How to Reclaim Your ‘Strawman’

Lets just get straight to it!

There are different ways when it comes to ‘Reclaiming’ your Birth Certificate according to the Freeman on the
land movement. Here we will describe three of those methods. and we will talk about whether or not you should
be doing this.

Method 1
Not Recommended and very flawed

This method is one of the oldest methods and is widely used by all ‘Freeman movements’. (Without
understanding what it is you are sending off, there is no point in sending anything at all, as these act as a record
of information).

Assuming you have done your research, and your confident in knowing what it is you are sending off to the state
and what this whole process entails, you would than need to send to the head of state (Whoever is in charge at
that moment in time). So for example, if it is Boris Johnson that is head of the state, than all documents would
need to be addressed to Boris first and than to his agents sitting in various other departments of the government.

So lets get into it:

What you need to send off to the state:

1. Affidavit of claim (Template Included)

2. Affidavit of Truth (Template Included)

You would need to send your affidavit of claim and affidavit of truth as a signed delivery package as this will form
part of your proof of claim when it comes to defending your contracts. (Templates at the end of the book)

Before sending any documents you would need to either notarised or postmaster stamped (done by your
postmaster who can verify you at the post office) - You are now ready to send your documents off. Most people
go for the notarisation of the document, but in hindsight that will be costly and is not entirely necessary.

Why do individuals use this method?

Why this is a preferred method used by other individuals is due to the rules surrounding unrebutted Affidavits in
accordance with Maxim Laws. Once an Affidavit has been presented and their are no rebuttals to its claims -An
unrebutted Affidavit stands as truth in the commercial realm .

A quick explanation of Maxims of Law

A legal maxim is an established principle or proposition of law that is universally admitted as being just and
consonant. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customs or common law of the land. Most
of the Latin maxims were developed in the Medieval era in European countries that used Latin as their language
for law and courts. Thomas Hobbes described the maxims of law as having the same strength and effect in the
law as statutes. Francis Bacon, in the Preface to his Collection of Maxims, wrote that not only will the use of
maxims be useful in deciding doubt and helping soundness of judgment, but, further, in gracing argument, in
correcting unprofitable subtlety, and reducing the same to a more sound and substantial sense of law, in
reclaiming vulgar errors, and, generally, in the amendment in some measure of the very nature and complexion of
the whole law. i
Maxims of Law in relation to your Affidavit

1. “An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Commerce”

2. “An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce.”

So when you send off your documents to the state, well, who is going to reply? To reply is to assume some form
of liability, and on the most part, these documents will most likely be stuffed to the back of a file cabinet or put in
the bin at worst, with the added: “Here’s another one”. So if you send a reasonable Affidavit and it is unrebutted,
than by their own Maxims, its stands as Truth - This is why this method is preferred by many.

As for your last steps, you would need to notify certain heads of state departments of your intentions to stay in a
position of honour.

Heads of departments include:

1. Head of Police Commission.

2. Head of Justice Department.

3. Head of Department of Work and Pension.

4. Head of Driving and Vehicle Department

After notifying your heads of states. you would than need to keep a safe record of your documents and if
possible register them online (This can be done via a website you reference or create specifically for safekeeping
and recording such documents for public use).

Points of Concern using this method

The original method includes a copyright notice. We didn't include the copyright notice as we don't believe this is
a credible document that can be used, infact using this contract will certainly get you in trouble.

Copyright Claim Notice: The copyright claim notice seems to be an attempt to assert control and ownership
over the copyright that already exists on our Birth Certificates. It's like someone trying to claim a patent on one of
your new inventions and declaring it as their own. Such actions typically go against the law, as they appear
suspicious and could even potentially lead to criminal charges in the most severe cases. So you can be thankful
we haven't included such template

Method 2
Using The Cestui Que Vie Act 1707
This method is more to do with claiming your whole estate and its titles according the act.

We have not gone through this method or experienced anyone who has, but in accordance to the instructions
given in the Cestui Que Vie Act 1707, you will need to create a verified and witnessed affidavit. Go to the high
courts of chancery with your Affidavit claims and bring an action against the state using the Cestui Que Vie 1707
act as your remedy. You would need to post your claim in the petty bags office and direct your claims towards
the attorney general. If the attorney general refuses to address your claims, you can enforce your claim in the
higher courts and add charges for negligence and damages.

The full steps are explained in the act itself.

(Read Cestui Que Vie Act 1707 for full description of steps)

Points of Concern using this method

You are Fighting for Legal Title: Reclaiming your "strawman," in essence, implies that you are striving to
assert legal title over the trust. When you claim legal title, it signifies that you take on the responsibility and
accountability for all transactions within the trust and estate. This includes handling all your bills, taxes, and debts
within the trust, as you now have legal ownership and control over it.

Being in possession of the legal title to a contract or a specific trust places you in a position of considerable
responsibility. For instance, as the creator of a trust (known as the Grantor), you appoint someone, like a brother,
as a trustee responsible for ensuring the trust operates according to your outlined terms. In this scenario, the
beneficiary, such as a nephew, stands to benefit from the trust's goods, typically the property held within it. To
ensure a smooth process, the trustee, holding legal title to the trust, is entrusted with carrying out the terms. This
implies they are accountable for all dealings within the trust. The beneficiary, unless informed otherwise, might
not even be aware of the trust's existence.

If the trustee, let's say your brother, uses the property within the trust for whatever reason and it incurs debts or
liabilities, it falls to the trustee to resolve these issues. Despite the property being intended for the beneficiary, the
trustee, as the holder of legal title, bears the responsibility for managing any related matters within the trust and
so all debts would need to be paid off by the trustee, no one else.

To conclude - holding legal title to a trust means taking on significant responsibility and being held accountable
for the dealings within that trust.

Potential Collapse of Trust: As the grantor steps away upon your reclamation of the "strawman," only two
titles remain. The act of claiming both titles leads to the a potential collapse of the trust. The moment you reclaim
your titles there is no longer any use for the trust as the trust and its purpose was for your benefit.

Collapsing a trust is the process of ending or revoking a trust arrangement. This involves terminating the trust's
structure, liquidating its assets, and distributing or transferring the remaining assets or property to the
beneficiaries or as directed by the terms of the trust. The question remains as to what exactly is within this specific
trust? what proof and what documentation have you in regards to the property that was placed within this trust?

It is no good going into a court and asserting yourself to be the beneficiary of your cestui que vie trust if you
have no information as to what is within the trust. Which leads us to the next point...

No tangible proof of a Cestui Que Vie Trust to produce for the courts: If you've had the chance to
read our previous book about the Cestui Que Vie Trust, you might have started to grasp that the trust referred to
as "cestui que vie" isn't the same as the trust associated with your birth certificate, as you might have initially
thought. It's actually a legal term that indicates a person's position within a trust. So, yes, you can call a trust a
"cestui que vie," but claiming that your birth certificate is THE "cestui que vie" trust won't hold up in court. It's
more of an abstract concept than a tangible thing.

Imagine going to a high court and trying to demand the recovery of your cestui que vie trust. What would that
even mean? what would you say?

lets rehearse this shall we:

You: "I'm here to declare that I'm alive and want to regain control of my trust."

Judge: "Okay, which trust are you talking about, and what documents do you have to support your claim?"
You: "I want to take back my 'cestui que vie' trust linked to my birth certificate."

Judge: "Could you explain that further?"

You: "I mean, I want control over my birth certificate trust."

Judge: "Birth certificate trust? What is that exactly?"

You: "It's the 'cestui que vie' trust!"

Judge: "The what?"

You: "You know, the trust where I'm held in bondage."

Judge: "This is absurd!"

As you can see, it's a confusing and unlikely-to-succeed scenario. To put it simply, reclaiming a trust is essentially
asserting your role and position within that trust. That's all there is to it. Now, the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666 and
1707, in their historical context, were created to handle people's property after the Great Fire of London. In 1666,
the government took control of the trust, and in 1707, they returned the property to individuals who declared
themselves alive or back from a state of being "dead." in relation to this, what are you declaring if you don't know
what to declare? are you declaring your body? the name? something to think about

Method 3
Performance - How it should be done!
This method is by far the most fluid of all methods. What we mean by performance is that your actions will reflect
your intentions and will. Just like a contract, you acting out your contract terms is performance -

Scenario to help you understand

Imagine you get a letter from the council, asking you to pay your council tax or follow certain rules in a contract.
Even if you don't like the contract or disagree with it, if you go ahead and do what the council asked you to do,
you've agreed to the contract by your actions.

So for instance, if the council sends you a bill for something like bedroom tax, and you start paying it, that means
you've essentially accepted the terms of the contract. It won't work if you later say you don't accept it or you
never accepted it, because your actions already showed that you did.

Performance is the action side to your contracts.

If you understand your role, the different hats we wear to take on a different role, the different jurisdictions that
exist and which law applies to which jurisdiction, you wont have a need for paper work, filling out affidavits each
time you want to assert who you are. It relies on your constant enforcement and assertion. It involves
authentically expressing your identity in your daily interactions. The crucial aspect is gaining a deep
understanding of the processes at play and the various domains involved. This knowledge grants you the ability
to select how you navigate within these domains.

This method is highly adaptable - No physical documents are required with this method; you become the
embodiment of your own documentation, which you must articulate verbally and sometimes in writing.

Another example
When you're caught in a situation where something went wrong, whether it's your fault or not. It's not necessary
to keep saying how you're a sovereign and the law does not apply. This kind of behaviour may make you seem
like you don't actually understand what's going on and won't help you.

If you truly have power and control over your own decisions, your actions should show it naturally and through
your performance. Having power means you can make choices without being told what to do by others. If you
call yourself a sovereign, your actions should match that. For instance, if you get help from the government, like
money for housing or living expenses, Benefits etc can you still say you're in charge of your own decisions? or call
yourself a sovereign? The simple answer is no. When you accept help from the government, it means you depend
on them, and they're mainly here to help their citizens, not independent sovereigns as sovereigns are self
sustainable beings who do not need help from governments. That's why you have sovereign states. They are
independent from outside states.

Some people claim to be a sovereign while receiving benefits and privileges, and that you can because that's how
it works, but it's not entirely true. At the least they're using their government records and public identity to their
advantage, they are certainly not true sovereigns. You can receive benefits without giving up most of your rights,
but that's something different to being a sovereign.

Here's an important thing to remember: ALL AGREEMENTS CAN BE NEGOTIATED unless they say otherwise. So,
if you're getting into an agreement or you hear something from the government, you can choose to accept it, ask
for changes, or decide not to accept it at all.

Another look at Bedroom Tax

In the UK, there's something called the "Bedroom Tax." It's a new rule from the government for people who live in
council housing that have extra rooms they don't use. The government wants to charge those people extra
money for not using those rooms. When the government or councils announce these new rules, most people
often follow along without questioning them, mainly because they don't always know how to spot when an offer
of contract is being offered.

Here's the important thing: If you live in a council house, these rules usually apply to you. But it's still a good idea
to ask questions and make sure the rules make sense for you. Don't just accept everything without thinking about
it. But it is not to say it cannot be disputed respectfully. Always challenge your contracts terms if you're not
happy with them.

In most cases, a contract cannot be changed by one party without the consent of the other party or parties
involved. If you originally signed a contract with certain terms and conditions, any changes or additions to the
contract typically require the agreement and consent of all parties involved. So, if someone tries to add new
clauses to a contract five years later without your consent, you are generally not automatically liable for those
new clauses. You have the right to review and negotiate any proposed changes, and you can choose to accept or
reject them. If you don't agree to the new terms, the original contract terms typically remain in effect.

Can you see how powerful and free you become by just disputing a contract? if the council came with a new
announcement stating we cant wear the colour black in our houses, are you going to accept that straight away
because it came from a position of authority?

We would hope not!

This approach allows for flexibility in navigating various roles and responsibilities, participating in commerce as a
public persona while maintaining some level of control over your contractual agreements. In the world of
commerce, everything is contractual, and negotiations can occur unless explicitly specified as non-negotiable.
There is something you need to consider when using this method!

It’s about how you dispute your contracts, there's ways in which to do this.

Debtor vs Creditor

In the realm of Freeman teachings and the pursuit of sovereignty, you've likely encountered the term "debtor" in
reference to your birth certificate. The concept portrays the "strawman" as a debtor, someone perceived as
lacking capability - incapable of anything.

As you delve deeper into this subject, you might have also come across the term "creditor." In the sovereign
world or the freeman world, a creditor is someone who conducts themselves with honour and composure,
refraining from reactive - argumentative behaviour. They carry an aura of confidence and assertiveness in
presenting their claims while still maintaining respect.

Creditors refrain from engaging in arguments; instead, they state their claims and substantiate them with
evidence and proof. They willingly accept valid claims placed upon them, provided they come with evidence to
support them.

For instance, in a courtroom scenario where a judge asserts, "You were the one driving that car," a creditor would
not engage in a confrontational argument like a debtor might. The mindset of a creditor is composed and would
respond more along the lines of, "I accept your statement upon proof of claim" Here, the creditor shifts the
burden of proof back to the judge, who made the initial claim.

In contrast, a debtor might react impulsively and exclaim, "No, I didn't! I never drove that car!" This type of
response tends to lead to trouble. In the realms of commerce, business, and sovereignty, those who engage in
arguments are often perceived as less competent and you are certainly not deemed as responsible or a sovereign.

Once you comprehend that everything in the public domain is based on presumptions and assumptions, it
becomes your responsibility to challenge these assumptions by clearly stating your status, role, and claims. Do
not let your rights be taken away based on you not being able to assert yourself and challenge the assumptions
of others.

One last thing to consider

Taking this journey isn't something easy as it's now become hijacked by a lot of outside input and new concepts
and ideas being added into the original concept and the original purpose for why this movement existed. It was
simply to assert and keep hold of your rights. Nothing else. The extra element of claiming money from a trust is
something that got added in later on by others who, for some reason, had their minds set on other things. This
made it harder for us to use certain terms we used with ease, as now using those terms will automatically, in most
cases, get you blocked, labelled, and categorized as what they now call us—'those who wish not to follow their
law'. This is far from the truth as we want to only follow the law and embody that within the lives we live.

The moment we are in court and we call ourselves men or free men is the moment you will be placed swiftly in
contempt. It was a lot easier to win cases in the early 2000s than it is now. It is not impossible, but it's not easy.
The more research and homework you do, the more you will know how to navigate this world.

Key thing to remember: It is about winning your cases, navigating through the world without losing much of your
rights. That's the ultimate goal. Don't be afraid to use their statutes and tools as a means to challenge their rules.
There's a common saying that goes around the sovereign freeman movement: 'Where there is a liability, there is a
remedy' as one cannot exist without the other. The Act/statute itself is the liability; the remedy, therefore, is inside
the act itself—you just need to read and find it.
If you are charged with something from their rules, their statutes, and acts, then find the exact statute, and look
for your remedy—you will find it in there, and then exploit it and use it to challenge the charge or liability itself.
Don't be afraid to use their tools at all, just because you use a statute or act to challenge something doesn't
mean you are taking away your rights. It doesn't work like that, never did.

Good luck on your self journey to freedom.

 Edit template and send to the state

Affiant:

(Put your name here) a man, non-citizen, non-individual

(Put your address here)

Non domestic without the UK (Add this term, do not omit this)

Respondent:

(Put here your Prime Ministers name), doing business as First Lord of the Treasury, and
Prime Minister

10 Downing Street
London
[SW1A 2AA]

Respondent 2:

Commissioner (Police commissioners name of your city goes here)

Police Headquarters
(Send to the Police HQ in your city and input the address here)
 AFFIDAVIT
A verified plain statement of facts

Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent

 For purposes of this affidavit and attached process, if any, the term “UNITED
KINGDOM” means the corporation, and all agents, employees, subdivisions and
representatives thereof, without any implied submission to the UNITED KINGDOM
or such private corporate “statutes.”

I, a man commonly known as _______________ hereinafter “Affiant” and “I” am competent to state the following
matters that they are true, correct and complete, presented in good faith, and not intended to mislead.

1. The Affiant is a private living sentient man.

2. The Affiant is not a UNITED KINGDOM “citizen,” “subject,” “vessel” or “person” or any ens legis artificial
entity, procedural phantom, legal fiction or juristic personality within the UNITED KINGDOM.

3. The Affiant does not fall under jurisdiction of any statutes, acts/legislation, as stated in Blacks law
dictionary, the definition of Statute: A LEGISLATIVE RULE of SOCIETY given the FORCE of LAW, by the
CONSENT of the GOVERNED.

4. The UNITED KINGDOM is a corporation, an artificial entity and a legal fiction that operates in
bankruptcy.

5. (Put your name here)© and any derivatives thereof are all artificial entities and legal fictions that
operate in bankruptcy is the secured property of The Affiant.

6. The Affiant did not receive full disclosure from the Respondent, the Respondent’s predecessors or any
agent, officer or employee within the UNITED KINGDOM of the benefits and liabilities associated with
the creation of legal fiction (Put your name here)© and any derivatives thereof are all artificial entities
and legal fictions

7. The Affiant is not liable for (Put your name here)© and any derivatives thereof are all artificial entities
and legal fictions

8. The Affiant is The Beneficiary/Executor/Administrator of the artificial entity and legal fiction (Put your
name here)© and any derivatives thereof are all artificial entities and legal fictions.

9. The Affiant is not liable for any public debts/liabilities at any time whatsoever.

10. The Affiant is not liable to or for any Government statutes, rules and/or codes, including, without
limitation, UNITED KINGDOM Codes and statutes and/or codes of any of Respondents’ political
subdivisions.

11. The Affiant’s use of a notary public, Bank of England Promissory Notes, and/or any other public facilities,
when alternatives are generally unavailable, does not comprise Affiant’s submission to any political
jurisdiction, the creation of an adhesion contract expressly or tacitly with the UNITED KINGDOM and/or
 any other party real or imagined, or an appearance before any body or tribunal, administrative or
judicial, real or imagined.

12. A legal fiction corporation cannot secure in personam jurisdiction over or against Affiant, a living man,
without Affiant’s voluntary election to submit.

13. Any Police Officer and/or Government/corporate officer, agent and/or employee who attempts to
enforce statutes against Affiant would be violating the law and engaging in Enticement to Slavery.

14. It would be unlawful for any Police Officer, Government/corporate agent, official, employee or the like,
to hold, incarcerate, detain, restrain and/or restrict the Affiant against the Affiant’s will at any time
whatsoever will be made liable to compensation fees being made payable to the Affiant(See Fee
Schedule)

15. Any party that would order, represent or persuade the Affiant to falsely present the Affiant as a UNITED
KINGDOM citizen, vessel or person directly or by deception, device, misnomer, mistaken identity,
warrant or indictment, real or imagined, would be engaging in Enticement to Slavery and will be made
liable to compensation fees being made payable to the Affiant(See Fee Schedule)

16. It would be both a violation of law and a violation of the Affiant’s God given unalienable rights if any
government/corporative agent, officer or employee attempts to, or does in-fact, force, coerce,
manipulate and/or deceive the Affiant into receiving any form of medical treatment at any time
whatsoever, including but not limited to vaccinations.

17. The Affiant is not a member of any society whatsoever and therefore the Affiant is not bound by any
society’s statutes, rules or codes.

18. It would be unlawful for the Respondent and/or any of the Respondent’s agents, officers or employees,
and/or any Government/corporate agent, officer or employee, to remove the Affiant’s property and/or
interests, or restrict Affiant’s use of Affiant’s property and/or interests against Affiant’s will and without
Affiant’s express consent.

19. Any party that alleges a liability against the Affiant is obligated to produce an Affidavit of Liability to
demonstrate such liability.

Furthermore, I claim the right to lawfully:

20. (1) Exercise my “common law right to travel”, unhindered, unencumbered, at my discretion in my private
conveyance of the day, to wit, my private, unregistered, unlicensed automobile.
(2) Exercise my God given right to travel as stated in the Queen’s bible.

21. Furthermore, I claim the right to use the force that I deem appropriate to protect my property, thus
preventing any other person(s) claiming the right to use force or violence in regard to my property.

22. Furthermore, I claim the right to use the force that I deem appropriate to protect my physical body in all
circumstances, thus preventing any other person claiming the right to use force or violence in regard to
my physical body.
 23. Furthermore, I claim the right to refuse to supply an intimate or non-intimate sample of DNA and
Fingerprints for any purpose, without my written and notarised consent.

24. Furthermore, I claim that the courts in the United Kingdom are de-facto and bound by the Law and I
further claim they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.

25. Furthermore, I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice
of this Affidavit, and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim, cannot claim good faith
or colour of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court in full
public view.

26. Furthermore, I claim all transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties.

FEE SCHEDULE
 I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by police officers, government principals or agents or
justice system participants is: ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND BRITISH POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR,
or portion thereof, if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise
regulated and, FIVE THOUSAND BRITISH POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am
handcuffed, transported, incarcerated, regulated or subjected to any adjudication process without my
express written and notarised consent.

 Respondent’s failure to provide the Affiant with a verified rebuttal to this affidavit point-by-point no
later than ten (10) days from the date of issuance, or request additional time to comply, will comprise
Respondent’s agreement with and confession of all facts herein, in perpetuity, the said confession being
res judicata and stare decisis.

 All words herein are as Affiant defines them.

Commercial Affidavit Oath and Verification

“I, a man commonly known as _____________________ (Affiant), on my own unlimited commercial liability, certify that
I have read the above affidavit and do know that the facts contained are true, correct and complete, not
misleading, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”

Signed on this day of 202__

_______ of the family ____________

All Inherent Rights reserved

Things To Note
 1. You will need two individuals to sign the document to act as witnesses to you signing and verifying your
Affidavit

2. You don't need to get it notarised as you can go to the post office and ask for the post master to stamp
the documents and verify them.

3. Change the price of your fee schedule as you wish (Do not put the monetary value too high! you will
lose credit)

4. Send the same document to the other relevant departments:

Head of Police Commission.

Head of Justice Department.

Head of Department of Work and Pension.

Head of Driving and Vehicle Department

5. Change man to woman if you are a female

6. Add a reference number unique to your documents so you can use them as reference when referring to
them

Don't forget to check out our other editions

Follow Us
Www.theforgottenlaw.com’

https://www.facebook.com/Theforgottenlaw

https://www.instagram.com/the_forgotten_law/`

i
Francis Bacon, Collection of Some Principal Rules and Maxims of the Common Law