"Our consciousness needs to move away from “Divide and rule” and more deeply into “Unite and respond with love”. Humanity unites through consciousness. Know who you really are. The truth is within you and I. Allow yourself to cleanse your psyche. Heal your fears – love and only love, those with us and those we perceive are against us. This material world is only a mirror of your consciousness. There is nothing to fear. It is not a fight to be fought or a war to be waged. It is about healing our fears and learning to love. When you see your fears for what they are and master your emotions you will find freedom. This truth will set you free."

A natural, breathing, living, human being.

"The acceptance of guilt into the mind of God's son [or daughter] was the beginning of the separation, and the acceptance of the At-One-Ment is its end."
A course in Miracles

"We are the ones we've been waiting for."
Unnamed Hopi Elder

Claim of Right

Should the government be able to change existing statutory acts (force of law) regarding Claim of Right which take into consideration the lack of intention of committing an alleged crime? 

What is the perspective that the News Media are giving relating to the three courageous souls who acted for the good of humanity by exposing the Spy Base that was being used as a means to harm human life. Is this "lawful excuse" for the government to change statutory acts?  Are we not perhaps overlooking the fact that by doing so, the government are advocating that it is ok to support the mass destruction of human life (the more likely purpose of the spy base) while three good men defend human life based upon their beliefs and supportive actions. 

The New Zealand Claim of Right

wfs_coinFrom http://claimofright.org/ Visit this link for more and to become involved.

Also join The World Freeman Society New Zealand chapter to become more involved.

Check out ... World Freeman Society article on Claim of Right here.

 

The 'claim of right' defence that saw three activists walk free despite wilfully damaging [exposing] a communications base at Waihopai will be repealed or reformed, the Government has announced.

In March the defence was used in the case against Adrian Leason, 45, Peter Murnane, 69, and Sam Land, 26, who a jury found not guilty of burglary or wilful damage at the Government Communications Security Bureau base.

The defence was based on a belief that what they did was lawful and for the greater good.

Today Justice Minister Simon Power said the 'claim of right' defence will be reformed or repealed. He outlined five options which will be looked into and reported back to him in September.

Shifting the burden of proof.

Amending the definition of 'claim of right' so a defendant would have to prove they have a 'claim of right', rather than the prosecution needing to prove they do not.

Adding a reasonableness element.

Amending the definition of 'claim of right' so a defendant would have to show that at the time of the offence their actions and/or beliefs were reasonable [what is reasonable? To who?].

Amending the offences that have 'claim of right' as an element.

Amending some or all of the 14 offences in the Crimes Act that have 'claim of right' as an element to ensure the defence is not wider than appropriate.

Adding a property interest criterion.

Amending the defence of 'claim of right' so only a defendant with a legal claim to the property concerned could use the defence.

Repealing the defence.

Remove the 'claim of right' defence from the Crimes Act so the defence is not available to any defendant in future.

Minister outlines reasons for change:

"The 'claim of right' defence has a long history in common law and was used in New Zealand well before it was formally recognised in the Crimes Act," Mr Power said.

"It's clear it was not intended to be used to excuse the behaviour of people who take or damage property in cases where they are not claiming a personal property right." [However are the government excusing having a spy base that the defendants believed was being used to harm people].

"Concern has been raised that the legislative scope of 'claim of right' has become too broad and that the defence should not be able to be used as it was in the Waihopai case, and I agree with that.

"It also appears our law on this is out of step with comparable overseas jurisdictions, including England, Canada, and several Australian states."

In April, after cutting through electric fences, the men slashed one of two inflatable domes covering satellite dishes. Their defence was based on a "claim of right", saying they had saved lives in Iraq by disrupting satellite transmissions. It is believed it was the first time such a defence was successful in New Zealand. [This action was to save lives and expose government corruption.  Government corruption should be the issue here].

The New Zealand Law Society previously welcomed the review of the 'claim of right' defence. [Does the New Zealand Law Society write NZ statutory laws, and if they do, do they write it in a way that the actual government and MP's can read, understand and comprehend as there is a big difference between the Law Societys' Legalese language and common written and spoken English language.]

"The defence of a 'claim of right' certainly has a place, and it's an important and fundamental defence to have," said Jonathan Krebs, the society's convener of the criminal law subcommittee.

"But if the defence allows someone to be acquitted where there was criminal intent [Was there really criminal intent?], however well-principled they thought it to be, then there is something wrong with the criminal law and it may need to be adjusted slightly."

He was surprised that the defence was found to apply in that case and even more surprised that the jury acquitted them in what seemed like a blatant strategy to destroy property [Media propaganda ALERT.  Who owns and dictates what content goes into the NZ Herald?].

The defence, often used by receivers of stolen goods, rests on a belief that the action was lawful. It was connected to the argument that a criminal intention needs to be shown for people to be convicted of a crime.

Source: NZ Herald (except for thecomments in blue with the square brackets)

Take Action

Join a working group of people nationwide in an open discussion which will debate the legalities of the current regime and their abhorrent new ideas for the NWO. 

New Zealand or New Zimbabwe?

Where are we? New Zimbabwe or New Zealand because the current powers the State has here over you is very similar to what they have over there.

Asking Questions should result in becoming wiser. However, these days, it results in beatings.

 

with_lawful_excuse_legal                  with_lawful_excuse_lawful

A sample Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right. 

A Claim of Right  from John-Henry :Doe

Thursday, 22 July 2010

 

John Key, the man acting as the Prime Minister for New Zealand;

Christopher Finlayson, the man acting as Attorney General for New Zealand;

David Collins, the man acting as Solicitor General for New Zealand;

Pieri Munro, the man acting as Wellington Chief of Police;

 

Dear Madams and Sirs:

I am serving herewith, my Notice of Understanding and Intent and my Claim of Right and my Notice of Denial of Consent for your understanding.

You will find the enclosed intact and complete, for now.

Yours truly,

 

                                                           

John-Henry :Doe,

Freeman-on-the-Land

 

 

Affidavit - Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right

 

I, a flesh and blood living soul commonly known as John-Henry of the Doe  family, living on a geographical area commonly referred to as New Zealand, having no corporate status, do hereby state under oath that the following is my Truth and my Law.

Whereas:

It is my understanding that:

  1. The only and true jurisdiction that Man can be part of is the one from his creator: Life. Life is also known as the Universe, God, the Source, Nature, Love or the Creation. Life is self aware and speaks to itself through the Heart, and;
  2. The only Laws that apply to Man are the Laws of Creation also known as the Divine Laws, the Laws of Nature, the Laws of Love or the Laws of the Universe and those Laws are written into the Heart of Man, and;
  3. I am a Man, and;
  4. Any system of laws that are not of Life are of man, and;
  5. The only jurisdiction to which I willfully and completely consent is the one from within my own Heart and I call it Love, and;
  6. Out of necessity, compassion, love and to the best interest of peace for all of those who believe that only the laws of man exist and apply to all, I allow myself to be seen by systems created by man through the different interfaces that those systems provide without, nevertheless, me consenting to their jurisdiction over me, and;
  7. A Man is born out of Love whereas a corporation is born out of money. It is therefore impossible for a Man to give or receive money since the only thing a Man can give or receive is Love, and;
  8. All the people living on the geographical area commonly referred to as New Zealand enjoy the protection of the common law, and;
  9. Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and;
  10. The law of agent and principal applies, therefore, service upon one is service upon both, and;
  11. Acts are statutes restricted in scope and applicability by the Constitution Act, and;
  12. A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law, and;
  13. A society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and;
  14. For something to exist legally, it must have a name, and;
  15. The Law Societies and Bar Associations of New Zealand are the ones who create the statutes and therefore they are applicable only to their members and to those that consent, and;
  16. The only form of government recognized as lawful in the area commonly referred to as New Zealand is a representative one, and;
  17. All governments are corporations which provide services, and;
  18. All governments and corporations, including all of their agents, are bound by the Crimes Act 1961, and;
  19. Representation requires mutual consent, and;
  20. In the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor governance can exist and;
  21. Those who have an IRD (Inland Revenue Department) Number and are using it for employment are in fact employees of the federal government and thus are bound by the statutes created by the federal government for its employees, and;
  22. It is lawful to abandon an IRD number, and,
  23. People living on the geographical area commonly referred to as New Zealand have the right to revoke or deny consent to be represented and thus governed, and;
  24. If anyone does revoke or deny consent they exist free of government control and statutory restraints, and;
  25. Section 53 of the Crimes Act 1961 establishes a claim of right as a Lawful excuse, and;
  26. If one is in possession of personal property under a claim of right, one is justified to protect or to appoint anyone to protect that property with protection from criminal responsibility for defending that property, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it and that factual truth is expressed in Section 53 of the Crimes Act 1961, and;
  27. Section 107 of the Crimes Act 1961 acknowledges the right to disobey statutes if one has a lawful excuse, or a claim of right, and;
  28. Section 56C of the Judicature Act 1908 acknowledges the right to disobey court orders if one has a lawful excuse, or a claim of right, and
  29. A Freeman-on-the-Land is one who has lawfully revoked consent and does exist free of statutory restrictions, obligations, and limitations, and;
  30. I, known as John-Henry: Doe, am a Freeman-on-the-Land, and;
  31. Acting peacefully within common law standards is not unlawful, and;
  32. All transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties, and;
  33. Any action for which one can apply and receive a license must itself be a fundamentally lawful action, and,
  34. I, known as John-Henry: Doe, a Freeman-on-the-Land who operates with full responsibility am not a child of the state. I do not need to ask permission to engage in lawful/legitimate and peaceful activities, especially from those who claim limited liability, and;
  35. Peace officers have two roles, first as peace officers and secondly as policy enforcement officers (also known as police officers) and that the latter acting against a Freeman-on-the-Land is in fact breaking the Law, and;
  36. A by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation, and;
  37. Corporations are legal fictions that require contracts in order to claim authority or control over other parties, and;
  38. For any party to be justified to order payment from another party, there must be a valid contract, and;
  39. I can use a Notary Public to perform duties found under any Act. Thus they have the power to hold court and hear evidence and issue binding legal judgments, and;
  40. If the Notary fails in their Duty, then they have abandoned their post, and;
  41. Personal property is defined as any thing lawfully in the possession of someone, and;
  42. I have a right to use my personal property without having to pay for the use or enjoyment of it, and,
  43. No one is obliged to have a legal name or to give it freely to anyone demanding it, and;
  44. I have a right to claim an amount of acres that I will judge appropriate and fair, of uninhabited land anywhere on the geographical area commonly referred to as New Zealand or the Commonwealth, and;
  45. A Freeman-on-the-Land can travel freely within the commonwealth, and;
  46. A summons is merely an invitation to attend and the ones issued by the New Zealand Securities Commission create no obligation or dishonor if ignored, and;
  47. Peace officers have a duty to distinguish between statutes and Law and those who attempt to enforce statutes against a Freeman-on-the-Land are in fact breaking the law, and;
  48. I have the power and right to refuse any transaction or interaction with peace officers who have not observed me breach the peace, and;
  49. Breach the peace is defined as intentionally, physically hurting another human being or intentionally damaging someone else's personal property or committing any kind of unlawful action in a contract, and;
  50. Permanent estoppels by acquiescence barring any peace officer or prosecutor from bringing charges against a Freeman-on-the-Land under any Act is created if this claim is not responded to in the stated fashion and time mentioned hereunder, and;
Therefore be it resolved and known to any and all concerned and effected parties, that I, known as John-Henry: Doe, a Freeman-on-the-Land, do hereby state clearly, specifically and unequivocally my intent:
  1. To peacefully and lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations and/or restrictions, and maintain all rights at law to trade, exchange or barter, and;
  2. To travel peacefully and lawfully on the geographical area commonly referred to as New Zealand and the Commonwealth by whatever means I deem necessary, and;
  3. To be a Steward of the land and waters of the geographical area commonly referred to as New Zealand and the Commonwealth including the land to which I lay claim, and;
  4. To not pay taxes, for the collection of taxes is a function of government and with my denial of consent I will free myself completely from all governing bodies, agencies and institutions, and;

Furthermore I claim:

  1. That these actions are not outside my neighbors standards and will in fact support said neighbours in our common desire for truth and maximum freedom, and;
  2. The right to engage in these actions and further claim that all personal property held by me is held under a Claim of Right in accordance with Section 53 of the Crimes Act 1961, and;
  3. The right to, at any time, appoint peace officers to protect me and/or my personal property from anyone who would attempt to take it, and;
  4. That anyone, their principals or their agents who interfere with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this claim and who fail to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or colour of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure, and;
  5. That the courts in New Zealand are de facto and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I further claim they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services, and;
  6. That my consent to perform on any statutory obligation can only be granted by a written, signed and Notarized document, and;
  7. That I do hereby deny consent to any transactions of a security interest issued under any Act for as herein stated as a Freeman-on-the-Land I am not subject to any Act, and;
  8. The unlimited right to travel freely and unmolested throughout the geographical area commonly referred to as New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms and that evidenced perfection of this Claim will act as sufficient documentation for entry and travel to and on the geographical area commonly referred to as New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms, and;
  9. The right to enjoy the unmolested pursuit of my activities and free use of the streets, avenues, highways and public roads, and;
  10. The free, exclusive, unlimited and unrestricted right to use my personal property, and;
  11. The right to direct my life and all of my activities the way I see fit, and;
  12. The right to generate lawful excuse, which is a general term, which includes all of the defences which the common law considers sufficient reason to excuse a human being from criminal liability, and;
  13. The right to claim an area of uninhabited land anywhere in the geographic area commonly referred to as New Zealand, and;
  14. The right to deregister anything that has been registered by me, and;
  15. The right to establish for me or anyone under my care a FEE SCHEDULE for any transgression(s) against me, my family or anyone under my care that is or are perpetrated by peace officers, government principals, agents or justice system participants, those fees being FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated, and ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) PER HOUR if handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and Notarized consent, and a minimum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS($1 000 000.00) for any violence brought against me, my family or anyone under my care, and TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10 000.00) PER DAY if any personal property is being taken away from me without my express written and Notarized consent, and;
  16. The right to choose a lawful method of payment upon demand, and;
  17. The right to use a Notary Public, commissioner or any two (2) people not related to me by blood or marriage to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me or anyone under my care or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way, and;
  18. The right to engage the services of a Notary Public or commissioner for taking affidavits and/or any two (2) people not related to me by blood or marriage to attest to my signature for verification purposes, and which does not constitute adhesion, contract or change in status in any manner, and;
  19. The right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants who having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms, and;
  20. The right to provide for myself or anyone who wants it, any service provided by the Government of New Zealand;
  21. The right to use any service provided by the Government of New Zealand that I deem necessary without it affecting my status as a Freeman-on-the-Land, and;
  22. The right to keep and use as I see fit any and all inheritances given to me, and;
  23. The right to determine what is best for me, my family and anyone under my care, and;
  24. The right to govern myself accordingly, and;
  25. The right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on video or audio tape said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit, and;
  26. The right to refuse any service or intervention by any level of government, and;
  27. The right to have, in the event of my death, all of my personal property and inheritances that I pass on, protected by this Claim and that my Will is my final word.

Directions for response

  1. Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or to make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) DAYS of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the notary's office herein provided no later than TEN (10) DAYS from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service, and;
  2. Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment securing forevermore all rights herein claimed and establishing permanent and irrevocable estoppels by acquiescence forevermore barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act against myself a Freeman-on-the-Land known as John-Henry of the Doe family, and;
  3. Use of a notary is for attestation and verification purposes only and does not constitute a change in status or entrance or acceptance of foreign jurisdiction.

The place of claim of right, geographical area known as Town/City, New Zealand.

 

Signed and witnessed this _____ day of the month of ________________ in the year two thousand and ten.

 

 

                                                                                                                          

(Claimant - print)             (Autograph of claimant)

 

In witness to the above signature:

 

 

                                                                                                                          

(Witness - print)             (Autograph of witness)

 

Send counterclaims and/or disputes to:

                                                           

                                                           

                                                                                                                  

                                                           

 

ATTENTION: John-Henry :Doe

 

 

 

Notice of Denial of Consent

 

DATE: ________________________________________

 

Whereas:

  1. New Zealand enjoys a common law jurisdiction, and;
  2. Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and;
  3. In a common law jurisdiction no one can claim the right or power to adjudicate any matter without the consent of both parties, and;
  4. Without my consent no lawful adjudication concerning myself may occur, and;
  5. I do hereby, claim the right inalienable by any government agent to engage in discussion either directly or through an agent prior to consenting to any adjudication or administrative tribunal or other process which may generate a security interest, and;
  6. I do claim said right has been denied to me by human beings acting as government agents in a common law jurisdiction, and;
  7. I do hereby, re-extend my offer of discussion and negotiation in order to avoid conflict, and;
  8. Seeking conflict as a government agent in a court of law in the absence of discussion or negotiation is a denial of basic fundamental rights, a dishonour, and an abuse of process, and;
  9. Said dishonour, denial and abuse does cause the administration of justice to appear to be dragged into disrepute, and;
  10. I am compelled by my honour and Faith to refuse to be party to any action which may be seen to drag the administration of justice into disrepute, and;
  11. I do believe the path of peace is always available to those of good will, and;
  12. I am peaceful and of goodwill, and;
  13. I do believe peace is a fundamental right and the basic justification for government, and;
  14. Consenting to an adversarial relationship in the absence of good faith discussion and negotiation is a breach of my Faith, and;
  15. Abusing the judicial process and forcing me to breach the terms of my Faith is completely unacceptable to me,

Therefore be it resolved and known to any and all concerned:

That I, a human being in a common law jurisdiction in no way consent to any adjudication process of any sort by any party and that said denial of consent remains in force until any plaintiff or claimant honours the existing offer to discuss and negotiate in good faith and pure trust and under full commercial liability.

This notice is served in the interest of justice, without malice of forethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity and suffices as notice of a claim by the Affiant that a plaintiff or claimant is apparently abusing process for financial or other gain and thus causing the administration to be dragged into disrepute.

 

Affiant: ____________________________________________

 

Witnessed: ___________________________________________

 

Note: The use of a witness or witnesses is for the purpose of verification of identity and attestation in a common law jurisdiction only and does not constitute a change in status, consent or existence as anything except a free human being.

Sincerely yours,

 

John-Henry :Doe

 

A downloadable version is available from this link

So, make your Claim of Right based upon your own understandings, intents and claims and get it off to the Beehive... 

your_action_on_behalf_of_others_400
using_governmental_force_400