1

While looking up interpretations of the meaning of Karnivool's "All I Know", I saw the following meaning of the song:

This is the Karnivool's Notice of Understanding and Intent.

From Black's Law Dictionary: Understanding: an agreement to "stand under", or be bound by, the terms of a contract.

In all common law jurisdictions under the British Empire (Australia, Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, etc), you can send a notice to the government, informing them what your understanding of the world is. Further, you inform them what your personal laws are, and how you are going to live your life. Lawyers and Law Students in these countries have been encouraged to remove themselves from being bound by all the acts, statutes, and codes of their particular country of origin. The rest of us (slaves) are never told that we can do this. Seems someone told the band. :) Songmeanings

He has this phrased like it's the ability to decide which laws you follow, and that it's an ability being withheld from the general public (although I seriously doubt that at least the former is the case).

I tried searching for a solid definition, but all I could find was people/organization's Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights.

What is the purpose of declaring your Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights?

7

He has this phrased like it's the ability to decide which laws you follow, and that it's an ability being withheld from the general public (although I seriously doubt that at least the former is the case).

This is yet another false claim made by "freemen" or those who claim "common law defences".

Notice of Understanding has no legal meaning unless the context demands that it evidences a meeting of the minds for the purposes of contract formation.

It is a well-settled principle of common law that in order to be bound by a contract, there must be an agreement. Put simply, I cannot bind someone simply by sending them a Notice unless it is a right conferred on me by some earlier statute or legislation, or legally binding agreement.

I tried searching for a solid definition, but all I could find was people/organization's Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights.

The reason you've found nothing official about the terms Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights is that there is nothing official or legal about those terms. They are ordinary terms with ordinary meaning being bastardised by deluded people who believe they can fine the government and refuse to be bound by the law of the land.

Of course, none of this holds up.

What is the purpose of declaring your Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights?

It might make you feel better, even though it has no legal, practical or other effect.

  • I absolutely agree with the comment "This is yet another false claim made by "freemen" or those who claim "common law defences"." - If you really want to dive into this rabbit hole - worldfreemansociety.org/?s=notice+of+understanding is a place to start - but also look at their hompage to discover the other Woo on it. – davidgo Jul 9 '16 at 8:48
1

What is the purpose of declaring your Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Rights?

Its purpose is to put forward your understanding of what a lyricist meant by making stuff up that has no meaning in the real world beyond what the simple English words mean.

A "Notice of Understanding" is not a legal term; its a perfectly sensible English phrase that you might use to describe a document where you write out your understanding of something in order to tell someone else what that is.

Similarly "Claim of Rights" is not a legal term; again, it is a perfectly sensible English phrase where you inform someone that you intend to claim rights that you may (or may not) have.

Another good English phrase is "Rule of Law". This means that a country operates based on the philosophy that the law applies equally to everybody, among other things. In particular, the former British Dominions that you mentioned (British Empire having as much relevance today as Roman Empire does) all have a strong rule of law meaning that the law applies equally to everyone.

  • The British Empire has slightly more relevance today than the Roman. Pitcairn Island, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, and a few other bits and pieces are still British. – Martin Bonner Mar 1 '18 at 14:48
-7

Essentially a Notice of Understanding and Claim of right creates your law in the absence of a rebuttal or counter claim.

If you read paragraph two of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), it states as follows:

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.

NOTE: MAN and NOT "A Citizen" (The more legal documents you read you will notice the wording will vary accordingly. When dealing with people and human rights, the term Man / People / Everyone etc. will be used. When dealing with a corporate entity: Persona, Natural Person, Artificial Person: CITIZEN, COMPANY NAME etc. will be used.

What this means in the context, is that in the face of tyranny and oppression, the rule of law must apply. So what law applies to "man" and what law applies to the "citizen"? The common law applies to the man, Statute / Acts apply to the CITIZEN.

In the law of equity, silence means consent. This is why when you ignore a traffic fine, you automatically agree to the terms in the notice. Now since the law is applied equally (no one is more equal than another - Orwell 1984) the same can be used against the state or anyone for that matter (the banks love to use this technique in order to sell your property when you do not pay your debts).

So lets say you have submitted a notice and a claim of right to use and create your own identity. You have submitted it had no response, this becomes acceptance through acquiescence. Now one day you are stopped while walking down the street and arrested / jailed because of your ID.

Now you may appear in a court of equity that will claim some or other ACT demands that you MUST do this OR face arrest and prosecution... This is based on the assumption that there is no superior or private law involved.

However you have no obligation to understand statute and ACTS and can claim a court of record as the applicant and produce your law (your documents). The state at this point must be careful when attempting to force on you an ACT that you do not understand (as this would be considered oppression in terms of the UDHR). In a court of record, you simply ask for: "Cause of action"... i.e. the agreement that compelled the police to arrest you. Since you have your documents that stand unrebutted, there is no cause of action.

So the purpose of the Notice of understanding and claim of right is to establish your law...

Some of the information contained in this post requires additional references. Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the assertions made here. Unsourced material may be disputed or deleted.

  • 1
    For anyone that wishes to entertain the possibility that this answer should be given even the slightest credence, please see Meads vs Meads. This is possibly the most hilarious and deluded defense of freemen theory I've ever read. It ignores the fact that UN resolutions are not automatically binding on member states. It also ignores the fact that the quoted text is in the preamble, not the articles, of the Declaration. It ignores the anarchy that would arise if everyone decided to establish their own law. – jimsug Jul 20 '16 at 9:51
  • 1
    It cites George Orwell, who isn't a legal scholar or practitioner - and, by the way, silence means consent is not the case generally; see rape. If you want to take the UDHR literally, does this mean that women are not included, because it says man? I have no qualms whatsoever with adding a citation needed notice to this post, for the reason that without it, some poor, fanciful person might actually do what you're suggesting and land themselves in hot water. – jimsug Jul 20 '16 at 9:57
  • South Africa has made binding commitments to the UDHR. Not only is it taken seriously, it is also reflected in our Constitution as well as our Bill of Rights. Sadly not many people know what their rights are nor how to protect them. Section 75 of the EFF verses the National Assembly is quite clear in the rule of law (common law) and how it should be applied in order to prevent Rebellion / Anarchy as you put it. Remain a sheep buddy, you are the problem. – HappyCoder Jul 20 '16 at 14:16
  • @jimsug Oh the Meads case... Possibly the greatest mockery of any judicial system. – Zizouz212 Jul 20 '16 at 19:39
  • @HappyCoder again - the text you quote is in the preamble. – jimsug Jul 21 '16 at 6:26

protected by Community Oct 4 at 23:13

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.