(i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:

(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine;
(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; or
(C) misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine;

The Executive Order is, as usual, so broadly written that it leaves nearly everything open to interpretation.

For example, what are “direct or indirect…actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine”? Could that be someone writing an article that takes issue with the US policy that the Crimea referendum is illegal and illegitimate? Could it be standing up in a public meeting and expressing the view that Ukraine would be better off with nationwide referenda to determine whether other regions should become autonomous or joined to neighboring countries? What if a Polish-American appears on a radio or television program suggesting that parts of Poland incorporated into Ukraine after WWII should be returned to Polish authority?
Probably the president will not seize the assets of Americans in the scenarios above. But he says he can.

As the US government moves ever-closer to war with Russia, it is reasonable to expect these attempts to squash dissent and to remove “threats” to the administration’s position. The historical pattern is clear.

Recall Eugene V. Debs sentenced to ten years in prison for his opposition to US involvement in WWI. Recall Japanese-Americans interned in camps during WWII because their loyalty to the United States was deemed suspect.
The stage is being set to silence dissent. It sounds alarmist to read this, agreed.

Probably the president will not use his Executive Order to seize the assets of Americans who disagree with his Ukraine policy. But he says he can.

Careful what you say.

– See more at: http://govtslaves.info/executive-order-gives-obama-authority-seize-assets-criticize-us-policy-ukraine/#sthash.JpQftrLw.dpuf