• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Black Magic

Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
5,678
Likes
2,602
#2
Awesome! Black-robed magicians, indeed.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#3
Public Policy vs Public Law vs your rights vs the courts run by the practitioners of Black Magic...:flute:


The TRUTH About COURT ROOMS! STAY OUT!


In our legal system it is all or nothing. You are either a sovereign
or a slave. There is no middle ground.

In previous versions of this book, I went into detail on the statutes
concerning liens and levies, and assessments, the United States Code,
the Code of Federal Regulations, etc., and documented how they were
not being upheld by the courts. But even with these arguments,
coupled with the inalienable rights arguments, patriots were still
losing in the courts.

WHY? When I learned about the federal bankruptcy and the change to
martial law, then everything fell into place. We have learned, that
as U.S. citizens we have no inalienable rights protected by a
constitution. But we were still losing in the courts on statutory
issues even though there is no statute that makes you liable for an
income tax. I proved this, with the statutes and court decisions, in
previous versions. But the courts would not uphold the statutes
either. They would not actually disregard the statutes, they would
just find any excuse and any loophole they could come up with, or
fabricate, to dismiss your case. And the Department of Justice
attorneys know this so they can make a half hearted attempt at defense
and still win the case. I wanted to know why the courts would not
uphold the plain words of the law. Then, recently, I found out.

What first dawned on me, is that American Citizen's have no standing
in court. Therefore any time an American Citizen went to court and
claimed not to be liable for income tax, because the constitution says
direct taxes have to be apportioned, they were ruled against. It IS a
frivolous argument, because only a U.S. citizen has standing in
today's courts, and since you WERE in court making a claim, the
presumption was made that it was a U.S. citizen making the claim (a
correct presumption), and since the U.S. citizen does not have
inalienable rights secured by the constitution, it was a frivolous
argument and against public policy. Only sovereign American's can
claim inalienable rights, secured by the constitution, and sovereign's
will not be found in court.

U.S. citizens can only claim privileges and immunities secured by the
statutes, so anytime you enter the court's jurisdiction, your are
correctly presumed to be a U.S. citizen, there on a statutory issue
or a contract dispute.

An Oklahoma Supreme Court justice stated it in a nutshell when he
described the first level state courts in Oklahoma as "statutory
non-constitutional" courts. The same is true in all states and in the
federal court system. When you file a federal case you must submit a
cover sheet showing the nature of the suit. Nowhere on the sheet is
there a space for "inalienable rights". The only section that is
close is labeled "civil rights".

The courts today are private corporate courts run by the BAR (British
Accreditation Regency) Association. Think about this a minute.
Attorneys are considered by statute and by court decisions to be
"officers of the court". Their first duty is to the court, not to
you! Judges, Prosecutors and private practice attorneys are all
attorneys and therefore are all officers of the court. Since all
these officers are dealing in the same commodity, statutes, they would
be statute "merchants", as "merchants" is defined by the Uniform
Commercial Code at (UCC) 2-104(1).

All the statutes are written by attorneys. Most business legal
decisions are made by attorneys. Prosecutions are made by attorneys.
Defenses are made by attorneys. Judgments are made by attorneys.
Officers of the court are in fact just government agents. These
agents are also U.S. citizens and their main job is to collect
revenue to pay the federal debt. Therefore the whole court system and
all attorneys have just modified the legal system into a business
entity, designed to run as many people through as fast as they can,
and collect the most revenue. And what is the one product of this
business? Statutes. There are over 3 million law and statute BOOKS,
and over 60 million statutes! Do you know them ALL? Remember,
ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Again, all definitions quoted in this chapter are from Black's Law
Dictionary 6th Edition, unless otherwise noted.

Up until 1933, we operated under Public Law. After 1933 we operated
under Public Policy. What is the difference?

Public law. That branch or department of law which is concerned with
the state in its political or sovereign capacity, including
constitutional and administrative law, and with the definition,
regulation, and enforcement of rights where the state is regarded as
the subject of the right or object of the duty, . . . That portion
of law which is concerned with political conditions; that is to say,
with the powers, rights, duties, capacities, and incapacities which
are peculiar to political superiors, supreme and subordinate.

Before 1933 we had public law, based on rights, constitutions,
statutes, etc., and the state was the subject of the rights and the
object of the duty to protect those rights. If you went to court, you
went as a sovereign with inalienable rights, and the courts upheld
them.

After 1933, when everybody's status changed, we then went under public
policy. Public policy doctrine. Doctrine whereby a court may refuse
to enforce contracts that violate law or public policy.

Public policy. Community common sense and common conscience, extended
and applied throughout the state to matters of public morals, health,
safety, welfare, and the like; it is that general and well-settled
public opinion relating to man's plain, palpable duty to his fellow
men, having due regard to all circumstances of each particular
relation and situation.

So, what's the difference?

Under public law, the courts upheld the constitution, the statutes,
and enforced your inalienable rights, even to the detriment of the
public. This is still applicable to all cases where there is a
dispute as to the terms of a contract that does NOT affect the general
public or the government. If you have a contract to provide a service
for someone, then the courts will enforce that contract. But if you
are a corporation and you sign a contract with a supplier that says
you will not sell any products to women, then the court will rule that
your contract is against public policy and will refuse to enforce the
contract.

Under public policy, you have no rights to uphold, or contracts to
enforce. It is really just a democracy. If the majority of the
public has the same opinion, then that becomes public policy, law. If
your rights or contract interferes with what the government thinks is
best for the welfare of the general public, or is contrary to public
opinion, they may refuse to uphold your rights, or enforce your
contract. That is why most contracts have to be on government
approved forms before the courts will uphold them. The whole court
system, at all levels, is just a private business set up to collect
revenue for the government. They mostly handle their own business,
collecting revenue for violations of their corporate statutes, but
occasionally they will listen to a dispute between two private
citizens.

As applied to court cases, if you have a property line dispute with
your neighbor, the court will enforce the laws as written. If you
have a dispute with the IRS because they assessed a tax after the
statute of limitations was expired, the court may uphold the statute.
If you are claiming that the IRS cannot tax your property income
directly, due to the inalienable rights of property, the courts will
not uphold your rights, because the public needs the tax money. If
you are claiming your inalienable rights against the government, what
are your chances? You are fighting Goliath in Goliath's court! If
you make constitutional arguments in court, the judge will tell you
that if you persist in making these arguments, he will find you in
contempt of court! WHY?

Because a U.S. citizen does not have any Constitutional protections.
They are property of the corporate government and property does not
have rights.

BUT, if you do like I did in my court cases (and older editions of my
book), the courts will rule against you, under public policy. In my
court cases I provided documented proof that the Internal Revenue Code
(IRC) Section 7805 says that the Secretary of the Treasury must
prescribe regulations for the 'enforcement' of the tax code. And that
without these regulations being promulgated, that the collection and
penalty statutes were not enforceable. I even quoted IRC 6202, which
says: "The assessment shall be made by recording the liability of the
taxpayer in the office of the Secretary in accordance with rules or
regulations prescribed by the Secretary." There are NO regulations
prescribed for, assessments, liens, levies, frivolous penalties, or
ANY other type of collection action, THAT APPLY TO INCOME TAX.


All these collection regulations only apply to the BATF. If there are
no rules or regulations prescribed for assessments, how can the IRS
make a valid assessment for income tax when you don't file a return?
They can't! Did this argument make any difference when I presented
it? NO! I had documented proof! I even provided Supreme Court
decisions to back up the argument, along with other statutes that said
the same thing. I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there were
no regulations for ANY collection actions, for income tax, in the Code
of Federal Regulations. (26 CFR Part 1 Income Tax.)

I provided MANY authorities. But the court ruled against me. They
would not address my argument and would only state that my argument
was frivolous and without merit. WITHOUT MERIT! I had tons of
documentation from their own laws to prove my case! But I lost
because I was ignorant! Ignorant of the doctrine of Public Policy.
The law and the statutes are NOT valid! Public opinion is the
determining factor. And who determines public opinion? The legal
system!

If my arguments WERE addressed by the court, then they would have to
uphold the law as it was plainly written. But, my win would have
exposed the fraud of the income tax collection actions applied against
us, and would have had a major impact on the way the government
collects taxes. It would result in a great loss of revenue. And a
loss of revenue, would be against public policy, because we have to
take care of the welfare of the people, and pay off the bankruptcy,
and that would put a damper on it. Therefore, due to the doctrine of
public policy, my arguments were without merit. What, REALLY, is this
doctrine based on? It is based on another doctrine, the Doctrine of
Necessity!

You have probably heard of patriots who have gone to court with a
claim against the government, and the courts dismissed the case for
"failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted", or was
dismissed because the argument was "without merit". These patriots
thought they had a great case, and they did! That was the problem!
They could not be allowed to win, because it would cause a revolution!
What does necessity mean?

Necessity. Controlling force; irresistible compulsion; a power or
impulse so great that it admits no choice of conduct. That which
makes the contrary of a thing impossible. The quality or state of
being necessary, in its primary sense signifying that which makes an
act or event unavoidable.

When the government takes your property to build a road or make a
park, (eminent domain) that is done under the doctrine of necessity.
It is in the best interest of the public, therefore you must give up
your property right! Suppose you killed someone in self defense.
That is under the doctrine of necessity. You HAD to do it to save
your life! The government says the same thing for your court
arguments. They had to rule against you, because THEIR life was at
stake! When it comes down to your life or their life, which way do
you think they will rule? What do you think Goliath would have done
if David filed a court case against him, in Goliath's court? If it
came down to David's life or Goliath's life, how would Goliath rule?
He would rule out of the doctrine of necessity. STAY OUT OF GOLIATH'S
COURT! Throw your stones instead! You cannot beat them in their own
courts!

Many patriot arguments were based on constitutional claims, as were
mine. As we learned in previous chapters, only a U.S. citizen has
any standing in any court, and the U.S. citizen does not have any
inalienable rights secured by the Constitution or Bill of Rights! He
has only privileges granted by his master, the government. That's why
14th Amendment citizens had to be given privileges and immunities that
corresponded to all the same rights that sovereigns claimed in the
Bill of Rights. Privileges and immunities are pseudo rights that can
be granted and taken away at will by the government. So when a U.S.
citizen makes a constitutional rights claim, the court cannot grant
relief, because he has not made a claim upon which relief can be
granted. He has no 'constitutional' rights. He only has privileges
and immunities, under the 14th Amendment, as a citizen of the United
States.

Since all law is based on contract, the courts and the government
agencies automatically 'presume' that you are a U.S. citizen making a
statutory claim against the corporate government, Goliath. And you
waived ALL your rights when you signed the contract for U.S. citizen,
so what's your beef? You have not stated a claim upon which relief
can be granted!

The Laws of War, International and Municipal Law, and Emergency
powers, are not real law. The Supreme Court has ruled in the landmark
case of Erie Railroad v. Thompkins 1938, that stare decisis, which
means case law, in statutory construction, is a useful rule, not an
exorable command. This means that former court cases may or may not
be used to set any precedent for the law, because the standard of law
previous to 1933 was based on the constitution. After 1933, the
constitution no longer applied, so any cases decided before 1933 no
longer were required to be upheld. The same is true today. If you
are in court, the judge will only acknowledge case cites before 1933
if they are not against current public policy, because they are not
valid today under military law. He won't tell you that though! WHY?
Because necessity knows no law! And necessity is the basis of the
emergency powers and martial law.

Before 1933 you still had full constitutional rights and you could
argue those rights in a court of law in your real name spelled in
upper and lower case letters. Before 1933 you were still under
emergency rule, but were not the declared enemy of the United States.
After 1933, all enemies of the United States only had standing in the
military court as legal fictions, U.S. citizens. The Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure were instituted on September 16, 1938. But the
biggest rotten apple in the barrel was another doctrine, called stare
decisis.

Stare decisis. To abide by, or adhere, to decide cases. Policy of
courts to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point.
Doctrine that, when court has once lain down a principle of law as
applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that
principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are
substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property
are the same.

Under doctrine a deliberate or solemn decision of court made after
argument on question of law fairly arising in the case, and necessary
to its determination, is an authority, or binding precedent in the
same court, or in other courts of equal or lower rank in subsequent
cases where the very point is again in controversy.

The key word here is 'necessary.' The previous case must be followed,
except under the doctrine of necessity. These 2 doctrines have lost
us more freedoms that any other. How? Let's take an example. Let's
say I go to court and make a claim that the IRS has levied my property
without following proper procedure. In order to make a levy, they
first had to make an assessment. And since I didn't file a return,
before they could make the assessment, they had to send a notice of
deficiency. They goofed. They didn't send a notice of deficiency,
made an assessment anyway, without any regulations, and then levied my
property as they pleased. By the way, this is MY true story.

I, not being versed in legal procedure, and not being able to afford
an attorney, decided to educate myself in the nuances of law. Boy did
I learn a lot! A lot of what is in this book. I already knew that if
I hired an attorney, that the attorney works for the courts, not for
you. I knew that every attorney and every judge was a member of the
American BAR Association, and that the ABA was a private corporation.
I knew that an attorney is obligated, by his membership in the bar, to
uphold the principle of the court, to the detriment of his client, if
need be. Also that he was not going to be made fun of by the judge,
by presenting a tax case that they considered frivolous (of which they
considered ALL of them frivolous). So I became pro per, or pro se,
because that's what all the patriot books said to do. What I did NOT
know then was that the terms 'pro per' and 'pro se', both are
designations of artificial persons! I had just announced to the court
my status!

Any way, I learned all the rules of civil procedure, and learned how
to write briefs, and learned, I thought, all I needed to know. Wrong!
What I didn't know was that there were NO RULES! Everything is done
by necessity.

I filed my arguments with federal District Court, that proper
procedure was not followed, and that no regulations were prescribed
for collection actions for income tax. I also filed my 45 pg
Memorandum showing the difference between direct and indirect income
taxes. I claimed that; (1) the IRS was collecting income taxes by
liens and levies without following proper procedure, (2) no
regulations were prescribed for assessment or collection actions for
income tax, and (3) that they had no authority to collect direct taxes
on property income without apportionment. Three pretty good
arguments, huh? And I had all three arguments highly documented. It
was an air tight case. Or so I thought.

The Department of Justice filed an answer to my complaint. They said
that my arguments were frivolous and without merit, and asked for
dismissal of the action. They did NOT present any arguments to
counter my arguments. They just said 'frivolous' and 'without merit'.
How could they say that? It was easy. They said that MY supposed
arguments were, (1) that the IRS had no authority to collect taxes;
(2) that regulations were needed for ALL statutes; and (3) that the
income tax was an illegal unconstitutional tax; were frivolous and
without merit. They were 100% right about those arguments! Why?
Because they were NOT MY arguments! They were made up by the Dept.
of Just-us attorneys.

The judge ruled that my arguments, as stated by the Dept. of Just-us,
were frivolous and without merit. Were they? As phrased by the Dept.
of Just-us, they were! They did not address MY arguments. They
changed my arguments and then ruled against me. Outraged I appealed
to the federal Appellate Court.

I showed how they had twisted my arguments, and how they refused to
address my arguments. And I restated my arguments, and made clear
what my arguments were NOT! The appellate court rubber stamped the
district court decision as frivolous and without merit. To add insult
to injury, they also fined me $3000, called sanctions, for wasting the
court's and the government's time. Then they ruled that the case was
not to be published! It was not published, but it has been used
against me in subsequent cases, and someone HAS published it on the
internet!

Again outraged. I appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court
denied my appeal and would not hear my case. Again, I did not know
that the Supreme Court has not heard a case since 1900, that was
presented without a lawyer. I had appealed pro per. You no longer
have the 'right' to appeal to the Supreme Court. And if you DO, it
can only be done through a lawyer!

This was just one of many cases that I filed. They all resulted in
the same decision. Dismissed as frivolous and without merit! They
were all against public policy I guess. To add insult to injury, in
the 6 cases I filed in federal court against the IRS, I not only lost,
I was fined (sanctioned) by the court for over $13,000, for filing
frivolous claims! And I have been forbidden to file any more claims,
until all the sanctions have been paid. And they never once addressed
my arguments! We now have only kangaroo courts, at all levels. And
their only interest is in collecting as much revenue and attorney fees
as possible.

Because the federal District courts are now under martial law, they
will only hear cases of a statutory nature. They will not hear
constitutional claims, because they are not operating under the
Constitution, and a U.S. citizen has no rights secured by the
constitution. The cases they DO hear, that involve supposed
constitutional rights, are really about the privileges and immunities
granted to 14th Amendment U.S. citizens. These privileges and
immunities are the same as the Bill of Rights, but are really the Bill
of Privileges. But rather than admit that, and cause a revolt, they
just look for any technicality they can find to dismiss your case, or
rule against you, without addressing the constitutional issues.

If you look at the statutes for your state, you will find that the
Constitution, state or federal, and the Bill of Rights, are not
included in the statutes. The statutes start AFTER these documents
with Title I.

The BUCK ACT

In order for the federal government to tax your income directly,
without apportionment, and without an excise tax, they have to first
create a contract allowing them to do so. If you agreed to the
contract, then it was legal. This contract, as we learned earlier, is
called "Social Security". When the Social Security Act was passed in
1935, Congress also created 10 Social Security Districts. The
districts covered the continental United States and made them federal
territories, for the purposes of social security.

In 1939, the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 was passed. This allowed
the taxing of all federal and state employee's incomes, and the income
of anyone who resided or worked in any 'federal area'. But what was a
federal area? To solve that problem Congress passed the "Buck Act" in
1940. This act allowed any department of the federal government to
create a "federal area" for the imposition of the Public Salary Tax
Act. So they then created federal states, which occupy the same area
as the state republics.

To tell the two apart abbreviations were created to designate the
difference. So the republic of Arizona became the federal STATE OF
ARIZONA, and was abbreviated AZ, instead of Ariz. So, anytime you use
the two letter abbreviation AZ, you are designating a federal area and
not a sovereign state. What address do you use? Are you declaring
yourself to be in a federal area? If you are then you are liable for
income tax. This federal area would also extend to any contract you
signed in which you used your social security number for
identification.

The federal legal system has done the same thing. When you file a
federal court case, it is not filed in any state, it is filed in a
federal district. The heading on the court documents do not say IN
THE STATE OF COLORADO. It says IN THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. The
states are not sovereign states, for court jurisdiction, they are
federal districts.

District courts. Each state is comprised of one or more federal
judicial districts, and in each district there is a district court.
28 U.S.C.A. 81. The United States district courts are the trial
courts with general Federal jurisdiction over cases involving federal
laws of offenses and actions between citizens of different states.
Each state has at least one district court, though many have several
judicial districts (e.g. northern, southern, middle districts) or
divisions. There is also a United States district court in the
District of Columbia. And all these federal court districts are all
under the national emergency declared in 1933 and are now military
courts.

The Post Office has also jumped on the band wagon. As we know, the
federal government, United States, is considered a foreign country, in
relation to the several states of the union. So any mail sent within
the jurisdiction of the United States proper, 10 miles square, would
be domestic. Any mail sent to another jurisdiction, the 50 states or
foreign countries, would be non-domestic. To show the difference, all
domestic mail was given a zip code. There are no zip codes for
non-domestic mail. So if you use a zip code in your address, you are
identifying your location as a federal domestic area.

And the IRS. The federal tax statutes only apply within federal
jurisdiction. They do not apply within the boundaries of a state
republic, as we have learned. That's why the tax department of the
corporate U.S. is called the Department of Internal Revenue. It only
applies within corporate U.S. jurisdiction. That jurisdiction does
not extend to the 50 republic states, UNLESS you claim to be a U.S.
citizen. Then you are subject to the jurisdiction of the corporate
U.S. (14th amendment) and the taxes are for internal revenue
purposes.

THE AMERICAN FLAG

Before we leave this chapter, I would like to present one more proof
of the martial rule in existence today. Whenever there is a military
occupation, what is the first thing the occupying forces do? They put
up their flag to show everyone who is in command of that territory!
Who controls all the commercial disputes today? If you have a legal
conflict with someone over some property, where do you go? To the
courts! So if you want to know the real status of our political
situation all you have to do is go into the nearest courtroom and look
at the flag. But for that to mean anything to you, you must know a
little about flags.

The true American flag is red white and blue. There is no gold fringe
around the edge. What does this gold fringe indicate?

The opinion of U.S. Attorney General John G. Sargent: 34 Opinion
Attorney General 483, 484, 485, 486 (1925). From the correspondence
attached to the letter of President Harding, above mentioned, it would
seem that doubts have been expressed in some quarters as to the
propriety of attaching a fringe of yellow silk to the colors and
standards used by troops in the field. The use of such a fringe is
prescribed in Army Regulations No. 260-10. In a circular dated March
28, 1924, The Adjutant General of the Army thus refers to the matter
of the fringe:

"For a number of years there has been prescribed in Army Regulations a
knotted fringe of yellow silk on the national standards of mounted
regiments and on the national colors of unmounted regiments. The War
Department, however, knows of no law which either requires or
prohibits the placing of fringe on the flag of the United States. No
Act of Congress or Executive order has been found bearing on the
question. In flag manufacturing a fringe is not considered to be a
part of the flag, and it is without heraldic significance . In common
use of the word it is a fringe and not a border. Ancient custom
sanctions the use of fringe on the regimental colors and standards,
but here seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other
flags." The presence, therefore, of a fringe on military colors and
standards does not violate any existing Act of Congress. It's use or
disuse is a matter of practical policy, to be determined, in the
absence of statute, by the Commander in Chief. If the fringe is used,
its color and size are matters of detail which may be determined by
the same authority.

Well let's look at the regulations for flags that HAVE been issued.
The only direct authority for the use of fringe on the American flag
is in the Army regulations.

Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(b) (1979) states: b. National flags
listed below are for indoor displays and for use in ceremonies and
parades. For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon
banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2
inches wide.

Army Regulation 840-10, 2.3(c) states: c. Authorization for indoor
display. The flag of the United States is authorized for indoor
display for: (1) each office, headquarters, and organization
authorized a positional color, distinguishing flag, or organizational
color; (2) each organization of battalion size or larger, temporary or
permanent, not otherwise authorized a flag of the United States; (3)
each military installation not otherwise authorized an indoor flag of
the United States, for the purpose of administering oaths of office;
(4) each military courtroom; (5) each US Army element of joint
commands, military groups, and missions. One flag is authorized for
any one headquarters operating in a dual capacity; (6) each
subordinate element of the US Army Recruiting Command; (7) each ROTC
unit, including those at satellited schools; (8) each reception
station.

Did you see anything there about use in a non-military court of law?
So if there is a gold fringe around the flag in your courtroom, you
are in a military courtroom! We are under martial law!

This is confirmed by 4 U.S.C. (United States Code) Chap.1, Secs. 1,
2 & 3. ". . . a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular
flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border
on 3 sides."

SUMMARY

STAY OUT OF COURT, if at all possible! You are either a sovereign or
a slave. Act the part you choose.

We are operating under Public Policy, not Public Law. There are no
laws to uphold! And no Constitutional courts to hear them in!

We are operating under stare decisis. The latest court case is the
new law, if they want to use it to their advantage. They will ignore
it, if it is to your advantage!

We are operating under necessity. The needs of the government and
public opinion take priority over your rights.

Any argument you present in court, that would embarrasses the
government, or expose their fraud, will be dismissed as frivolous and
without merit. You have failed to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted. Which means they will refuse to give you relief, even if
you are right! So, you lose, because relief will not be granted!

Federal areas were created to cover the same areas that the states
occupy. Claiming to be in one of these federal areas brings you under
the jurisdiction of the federal government as U.S. citizens.

All courts today are military courts, set up under martial law, under
national emergency. Just look at the flag of the occupying force. We
are sovereign American Indians on the reservation, claiming that our
treaties are not being honored. And again, we are being told, SHUT
UP!

When it gets right down to the bottom line, the law of the old west
still prevails. The ones with the biggest and fastest guns wins!
Period.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#5
From ParanoidPatriots free book on beating the courts...


Recently, I was helping my friend Jeremiah with his speeding ticket. I felt obligated, as I
was in his car, encouraging him to hurry, when we got pulled over. We were already late to class
and this unplanned roadside rendezvous only added to our tardiness. When our day in court
finally came, Jer was able to get the cop impeached with only a few questions.

“Officer,” he started out, “did you witness me commit a crime?”

To which the answer was a confident “Yes.”

Then he asked, “Would there have been a crime if I was not within the state on the day in
question?”

If, at this point, the prosecutor objected, arguing the hypothetical nature of the question, Jer
could have asked instead, “Does the statute require my presence in the state to be applicable?”
But, in this case it was not necessary as both the judge and opposing attorney allowed the
question to be answered.

After the cop admitted his presence within the state was required, he continued with, “Was I
within the state on the day in question?”

“Well, yeah” the cop most proudly exclaimed.

This is where Jeremiah brought it back to the facts. “Sir,” he asked, “is that an arbitrary
opinion or is it based off of facts currently in your knowledge?”

When the cop stated it was based on facts currently within his knowledge, Jer came back
with, “Factually, what is the state?”

The cop and the D.A. just sat there like deer caught in the headlights. This question was so
powerful because a state, factually, is nothing more than a figment of the imagination. There was
no way to prove his presence in a figment of the officerʼs imagination. The cop had no idea how to
answer.


If the claim was made that the state is the geographic location, we know that this is not
entirely true, as I explained in earlier chapters. This response could have quickly been knocked
down by asking, “Are you telling me that the prosecutor is here representing the ground?” If the
cop was foolish enough to respond with a yes, he could then ask, “So, do you believe that the
ground did not exist before the state was incorporated?” I donʼt think so.

The cop can only answer this question one way, by contradicting his earlier testimony. I, of
course, would object if this happens. “Objection, inconsistent testimony, witness now testifies that
the ground and the state are not one and the same. I move to strike their earlier statements
pertaining to my presence within the state.”

I would then re-ask the initial question, but in much more loaded fashion this time.
Something like, “Officer, knowing that my presence on the ground is not the same as my presence
within the state, is it still your testimony, under penalty of perjury, that I was present within the
state on the date in question?” Followed up by the questions about arbitrary opinions and facts, I
have effectively left no wiggle room whatsoever for the witness to escape.

Fortunately for Jeremiah, this level of persistence was not required and the judge
dismissed his case without any further effort on our behalf.

Another recent victory involved a friend of mine by the name of Chris. This hearing was at
the Denver County Court in the “state” of Colorado. By simply asking a few of the set up questions
that were detailed at the beginning of this chapter, and filing two motions with the court, Chris was
able to get his judge to recuse himself. When he showed up to his trial date, there was a new
black robed lawyer sitting on the bench. This new judge had not yet ruled on the motions we sent
in and said that she had no idea as to the whereabouts of said motions.

Not letting this suspicious turn of events discourage him, Chris instead decided to focus
strictly on cross-examination. When the time came, He got right into it. “Officer,” he said, “what
type of paperwork did you file to initiate these legal proceedings?”

The response given was a very snide. “I filed a speeding ticket with the court.”

Chris continued. “And did you file that ticket because it was your opinion that I was involved
in some sort of illegal activity?”

“Yeah, you were speeding.”

“Ok,” Chris replies, “And was the ticket that you filed a valid ticket?”

Of course the judge allowed the witness to answer this question. It only helped the stateʼs
case. The cop answers, “Yes.”


Chris then asks the million dollar question. “Officer, how many elements are in a valid
ticket?”

This is a trick question. A ticket is considered to be a “cause of action.” In order for a cause
of action to be valid, it must meet three required elements: injury, damages, and redress-ability. So
the ticket, as is the case with most tickets, was not valid. But, if the cop is going to testify that the
ticket was valid, he should at least know how many elements a valid ticket consists of. This,
however, was not the case. In fact, it was at this point that the judge declared her only witness
incompetent to testify. She told Chris that the officer was not required to answer the question as it
called for a legal conclusion and such determinations were outside the scope of the copʼs
expertise.

The real reason she stopped this line of questioning short, I believe, is the next logical question. If,
by some sort of miracle, the cop actually answered the last question responsively, Chris could
have easily followed up with, “And what are those elements?”

Now the witness would be in a very tough position. He wouldnʼt be able to answer without
admitting that some of the essential elements were not present. There was no injury and
therefore, no corpus delecti. Ultimately, what this means is that there is no crime: no case, no valid
cause of action, no injury, and no crime. This is made clear in Colorado v. Smith when it is stated,
“The corpus delecti of a crime minimally requires two elements: (1) An injury which is penally
proscribed...and (2) The unlawfulness of some person's conduct in causing that injury.”14,15

Once she had ruled that the cop was not capable of rendering legal determinations, Chris
moved to have all of the officerʼs testimony stricken from the record. When the judge complied,
Chris then added, “Including the original charging instrument.”

Game, set and match. She had no choice. Although it was with some hesitance, she threw
out Chrisʼ ticket. He then returned to his seat with his money safe in his pocket. This was
wonderful for Chris, but what happened next was truly amazing. In fact, it was almost
unbelievable.

When the next case was called, a new defendant stepped up to be sheared. Neither I nor
Chris had ever met this individual and it is doubtful that he had any understanding of what just
transpired in Chrisʼ case. Most likely clueless as to what he had just witnessed, a stroke of
inspiration must have struck him. In a brilliant case of monkey see, monkey do, this new
defendant stood up and asked, “Officer, did you file a valid ticket against me?”

14 People of the State of Colorado v. Smith, 510 P.2d 893, 182 Colo. 31.(Colorado)
15 State v. Libero, 83 P.3d 753, 763 (2003), [quoting State v. Dudoit, 55 Haw. 1, 2, 514 P.2d 373, 374 (1973)] (Hawaii).

Great radio interview with Paranoid on Talkshoe here:
 

GOLD DUCK

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,777
Likes
6,792
#6
QWAK,On a personal level -- a "BLACK MAGIC WOMAN" can wreck your whole life! :hahaha::yes::s10:


the DUCK :2:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,445
Likes
5,483
#7
The video in post 4 is for Canada. I'm sure there are many similarities for the US but the case law would be different. Good info anyway.
 

ToBeSelfEvident

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
1,339
Likes
1,143
#8
Once he had her admit she represented one of the parties in the complaint, he should have just smiled at her and said nothing more. Then once she asked him to continue, just say "I am waiting for YOU. According to your testimony, you must now recuse yourself."
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#9
From the Amicus Man, Burt here:




Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread...

Just be sure to watch out for the black magic woman...:36_3_12:
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#12
Here's a great case to know if you need to defend yourself in court. Trinsey v. Pagliaro, "Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment."

 
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
2,990
Likes
1,466
#13
Re: The rather long post #3

We have learned, that as U.S. citizens we have no inalienable rights protected by a
constitution


Correct. As U.S. citizens and subject to the jurisdiction thereof you are a federal franchise, and exist at their pleasure.

What first dawned on me, is that American Citizen's have no standing
in court.


"American Citizen" is an imprecise term, there is no such thing. I think you mean citizen of the United States, discussed immediately above.

Therefore any time an American Citizen went to court and
claimed not to be liable for income tax, because the constitution says
direct taxes have to be apportioned, they were ruled against.


You mean citizen of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof? They were created to pay the income tax!

U.S. citizens can only claim privileges and immunities secured by the
statutes, so anytime you enter the court's jurisdiction, your are
correctly presumed to be a U.S. citizen, there on a statutory issue
or a contract dispute.


Yes. You seem to have them confused with state citizens, We, the People.

An Oklahoma Supreme Court justice stated it in a nutshell when he
described the first level state courts in Oklahoma as "statutory
non-constitutional" courts. The same is true in all states


Was our defendant pleading U.S. constitutional law in a state court? Could it have been Title 42 special federal privileges for non-citizens? Then you bet it's statutory!

U.S. citizens can only claim privileges and immunities secured by the
statutes, so anytime you enter the court's jurisdiction, your are
correctly presumed to be a U.S. citizen, there on a statutory issue
or a contract dispute.


Right.

An Oklahoma Supreme Court justice stated it in a nutshell when he
described the first level state courts in Oklahoma as "statutory
non-constitutional" courts. The same is true in all states and in the
federal court system. When you file a federal case ...


In a state court? You must be one of those freed slaves asking for federal help to force the state to do something they don't owe you.

Nowhere on the sheet is there a space for "inalienable rights". The only section that is
close is labeled "civil rights".


Do you see why? You are not a citizen having inalienable rights. You are subject to the jurisdiction and have only "civil rights" listed on a certain document (guess what it is!).

(Then a bunch of stuff...) Did this argument make any difference when I presented
it? NO!


I'm not surprised.

Had you understood your proper status and defended it from the beginning, the onus would have been on them. They would have had to do all the work, instead of you.

You might even have won!

.
 

Aurumag

Dimly lit. Highly reflective
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,661
Likes
8,022
Location
State of Jefferson
#16
Speaking of Frivolity!

I once received a letter signed by IRS Agent Henry J. Slaughter, in which not once, but thrice he called my Bill of Rights Article One Petition of Grievances, "frivolous."

The gravity of the situation makes the false accusation of frivolity that much worse for the aggrieved party.

A former IRS agent and personal hero showed me the IRS regulation, whereby agents and employees of the IRS can use pseudonyms in order to protect their own, personal privacy.


Whose privacy is more important?


How does one individual effect justice against a conspiracy of collectivists who use pseudonyms at will and at random?

Who is ultimately accountable for those who mete out injustices anonymously under color of so-called "authority?"

Sometimes I feel utterly surrounded and wonder, "Am I the only one accountable for my own actions?"

I pray God will bring judgement, because proper judgement is obviously lacking from the power seat of humanity.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
3,384
Likes
1,583
#17
From the Amicus Man, Burt here:

[video=youtube_share;7E2xz7ii5xk]http://youtu.be/7E2xz7ii5xk[/video]



Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread...

Just be sure to watch out for the black magic woman...:36_3_12:


The video author's advice stood on the presumptions of kidnapping and coercion without pleading to put the court in dishonor - very good tactic !

He also corrected his language on identity, not so much as establishing self in common law but also proper title correction.



Hint for traffic violations; Renew you drivers license with signature in common name with no reference to family name. This way the court cannot identify you as the d.b.a. defendant.

Your d.b.a. legal fiction name - either you control it or it controls you.





Capitis deminutio (lit. "decrease of head") is a term used in Roman trials referring to the extinguishing, either in whole or in part, of a person's former legal capacity.

There were three changes of state or condition attended with different consequences, maxima, media and minima. The greatest, capitis deminutio maxima, involved the loss of liberty, citizenship, and family (e.g. being made a slave or prisoner of war). The next change of state, capitis deminutio media, consisted of a loss of citizenship and family without any forfeiture of personal liberty. The least change of state, capitis deminutio minima, consisted of a person ceasing to belong to a particular family, without loss of liberty or citizenship.




Don't let the capitalization of name issue confuse you, its a redherring, a logical fallacy.



capitis deminutio maxima / "legal name" issued at birth by informant (mother) - John J. Doe - d.b.a. doing business as - statutory / admiralty law



capitis deminutio minima
/ "lawful given name" given by parents at birth - John James - without family name attached - common law / constitutional rights



Now that you no longer live in your parents house (jurisdiction), you have the lawful right to assume your given name ....





mm
 
Last edited:

chris_is_here

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,163
Likes
1,463
Location
Communist Amerika
#18
Re: Speaking of Frivolity!

I once received a letter signed by IRS Agent Henry J. Slaughter, in which not once, but thrice he called my Bill of Rights Article One Petition of Grievances, "frivolous."

The gravity of the situation makes the false accusation of frivolity that much worse for the aggrieved party.

A former IRS agent and personal hero showed me the IRS regulation, whereby agents and employees of the IRS can use pseudonyms in order to protect their own, personal privacy.


Whose privacy is more important?


How does one individual effect justice against a conspiracy of collectivists who use pseudonyms at will and at random?

Who is ultimately accountable for those who mete out injustices anonymously under color of so-called "authority?"

Sometimes I feel utterly surrounded and wonder, "Am I the only one accountable for my own actions?"

I pray God will bring judgement, because proper judgement is obviously lacking from the power seat of humanity.
You are not the only one, friend........I pray every day for God to visit justice on these people....not only them, but their families as well....May the Lord of Hosts bring a pox on all the oppressors and those around them.
 
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
2,990
Likes
1,466
#19
Re: Speaking of Frivolity!

I once received a letter signed by IRS Agent Henry J. Slaughter, in which not once, but thrice he called my Bill of Rights Article One Petition of Grievances, "frivolous."

The gravity of the situation makes the false accusation of frivolity that much worse for the aggrieved party.

A former IRS agent and personal hero showed me the IRS regulation, whereby agents and employees of the IRS can use pseudonyms in order to protect their own, personal privacy.


Whose privacy is more important?


How does one individual effect justice against a conspiracy of collectivists who use pseudonyms at will and at random?

Who is ultimately accountable for those who mete out injustices anonymously under color of so-called "authority?"

Sometimes I feel utterly surrounded and wonder, "Am I the only one accountable for my own actions?"

I pray God will bring judgement, because proper judgement is obviously lacking from the power seat of humanity.
Why are you seeking to "effect justice"? Wouldn't it be better to understand the situation and enjoy immunity from their tricks?

Are you being harassed by them presently, or are you just asking your questions rhetorically?

.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#20
Re: Speaking of Frivolity!

"frivolous."

"Am I the only one accountable for my own actions?"
It's easy to get disheartened. Been there a few times. Stay the course. They are responsible and will pay the price, once you learn how to do it. And it isn't easy...

[video=youtube_share;iGneid38DTo]http://youtu.be/iGneid38DTo[/video]
 

Aurumag

Dimly lit. Highly reflective
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,661
Likes
8,022
Location
State of Jefferson
#21
Re: Speaking of Frivolity!

Why are you seeking to "effect justice"? Wouldn't it be better to understand the situation and enjoy immunity from their tricks?

Are you being harassed by them presently, or are you just asking your questions rhetorically?

.
How can I become immune from liens, levies, asset forfeiture, and the inability to obtain gainful employment?

The tactics of .gov are downright medieval, and I seek justice from the swarms of officers sent hither by the tyrant who, under color of authority and protected by anonymity, are eating out my substance.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,445
Likes
5,483
#22
Re: Speaking of Frivolity!

How can I become immune from liens, levies, asset forfeiture, and the inability to obtain gainful employment?

The tactics of .gov are downright medieval, and I seek justice from the swarms of officers sent hither by the tyrant who, under color of authority and protected by anonymity, are eating out my substance.
If you dont own anything they have nothing to lien. Perhaps put things in another family members name..... Be your own boss, start you own business like carpentry or cabinet making. Work for cash. They cant attach your wages then.
 
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
2,990
Likes
1,466
#23
Re: Speaking of Frivolity!

How can I become immune from liens, levies, asset forfeiture, and the inability to obtain gainful employment?

The tactics of .gov are downright medieval, and I seek justice from the swarms of officers sent hither by the tyrant who, under color of authority and protected by anonymity, are eating out my substance.
Then don't do business with them.

.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#25
Excerpt from book, “WOE UNTO YOU LAWYERS”, written in 1939 by the late Fred Rodell, Professor of Law, Yale University:

It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us – our governments, our business, our private lives. Most legislators are lawyers; they make our laws. Most presidents, governors, commissioners, along with their advisers and brain-trusters are lawyers; they administer our laws. All the judges are lawyers; they interpret and enforce our laws. There is no separation of powers where the lawyers are concerned. There is only a concentration of all government power – in the lawyers. As the schoolboy put it, ours is “a government of lawyers, not of men.”

It is not the businessmen, no matter how big, who run our economic world. Again it is the lawyers, the lawyers who “advise” and direct every time a company is formed, every time a bond or a share of stock is issued, almost every time material is to be bought or goods to be sold, every time a deal is made. The whole elaborate structure of industry and finance is a lawyer-made house. We all live in it, but the lawyers run it.

And in our private lives, we cannot buy a home or rent an apartment, we cannot get married or try to get divorced, we cannot die and leave our property to our children without calling on the lawyers to guide us. To guide us, incidentally, through a maze of confusing gestures and formalities that lawyers have created.


Entire text of the book: www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm
 

Usc96

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
1,705
Likes
828
Location
Where the weather is nice.
#26
Black Magic in the courts, and more, by Paranoid Patriot...

[video=youtube_share;XrE_44anwG4]http://youtu.be/XrE_44anwG4[/video]


Paranoid in court...

[video=youtube_share;Nfth402BrX4]http://youtu.be/Nfth402BrX4[/video]

Do you'all still have your cojones...
This guy is a buffoon, and has no clue about how the judicial system works. He's lucky the judge put up with his nonsense as long as she did.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#27
This guy is a buffoon, and has no clue about how the judicial system works. He's lucky the judge put up with his nonsense as long as she did.

A buffoon and no clue... Yet you do not state why you come to such a 'judicious' viewpoint. Or perhaps you just wish to create doubt secondary to some possible vested interest... I don't know, I'm just musing the possibilities created by a poster who appears to believe jurisdiction and status is nonsense. Would one not consider such an attack lacking context or reasoning nothing more than an ad hominum fallacy.
 

Usc96

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
1,705
Likes
828
Location
Where the weather is nice.
#28
A buffoon and no clue... Yet you do not state why you come to such a 'judicious' viewpoint. Or perhaps you just wish to create doubt secondary to some possible vested interest... I don't know, I'm just musing the possibilities created by a poster who appears to believe jurisdiction and status is nonsense. Would one not consider such an attack lacking context or reasoning nothing more than an ad hominum fallacy.
Huh!? In addition to blurring the lines between criminal procedure and civil procedure, the guy from Colorado in the video seems to be confusing the role of the judge with the job of the prosecutor. The judge is there to make sure the prosecutor follows the rules and to insure that the defendant gets a fair trial. The judge does not advocate for one party over the other. The prosecutor's job is to work with the arresting officer and to advocate the case for the government.

One example of where this worked was the Duke Lacrosse team alleged rape case. The Prosecutor ignored the evidence, probably trying to make a name for himself to advance his political career, and the judge (and the State Bar) made sure justice was done to protect the rights of the innocent Duke Lacrosse players.

Do you have a different understanding of the US judicial system? :hmmmm2:
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#29
Huh!? In addition to blurring the lines between criminal procedure and civil procedure, the guy from Colorado in the video seems to be confusing the role of the judge with the job of the prosecutor. The judge is there to make sure the prosecutor follows the rules and to insure that the defendant gets a fair trial. The judge does not advocate for one party over the other. The prosecutor's job is to work with the arresting officer and to advocate the case for the government.

One example of where this worked was the Duke Lacrosse team alleged rape case. The Prosecutor ignored the evidence, probably trying to make a name for himself to advance his political career, and the judge (and the State Bar) made sure justice was done to protect the rights of the innocent Duke Lacrosse players.

Do you have a different understanding of the US judicial system? :hmmmm2:
All crimes (statutory) are really commercial crimes (27 CFR, 72.11), and courts operate under admiralty because the US is bankrupt and everyone must be treated as a commodity (CUSIP, ILC). PP is talking about is traffic court, so which is it in your jurisdiction, counselor, civil or criminal or statutory? LOL...

Regardless, as to your comment about the roles of the judge and prosecutor, in any traffic court I've been in the judge always prosecuted the case. Traffic court is a pure debtors court, it's administrative, not judicial, and totally extra constitutional. It's all about extracting as much fiat as possible from unaware peons by subverting the Cestui Vue Trust, and treating the beneficiary as the trustee, thereby reaping the benefits, aka fiat...

Fair trial in a traffic court... What world do you live in. Oh, let me guess...

Does an administrative court have any jurisdiction,in personem or subject matter, over anyone without their consent?
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
3,384
Likes
1,583
#32
Does an administrative court have any jurisdiction,in personem or subject matter, over anyone without their consent?

No ..... nada, zero, zip, zilch.

But if the accused claims he/she is the d.b.a. instead of the paramount secured party creditor over the d.b.a .... all bets are off.
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#33
Thanks to Goldhedge for this...


Courts, Names and the Cestui Que Vie Trust

Jul 08, 20112 Commentsby Tir na Saor

My position on going to court has always been: never voluntarily go to court. Live men and women are not meant to be in any place designed solely for the business of fictional entities. When we attend court, we are deemed dead, in fact, they cannot deal with us until we admit to being dead….a legal fiction….a trust. Court is for titled persons: judge, prosecutor, defendant, bailiffs, cops, and attorneys. Live men and women are not recognized, so it makes sense to send in a dead person––an attorney––to handle our cases …. except for one thing: they do not know how the system works, due to their indoctrination. If you can find one to do as you say, then you will prevail, but most of them would rather hang onto their BAR cards than behave honourably. The only thing that dead, fictional entities want from us is our life energy, and the only way they can get it is by our agreement. Without us, they cannot function, so, they are desperate to get us into court, to have us pay the debt which they created by charging the trust.
Since common law courts no longer exist, we know that the case never has anything to do with “facts” or live men and women and so, anyone who testifies (talks about the facts of the case) is doomed. ALL courts operate in trust law, based upon ecclesiastical canon law–– ritualism, superstition, satanism, etc.––which manifests as insidious, commercial law and we are in court to take the hit, if they can get us to do so. They use every trick in the book––intimidation, fear, threat, ridicule, rage, and even recesses, in order to change the jurisdiction, when they know they are losing, in order to make us admit that we are the name of the trust. When we do so, we are deemed to be the trustee––the one liable for administering the trust. Ergo, until now, it has been a waste of our time, energy, and emotion to go to a place where it is almost certain that we will be stuck with the liability.
We all know from our indoctrination, programming, and schooling that judges are impartial and have sworn an oath to this effect. This means he must not favour either plaintiff or defendant. But, our experience reveals that he does, indeed, favour the plaintiff, indicating a glaring conflict of interest––that the prosecutor, judge, and clerk all work for the state––the owner of the CQV trust. So, as the case is NOT about “justice”, it must be about the administration of a trust. They all represent the trust owned by the state and, if we are beneficiary, the only two positions left are Trustee and Executor. So, if you detect the judge’s partiality, although I doubt the case will get this far, you might just want to let them know that you know this.
If you consider court as entertainment and if you can stand the evil emanating from its officers, the fear and angst oozing from the walls, and the treacherous atmosphere, then go, knowing that under trust law we cannot be the trustee or the executor of a trust, whilst being beneficiary, as that would be a conflict. The position of beneficiary may lack clout, but the other positions hold liability. Since state employees want to be the beneficiaries of the trust, the only way they can do so is to transfer, to us, the liability which they hold, as trustees and executors, because they also cannot be both the administrators and beneficiary of the trust. So, trusteeship and executorship, i.e.: suretyship, becomes a hot potato and everyone wants to toss it so s/he can be beneficiary of the credit from the trust.
When we were born, a trust, called a Cestui Que Vie Trust (“CQV”) was set-up, for our benefit. Evidence of this is the birth certificate. But what is the value which must be conveyed to the trust, in order to create it? It was our right to property (via Birth into this world), our body (via the Live Birth Record), and our souls (via Baptism). Since the state/province which registered the trust is the owner, it is also the trustee…. the one that administers the trust. Since they, also, wanted to be beneficiary of this trust, they had to come up with ways to get us, as beneficiary, to authorize their charging the trust, allegedly, for our benefit (via our signature on a document: citation, application, etc.), and then, temporarily transfer trusteeship, to us, during the brief time that they want to be the beneficiary of a particular “constructive” trust.
This means that a trust can be established anywhere, anytime, and the parties of the trust are quickly, albeit temporarily, put into place. But, since a beneficiary cannot charge a trust––only a trustee can do so––it is the state that charges the trust, but they do so for their benefit, not ours (albeit occasionally we do reap some benefit from that charge but nowhere near the value which they reap. Think bank loan….. we reap a minute percentage of what they gain from our authorization). So, the only way, under trust law, for them to be able to charge the trust is to get the authorization from the beneficiary––us, and the only way for them to benefit from their charge is to get us to switch roles––from beneficiary to trustee (the one responsible for the accounting), and for them to switch their role––from trustee to beneficiary because no party can be both, at the same time, i.e.: within the same constructive trust. They must somehow trick us into accepting the role of trustee. Why would we do so when the trust is for our benefit? …. and how do they manage to do this?
Well, the best way is to get us into court and trick us into unwittingly doing so. But, if we know what has transpired, prior to our being there, it is easy to know what to say so that this doesn’t happen. The court clerk is the hot shot, even though it appears as if the judge is. The clerk is the trustee for the CQV owned by the state/province and it is s/he who is responsible for appointing the trustee and the executor for a constructive trust––that particular court case.
So s/he appoints the judge as trustee (the one to administer the trust) and appoints the prosecutor as executor of the trust. The executor is ultimately liable for the charge because it was s/he who brought the case into court (created the constructive trust) on behalf of the state/province which charged the CQV trust. Only an executor/prosecutor can initiate/create a constructive trust and we all know the maxim of law: Whoever creates the controversy holds the liability and whoever holds the liability must provide the remedy. This is why all attorneys are mandated to bring their cheque-books to court because if it all goes wrong for them…. meaning either they fail to transfer their liability onto the alleged defendant, or the alleged defendant does not accept their offer of liability, then someone has to credit the trust account in order to off-set the debt. Since the prosecutor is the one who issues bogus paper and charges the trust, it is the Prosecutor/Executor (“PE”) who is in the hot-seat.
When the Name (of the trust), e.g.: JOHN DOE, is called by the Judge aka Administrator aka Trustee (“JAT”), we can stand and ask, “Are you saying that the trust which you are now administrating is the JOHN DOE trust?” This establishes that we know that the Name is a trust, not a live man. What’s the JAT’s first question? “What’s your name?” or “State your name for the record”. We must be very careful not to identify with the name of the trust because doing so makes us the trustee. What does this tell you about the judge? If we know that the judge is the trustee, then we also know that the judge is the Name, but only for this particular, constructive trust. Now, think about all the times that JATs have become so frustrated by our refusal to admit to being the Name that they issue a warrant and then, as soon as the man leaves, he is arrested. How idiotic is that? They must feel foolish for saying, “John Doe is not in court so I’m issuing a warrant for his arrest” and then, the man whom they just admitted is NOT there is arrested because he IS there. Their desperation makes them insane. They must get us to admit to being the name, or they pay, and we must not accept their coercion, or we pay. Because the JAT is the trustee––a precarious position, the best thing to say, in that case, is “JOHN DOE is, indeed, in the court!” Point to the JAT. “It is YOU! As trustee, YOU are JOHN DOE, today, aren’t you?!”
During their frustration over our not admitting to being a trust name––the trustee and/or executor of the trust, we ought to ask who they are. “Before we go any further, I need to know who YOU are.” Address the clerk of the court––the trustee for the CQV trust owned by the state/province, “Are you the CQV’s trustee who has appointed this judge as administrator and trustee of the constructive trust case #12345? Did you also appoint the prosecutor as executor of this constructive trust?” Then point to the JAT: “So you are the trustee”, then point to the prosecutor, “and you are the executor? And I’m the beneficiary, so, now we know who’s who and, as beneficiary, I authorize you to handle the accounting and dissolve this constructive trust. I now claim my body so I am collapsing the CQV trust which you have charged, as there is no value in it. You have committed fraud against all laws!” Likely, we will not get that far before the JAT will order “Case dismissed” or, even more likely, the PE, as he clings tightly to his cheque-book, will call, “We withdraw the charges”.
We have exposed their fraud of the CQV trust which exists only on presumptions. The CQV has no corpus, no property, ergo, no value. Trusts are created only upon the conveyance of property and can exist only as long as there is value in the trust. But, there is no value in the CQV trust, yet, they continue to charge the trust. That is fraud! The alleged property is we men and women whom they have deemed to be incompetent, dead, abandoned, lost, bankrupts, or minors, but that is an illusion so, if we claim our body, then we collapse the presumption that the trust has value. They are operating in fraud––something we’ve always known, but now we know how they do it. Our having exposed their fraud gives them only three options:
1. They can dissolve the CQV trust––the one for which the clerk of the court is trustee and from which s/he created a constructive trust––the case––for which s/he appointed the judge and prosecutor titles which hold temporary liability––trustee and executor, respectively. But they cannot dissolve the CQV or the entire global system will collapse because they cannot exist without our energy which they obtain via that CQV trust.
2. They can enforce the existing rules of trust law which means, as trustee, they can set-off their debt and leave us alone. Now they know that we are onto their fraud and every time they go into court to administer a trust account, they will not know if we are the one who will send them to jail. The trustee (judge) is the liable party who will go to jail, and the executor (prosecutor) is the one who enforces this. This is why they want us to take on both titles, because then, not only do we go to jail but also, by signing their paper, we become executor and enforce our own sentence. They cannot afford to violate the ecclesiastical canon laws, out of fear of ending their careers, so they are, again, trapped with no place to run.
3. They can dismiss the cases before they even take the risk of our exposing their fraud …. which also makes no sense because then their careers, again, come to a screeching halt.
What’s a court clerk to do!? Pretty soon, none of these thugs will take any cases because the risk is too great. This will be the end of the court system. ‘Bout bloody time, eh?
Knowledge––not procedure––is power.
The means by which we have attempted to assuage our problems, inflicted upon us by the PTW (powers that were) have all been superficial, compared to the origins of all the black magic, superstition, satanic ritualism, trickery, mind-control, and clandestine practices. Under commercial law, dating back to the Code of Ur-Nammu––around 2100 BCE––the use of another’s property without permission puts one into dishonor and makes him liable for any debts. So, our using UCC forms, bills of exchange, AFV, or bonds, and altering documents of the Roman System can create penalties, as this is trading and/or using the property of a corporation we do not own …. the birth certificate proves that the “name” is, in fact, the property of the corporation which issued it. We can do all the paper perfectly but, in the end, they say, “Sorry; you’re not one of us.” But, now, we get to inflict fear onto them. When we are forced to court, knowing that the Judge acts as the Trustee and the prosecutor acts as Executor of the CQV Trusts is empowering. It gives us two choices:
1. If we wish to expose the fraud of presumptions, by which the CQV trusts still exist, then the court is the perfect opportunity to have them dissolved or to prove the fraud because the Trustee is sitting on the bench. Dissolving the first CQV, dissolves them all; or,
2. If we are not inclined to use something like the Ecclesiastical Deed Poll to expose the fraud of the CQV Trusts, then, at least, we ought to know that everything the judge says––even if it sounds like a command, order, or sentence––is actually an offer which we can choose to decline (“I do not consent; I do not accept your offer”). This is a fundamental principle of testamentary trusts…… the beneficiary can accept or decline what the trustee offers.
For 15 years, I have watched the alleged solutions in commerce come and go and nothing has worked for enough people on enough occasions to call anything a consistent win. Paying for information is insanity because those who sell information clearly have not prevailed or they wouldn’t need to sell anything, would they? Buying express, private-contract trusts, e.g.: NACRS, is a huge waste of time and money because the entire process is too complicated for anyone with an IQ below 400 and …. “no refunds”. I have found no solution in commerce because those who claim to have solutions still insist upon treating symptoms rather than curing the cause––the fraudulent CQV trust.
If we send an Ecclesiastical Deed Poll (see: http://one-heaven.org/canons_positive_law/article_1330.htm ), as response to a summons or arrest warrant, then the judge who issues them has to think long and hard: “Am I willing to gamble that the man who walks into my court might call me on my role of trustee and expose the fraud that the CQV Trusts are still in place?
Canons of Positive Law: http://one-heaven.org/canons_positive_law/article_0000.htm
This knowledge is your power. –– Frank O’Collins
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#34
The Levitical Priesthood of Tennessee

source: http://library.georgegordon.com/levitical

A preacher approached me in Swanee, Tennessee some years ago and asked me if it was true that I practiced the Law of Moses. I replied that it was true. His next question was if I practiced the sacrificial laws. Perceiving his craftiness by asking this forked question, I asked him if he practiced the Levitical Priesthood in Tennessee. He emphatically denied that he did any such thing, and proceeded to preach me a true fire and brimstone sermon about Christ Crucified and how Jesus did away with the Law of Moses in general, and the sacrificial laws in particular.

Seeing that the man was a Christian in distress over doctrine, I apologized for my outrageous suggestion that HE, of all people, might be a practicioner of the sacrificial system of Tennessee, explaining that I was a stranger from a far, far land called Missouri, and that I had heard the people of Tennessee practiced the Levitical Priesthood, complete with sacrifices and heave offerings, but they called it another name, the 'Judicial System.' As he stared at me for a few minutes, like I'd just announced that I'd taken a ride in a UFO, I asked if they had a Highway Patrol in Tennessee. He said they did, and after a few more questions, it came out that they also had police, lawyers, judges, courts, courthouses, courtrooms complete with bars and benches and, even, fines for criminal activities; the sum total of which constituted the judicial system of the State of Tennessee. Looking at him, I said that the stories I'd heard were true, that the people of Tennessee were indeed a religious lot, which lead him to ask how having police and all the rest was religious. So I told him a story.

Let's say that one day you decide to take a drive, and an ever vigilant policeman sees you tooling along at 80 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, so he takes off after you, and pulls you over. Asking for your driver's license, he notes that it doesn't give you permission to drive 80 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, so he arrests you and hauls you off to the nearest jail. From there, you're brought to the courthouse and into a courtroom, where you face a judge sitting on a bench behind a bar. You're stood beside your lawyer, who enters a plea of guilty, which makes you a criminal. The judge levies a fine and court costs. If you don't like the decision, you can appeal, if necessary all the way to the Supreme Court. So what you have are the civil servants of the State of Tennessee performing their jobs, which constitute the judicial system of the State of Tennessee.

In olden days, this system wasn't called the judicial system, it was called the Levtical Priesthood, and it worked the same way.

Today's policeman was known as the High Priest's servant. As such, he was constantly on the lookout for sin, which is the transgression of the Law (1John 3:4). When he uncovered a sin, he hauled the sinner off to the temple ward, which is today's courthouse/jail combination. Modern courthouses are designed like temples, even to the point of sitting in the town square, so that everything in town revolves around them. The temple is where the High Priest conducted the sacrifices in the Holy Place. It was easy to recognize the High Priest going about his duties because of his long, flowing, often black, robes. When he had to sit in judgement on a sinner, he would go to the Holy Place and go behind the altar, which was behind the veil to the Holy Place. Sound anything like a judge entering a courtroom, and sitting on his bench, which is behind the bar? In order for a sinner to pass through the veil and approach the High Priest required an intercessor, who helped in your prayer to the High Priest concerning your sin. Sound like a lawyer entering a plea? When the accused admitted his guilt, he became a sinner. The High Priest then commanded him to perform penance, oftimes in the form of sacrifices, which he called a sin offering. He would also impose a heave offering, to reimburse him for his time. Sounds more and more like a modern court, with you entering a plea of guilty, and having fines and court costs levied. If the sinner thought the High Priest was not acting properly, he could go before the Aaronic Priesthood, if necessary all the way to Moses, which is essentially the same as going through the court of appeals to the Supreme Court. So, what you had were the Levites of Israel performing their jobs which constituted the Levitical Priesthood of Israel. What's the phrase, 'a rose by any other name...?'

So, I closed by chiding this Christian preacher a little, reminding him that he practices the sacrificial system of the State of Tennessee every time he goes into court. Remember, Tennessee is a sovereign, sovereigns make laws, lawmakers are gods, violating laws is sin, sins require sacrifice as a matter of law, either Civil or Common, and people who practice the religion of the United States make sacrifices to their god, voluntarily or involuntarily.



The Levitical Priesthood Of Tennessee

The Police = The High Priest's Servants
Crimes = Sins
The Jail = The Ward
The Courthouse = The Temple
The Courtroom = The Holy Place
The Judge = The High Priest
The Bench = The Altar
The Bar = The Veil
Lawyers = Intercessors
Pleas = Prayers
Being Guilty of a Crime = Being Guilty of a Sin
Criminals = Sinners
Fines = Sin Offerings
Court Costs = Heave Offering
The Supreme Court = The Holy of Holies
The Judicial System = The Levitical Priesthood



George Gordon's School of Law
P.O. Box 297 Isabella, MO 65676
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#35
WOE
UNTO YOU,
LAWYERS!


FRED RODELL
Professor of Law, Yale University
Written in 1939

“Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away
the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves,
and them that were entering in ye hindered.” - Luke. XI, 52​


Who Really Rules the World? Corporations? Government, or Lawyers?

There's no trust, no faith, no honesty in men; all perjured, all forsworn, all naught, all dissemblers.
~ William Shakespeare ~

Dissemble: Feign, Pretend, Mask.
• Hide under a false appearance.
• Make believe with the intent to deceive.

The Masters of Confusion (Who are they?) Knowing this will bring clarity to so many things we are confused by today.

In the earliest history of America there was one group of people that were feared with reason–a society, you might say, whose often “insidious” craft had claimed a multitude of victims, ever since the middle ages in Europe. One group of people were hated and feared from Massachusetts Bay to Virginia. The Magistrate would not burn them at the stake although surely a great many of the colonists would have surely recommended such a solution. Our forefathers were baffled by them.

In the first place where did they come from? Of all who sailed from England to Plymouth in 1620, not one of them was aboard. "Vermin," that's what the Colonist called them. “Parasites” who fed on human misery, spreading sorrow and confusion wherever they went. "Destructive," they were called. And still they were permitted co-existence with the colonists, for a while, anyway. Of course there were colonial laws prohibiting the practice of their infamous craft. Somehow a way was always found around all those laws.

In 1641, Massachusetts Bay colony took a novel approach to the problem. The governors attempted to starve the "devils" out of existence through economic exclusion. They were denied wages, and thereby it was hoped that they would perish. Four years later, Virginia followed the example of Massachusetts Bay and for a while it seemed that the dilemma had been resolved. It had not, somehow the "parasites" managed to survive, and the mere nearness of them made the colonists skin crawl.

In 1658, in Virginia, the final solution; banishment; exile. The "treacherous ones" were cast out of the colony. At last, after decades of enduring the "psychological gloom", the sun came out and the birds sang, and all was right with the world. And the elation continued for a generation. I'm not sure why the Virginians eventually allowed the outcasts to return, but they did. In 1680 after twenty-two years, the despised ones were readmitted to the colony on the condition that they be subjected to the strictest surveillance.

How soon we forget!!

For indeed over the next half century or so, the imposed restrictions were slowly, quietly swept away. And those whose treachery had been feared since the middle ages ultimately took their place in society. You see, the "vermin" that once infested colonial America, the ”parasites” who prayed on the misfortunes of their neighbours until finally they were officially banished from Virginia, those dreaded, despised, outcasts, “masters of confusion” were LAWYERS.
$$$$

Lawyers and the "Legal Trade" (as distinguished from the LAW) – This system of tyranny we are under today is not by accident.

28 “Quotes” from the man who trained them. A prominent Law Professor who taught lawyers for over 40 years.


1. “The whole legal trade is made up of lawyers, by lawyers and for lawyers for private gain in order to perpetuate their Hocus Pocus regarding the phoniness of the whole legal process.”

2. “I outlined my ideas about the book, and about the law, to a lawyer who is not only able but also extraordinarily frank and perceptive about his profession. “Sure,” he said, “but why give the show away?”

3. “Of all the specialized skills abroad in the world today, the average man knows least about the one that affects him most – about the thing that lawyers call The Law.”

4. “It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us – our governments, our business, our private lives. Most legislators are lawyers; they make our laws. Most presidents, governors, commissioners, along with their advisers and brain-trusters are lawyers; they administer our laws. All the judges are lawyers; they interpret and enforce our laws. There is no separation of powers where the lawyers are concerned. There is only a concentration of all government power – in the lawyers. As the schoolboy put it, ours is “a government of lawyers, not of men. We all live in it, but the lawyers run it.”

5. “And in our private lives, we cannot buy a home or rent an apartment, we cannot get married or try to get divorced, we cannot die and leave our property to our children without calling on the lawyers to guide us. To guide us, incidentally, through a maze of confusing gestures and formalities that lawyers have created.”

6. “There are several reasons for this mass submission, One is the average man’s fear of the unknown – and of policemen. The law combines the threat of both. A non-lawyer confronted by The Law is like a child faced by a pitch-dark room. Merciless judges lurk there, ready to jump out at him.”

7. “Yet lawyers can and often do talk about their product without telling anything about it at all. And that fact involves one of the chief reasons for the non-lawyer’s persistent ignorance about the Law. Briefly, The Law is carried on in a foreign language.”

8. “Much of the language of the law is built out of perfectly respectable English words which have been given a ***** and different and exclusively legal meaning. It is, in short, a language that nobody but a lawyer understands. Or could understand.”

9. “For the lawyers’ trade is a trade built entirely on words. And so long as the lawyers carefully keep to themselves the key to what those words mean, the only way the average man can find out what is going on is to become a lawyer, or at least to study law, himself. All of which makes it very nice – and very secure – for the lawyers”.

10. “And it is only because the average man cannot play their game, and so cannot see for himself how intrinsically empty-of-meaning their playthings are, that the lawyers continue to get away with it.”

11. “The legal trade, in short, is nothing but a high-class racket. It is a racket far more lucrative and more powerful and hence more dangerous than any of those minor and much-publicized rackets.”

12. “Furthermore, the lawyers – or at least 99/100 per cent of them – are not even aware that they are indulging in a racket, and would be shocked at the very mention of the idea. Once bitten by the legal bug, they lose all sense of perspective about what they are doing and how they are doing it. Like the medicine men of tribal times and the priests of the Middle Ages they actually believe in their own nonsense. This fact, of course, makes their racket all the more insidious. Consecrated fanatics are always more dangerous than conscious villains. And lawyers are fanatics indeed about the sacredness of the word-magic they call The Law.”

13. “Yet the saddest and most insidious fact about the legal racket is that the general public doesn’t realize it’s a racket either. Scared, befuddled, impressed and ignorant, they take what is fed them, or rather what is sold them. Only once an age do the non-lawyers get, not wise, but disgusted, and rebel. In every revolution the lawyers lead the way to the guillotine or the firing squad.”

14. “It should not, however, require a revolution to rid society of lawyer-control. Nor is riddance by revolution ever likely to be a permanent solution. The American colonists had scarcely freed themselves from the nuisances of The Law by practically ostracizing the pre-Revolutionary lawyers out of their communities – a fact which is little appreciated – when a new and home-made crop of lawyers sprang up to take over the affairs of the baby nation.”

15. “If people could be made to realize how much of the vaunted majesty of The Law is a hoax and how many of the mighty processes of The Law are merely logical legerdemain, they would not long let the lawyers lead them around by the nose. And people have recently begun, bit by bit, to catch on. The great illusion of The Law has been leaking a little at the edges”.

16. “And perhaps if the ordinary man could see in black and white how silly and irrelevant and unnecessary it all is, he might be persuaded, in a peaceful way, to take the control of his civilization out of the hands of those modern purveyors of streamlined voodoo and chromium-plated theology, the lawyers.”

17. “For practically every lawyer thinks and talks of The Law as a sort of omnipotent, omniscient presence hovering around like God over the affairs of men. Yet every lawyer purports to be able to understand and interpret a large part of that presence for the benefit of those who are not lawyers – at a price.”

18. “The mass of practicing attorneys and little judges are fooling themselves and the public when they claim that The Law as they know and use it is a logical science instead of a pseudo-scientific fraud”.

19. “No single fact is so essential to the life and lustiness of the legal racket as the sober pretense on the part of practically all its practitioners – from Supreme Court judges down to police court lawyers – that The Law is, in the main, an exact science. No pretense was ever more absurd.”

20. “For the lawyers know it would be woe unto the lawyers if the non-lawyers ever got wise to the fact that their lives were run, not by The Law, not by any rigid and impersonal and automatically-applied code of rules, but instead by a comparatively small group of men, smart, smooth, and smug – the lawyers.”

21. “The sober truth is that the myriad principles of which The Law is fashioned resemble nothing so much as old saws, dressed up in legal language and paraded as gospel.”

22. “Just as the devil can always cite Scripture to his purpose, so can any lawyer on either side of any case always cite the law to his.”

23. “Legal language, wherever it happens to be used, is a hodgepodge of outlandish words and phrases because those words and phrases are what the principles of The Law are made of.”

24. “Yet why – if you think it over for a minute – should people not be privileged to understand completely and precisely any written laws that directly concern them, any business documents they have to sign, any code of rules and restrictions which applies to them and under which they perpetually live? “Why then should The Law use a language – language being, remember, no more than a means of communicating ideas – which those ordinary human beings cannot hope to understand?”

25. “But how can any lawyer afford to admit that fact, even to himself, when his position in the community, his prestige among his fellow craftsmen, and his own sense of self-respect all hang on the assumption that he does know what he is talking about?”

26. “Consequently, the hope of The Law – that is, the hope of the lawyers that their game will go on indefinitely, undiminished and undisputed – lies with the law schools.”
“Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law.”

*****************
If you changed your Law-maker, that would change your Law, and you would own your Property.
Who do you think would get the pink slip?
…. Now you know the rest of the story! Understanding this will make so many confusing things make more sense.

from Jurisdictionary
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#37
Need a little guidance regarding the black magic process of a mortgage...


The Loans and Mortgages Who's Who by kate of gaia

In order for a crime, any crime, to exist, there must be proof of INTENT where
ignorance of the law is never an excuse either physically and/or spiritually. We
have long ago proven that any/all use of a CROWN COPYRIGHT LEGAL NAME is, in
fact, fraud regardless of whether or not we were aware of it. Inasmuch as
ignorance of this truth was never one's intent it is equally not a defense either.
Those that make the laws must obey the laws. That which we agree to, we are in
contract to by willful consent.

This is about regaining our full re-spawns-ability, nothing more and certainly,
nothing less. So what is really happening when someone goes into a bank for a
loan, mortgage, account etc.? As a result of our willful acceptance of "all things
system", there was much hidden from view because our ignorance had kept us
blind. That is the case no longer. A living being cannot enter into a contract with a
dead corporate entity but one who is acting as a dead legal fiction can. This
applies to both sides of the equation with every contract or deal ever agreed to. I
didn't say signed, I said agreed to. If one has agreed to do something, they are
already in a spiritual intent filled contract and bound to it accordingly.

The instant you even thought about getting a loan, you were already in contract
via that self-same intent. In my own efforts to uncover what was really going on, I followed countless trails of the vulgarity called legal and the one thing that always came to the surface was that every bit of the legal system is pure distraction in the physical keeping us never looking as to the spiritual nature of these things. Signing on a line made you the underwriter, an "X" on the line meant "no consideration", "accommodating party", UCC this and legal bull**** that because I wasn't getting deep enough into the true spiritual aspects being mainly distracted to the "as below" and not really seeing the "as above".

Given the myriads of twists and turns with all things legal, it became abundantly
clear that the entire legal system and its machinations was nothing more than
distraction designed to keep an egocentric, left mind content to play with the
details with the devils. The truth is, every contract you ever went into with the
legal NAME was, is and will always be pure fraud until you uncover the original
intent of the creators of the legal NAME system. The Birth Certificate is all the
prima facie evidence one requires to prosecute everyone and anyone who
attempts to create a legal joinder assumption/presumption by using that NAME at
all. With that being said, the original sin is in plain sight now.

Was it mine or yours intent to commit fraud knowingly? Of course it wasn't but
that can't be said about those that created the NAME fraud to begin with. The
mere fact that a cop puts on a uniform is proof of intent via the execution of their
duties to aid and abet a living being into committing fraud unknowingly because
without a NAME joinder, the cop has NO jurisdiction being as they are themselves,
dead by consent. It is not a fluke that cops are now having "not for identification"
on their business cards, if you can get one. I did recently through a friend and this is proof positive that they are now having to yield under the pressure of us
restoring our own honour and, by default, forcing their hand as well.

For everyone that has ever got a loan from the bank or those stupidly considering
this, here's something to think about. The account you think is yours isn't. The
NAME is owned by the CROWN; the legal one, not the lawful one. Unfortunately,
if someone even utters their name, it can be assumed and presumed immediately
to be the legal one. The bank is a registered corporation just like your name so it
too is owned by the CROWN as a result. As a point in case, so is the United
Nations and ALL countries REGISTERED. There has been a lot of talk about some
new world order coming when the truth is, the new world order has been in full
force and effect for thousands of years. The easiest way to keep people from
seeing this is to keep telling them that it isn't here yet. You can't find something if
you think it isn't there yet.

The NWO has been around for millennia, as long as any exchange/barter/money
system has been in place. Today's version is the same as the old where the mark
of the beast is the legal name and the whore of Babylon is commerce. If you don't
believe me, see how far you'll get in this world without their legal IDENTIFICATION to conduct day to day commerce/travel/survival. With the backdrop nicely set, let's see what is really happening when we go into a bank to get a loan or mortgage then.

On the surface it looks like one goes into a bank, meets with a bank official to ask for and set terms of the loan/mortgage (stated as contract hereafter), goes
through the illusional hoops of "do you qualify?", the paperwork gets drawn up,
you sign it and voila, the bank seemingly gives you the needed funds. In the world once deemed as normal, this explanation would suffice. Let's use a mortgage as the example here. Always keep in mind that only the living can contract with the living, never with a corporation or dead thing. So let's look only at the living people involved because a bank by any name is still just a dead corporation so we have to trail and track the living beings involved.
For sake of simplicity, I'm going to use the original bank as the dead entity, namely the Bank of England since it was the first bank and the one that usurped the living crown in the form of William III with the dead CROWN replacement hereafter referred to simply as the CROWN CORPORATION. Since it is only you and the loans officer or bank manager, the living, involved, so who then is really borrowing the money? Remember, only living parties can contract, never the dead. This is where the consent of all living parties involved comes into play and the various contracts they are intimately, by consent, are bound to spiritually by INTENT.

The bank manager had to willfully consent to fill out an application form to work
for the bank and is thus in contract to and with the bank or, more accurately, its
owners who establish all the bi-laws for that corporation. Behind every dead
corporation, a living being is involved. A corporation only exists because of the
intent someone had to create it; fact. We now know WHO the parties are and it is
just you and the living being acting in the role of bank manager bound to all the
obligations they consent to by being an employee of a bank that someone
ultimately owns. In the case of the Bank of England, it is deemed the being who
holds the office of "corporation sole"/soul.

What is really happening is that YOU are creating a loan for the bank manager, not yourself. It is the BM that is getting the money to buy YOUR house that you think is yours but then you'll look at the agreement and see that you are only deemed "TENANT". It is the BM that is the land/property/home-owner, not you or the bank itself. You were presented with the documents prepared by the BM for you to sign. What you don't realize is that the contract is completed not when you sign it but when you agreed to get one in the first place and then it was SEALED when you touched it. Did you use gloves to sign it? Not likely and it was your DNA and the DNA of the BM that sealed the contract, not the ink.

When you begin to realize the DNA connection, you begin to see why your DNA
was grabbed as a baby with both footprints and blood taken. This was done to
create lawful joinder with your DNA and the NAME with the consent given UNDER
SEAL when your parent/s REGISTERED your NAME and is evidenced with only a
COPY of the original sealed deal in the REGISTRY BOOK. Yes, your DNA can be
connected easily to Mum and Dad where the mitochondrial DNA from Mum is the
permanent record of all lineages back. What has happened when you seal the
deal with your new debtor called the bank manager is that you are merely the
guarantor of THEIR loan and are secondary status in this arrangement because the real holder in due course is the bank representative and why you will NEVER see the original again because it is not yours to ask for. All the liability of the loans, every one of them, is on the shoulders of each and every living being that works for and in any/all financial institutions and is party to any/all loans etc..

Since all things CROWN are all things Bank of England and all things registered are all things CROWN owned, who now owns everything? It is not a pretty picture but a vastly clever ruse that is finally in the light of day. In a nutshell, you lend the BM money so they can buy your house for you to be a tenant in and then, if the mortgage doesn't get paid, who does the bank come after? It was the bank
manager’s loan and they skipped out on day one leaving you to pay their debt as
the guarantor for them. You can't even deal this legally because you are a third
party interloper in the whole charade of three card Monty by the bank. You
haven't got a legal leg to stand on but you DO have a lawful one; privately
prosecute the dead beat borrower known as the bank manager.

The fundamental flaw of this scam is that once a fraud is revealed where it was
intended by design, the fraud and all contracts are rendered null and void, nunc
pro tunc. The legal name was a fraud with intent as were the loans and mortgages of all kinds. The contract is between you and the other living party always. What happens next is that the bank forecloses on the property that their employee skipped out on paying for. Remember, the employee a.k.a. bank manager has a living contract with their employer that hired them and so it goes all the way up the line to the board of directors to the most responsible of all, the Chief Executive Officer on that board.

Needless to say, the bank grabs legally the property that their employee owns and they kick you, the tenant out and then proceed to dupe another victim into the same scam. It does not end there; this is the new beginning of taking down this whore of Babylon, the dead Crow-n mother, the Kronos who eats their own
children so never to be overthrown. Well, the whore missed eating me but it was
a very narrow escape. Feel free to take the time to absorb this because it takes
time to see behind this veil. The only use the left mind has for me is codifying the
creative etheric thoughts of my right brain, the one I live in. You're out in left field if you're not in your right mind and will forever be at effect to it until you break free of "normal" thinking that is based soul-ly in programming.

All levels of trickery in the legal world have been utilized to keep us off the true
trail of living versus impossibly dead contracts. We first had to expose the NAME
fraud and how our complacency and acceptance was used against us and we
revealed the source fraud. By doing this we can separate the dead from the living
in this world. Those using legal names and identification are deemed dead by their own consent and we, the living, who have been "born again" and wield the real power now. Inasmuch as the bank manager or whoever contracted with you is the "accused" they are automatically deemed dead fictions by consent where we, the living are WITNESSES to these crimes INCLUDING and foremost, the NAME fraud.

It's time we made these deadbeats and their masters accountable where
ignorance of these facts is not an excuse in the same way neither was our own
ignorance. Once again, the real guilty parties want us to keep fighting amongst
ourselves where the true criminals are the ones that own these corporations. Still, we're going to have to prosecute a few of these people and get it on the record. The joy of one single victory on the record is that it changes the whole panorama of the system completely. This is the power of one, literally. If but one shall awaken? Yes, it's a little late for them now where it is my wish to simply end this nonsense and just get back to living. The best part about the golden rule is that for every harm done in action, is one that must be experienced in the mirror so be careful what you wish for, especially against others. What ye sow, so shall ye reap is pure truth and fact.

For those seeing this and wishing to privately prosecute, as I will, just check for a
justice of the peace or similar type in your area for starting that process.
Remember, once these goons catch on, they will try and make it difficult for you
where, no help will be given. This one is on your shoulders as it is on mine but I
never take no for an answer and any/all things plopped into any/all courts belongs to them. Once a clerk touches your paperwork they have contracted the courts, their employers, on their behalf. In the world of phonics the one who touches, touche's. More to follow, much love, kate of gaia


 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#38
^ From the MP3 above from Kate of Gaia ^



Witness and Admirality

As soon as you invoke that you're the witness, you automatically, by default remove admirality, and invoke the common law court, because in admirality, as in common law, only the living being can be the witness. They can only prosecute in the admirality court, when they have a living witness, and they can never have a 'living witness' because their game is that only a corporate fiction can be in court against a corporate fiction... That is their one fundamental flaw.


"No Witness" is the key lesson of Trinsey v. Pagliaro, and works for all court cases where there is no victim, as well as for all commercial presumptions that you are the debtor when in fact, you are the creditor of the system...
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
3,485
Likes
4,513
Location
right here right now
#39
Silencing Lawyers ...

(or, the only way to handle a snake is by first putting a stick in its mouth.)

The testimony most dangerous to your case is the un-sworn statements made by lawyers who lack competence to state facts about which they have no personal knowledge.

No one should be allowed to testify to matters beyond that person's personal knowledge. Such persons are said to lack "competence" to testify, and an objection should be made immediately whenever such testimony is attempted.

Moreover, unless the person testifying is sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then no testimony whatever should be permitted ... and you must object immediately!

Lawyers are no exception.

Yet it happens all the time, and good people lose their lawsuits because lawyers on the other side were allowed to tell the court what happened, what it looked like, who said what, and too many other destructive things to list here.

Opposition attorney, "Well your honor, this is a bla, bla, bla, ..."

Silence the lawyers by objecting immediately! "Excuse me, do you have any first-hand knowledge to offer this court?" "Are you willing to restate that under oath?" "Sounds like testimony to me."

Lawyers should never be permitted to testify. Instead they should be required to present their evidence by presentation of authenticated documents and upon the testimony of witnesses who have first hand knowledge and are sworn to tell the truth!

"Excuse me, where is your competent fact witness?"

Instead of asking questions of witnesses (who are competent to testify) to get the facts into evidence properly, most lawyers just open their un-sworn mouths (some might say lieing mouths) and being to tell the story that favors their client ... even though everything they say is hearsay, since they were not present when the events occurred. They lack competence to testify ... and you must object immediately!

"Excuse me, is this court going to allow Mr. Attorney to offer unsworn testimony?"

It happens all the time!

Be on guard for it. Be prepared to object!

When a lawyer begins to state facts outside his own personal knowledge ... facts he learned from his clients or third persons ... facts he lacks competence to testify about in court ... object at once! It isn't right or proper and it is highly prejudical to the matter and against you!

Yet, you'll find this sort of unfair manipulation of facts in nearly every case you come across. If a lawyer cannot find tangible items or witnesses to offer as evidence in support of his case, he will frequently attempt to get the evidence in anyway by stating facts about which he has no first-hand knowledge ... detailing the content of documents that aren't available, telling the court what was said by someone who isn't present for cross-examination, or describing a scene or the actions and behavior of people he never met.

To multiply this unlawful exploitation of due process, most lawyers are adept at using the English language forcefully, illustrating their points with word-power most lay persons lack. It doesn't matter that they are members of The Bar. It doesn't matter that they finished law school, passed the bar, and enjoy a certain degree of prestige as they strut about the courtroom in expensive clothing and highly-polished shoes. If they do not have first-hand knowledge of facts they offer to the court, they lack competence, and a timely objection is essential.

Otherwise (if you allow them to do so) they will present damaging evidence in a light that dishonestly influences the court against you. They will present facts about which they have only the knowledge they've learned from others (i.e., no first-hand knowledge of their own), and you will unnecessarily run the risk of losing as a direct result if you don't object and put a stop to it immediately!

"Excuse me, who does he think he is, what is going on here?" "Why is he being allowed to testify?"

You must silence the lawyers ... or run the risk of allowing the court to consider the lawyer's testimony as admissible evidence. It isn't admissible! No. Not by a long shot! The rules forbid it.

Lawyers lack competence to testify! It is a corrupt practice. You must stop it before it begins.

Statements of counsel in their briefs or arguments are not sufficient for the purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. TRINSEY v PAGLIARO, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647

A particular aspect of this abusive practice needs mentioning to help you control the inevitable. The rules of professional conduct that govern lawyers (every state has them) limit the ability of a lawyer to be both witness and counsel for his client. One may serve as lawyer for a client or a witness for the client ... not both. If a lawyer insists on offering testimony and the court allows it over your objection, you should move the court for an order finding that the lawyer is a witness for the opposition. Either the lawyer is a lawyer and plays the strictly limited part of a lawyer, or the lawyer is a witness and can no longer play the part of lawyer! If the court rules that a lawyer is a witness, then move the court to disqualify him to testify pursuant to the state bar's rules of professional conduct (which, of course, you will have already read and be prepared to cite by scripture and verse). If a lawyer insists on offering testimony and the court allows it over your objection and will not disqualify the lawyer, move the court to order the lawyer to take the oath and submit to your cross-examination. Anyone offered as a witness must submit to be cross-examined by the other side under oath! It is no different if the person testifying is the other side's lawyer!

Object! And if the judge overrules your objection or refuses to rule on it, be sure to renew your objection before the court takes any action that would cement the damage. Make your record.

Take no prisoners!

Otherwise, unwanted evidence will come in without a competent witness and you will be further injured in your cause by inability to cross-examine the "lawyer-witness". If the judge allows it, object. If the judge will not order the lawyer to submit to cross-examination, object. And, every time the lawyer offers facts as a "witness", object! And, when appropriate, renew your objection before the court enters any rulings that rely on the incompetent testimony.

When a lawyer begins to state facts outside his own personal knowledge, "Well, apparently Mr. Doe believes that bla, bla, bla, ..."

"Excuse me, do you think or feel you represent me in any way -- you don't. You're fired!"

Remember: Your right to rely on the rules was bought with the lives of men and women who died to protect and preserve your ability to require every officer and agent of our government to obey the rules of the law like everyone else. Lawyers and judges are no exception!
 

honu5050

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
15,828
Likes
2,753
Location
wit;in reach
#40
Black Magic in the courts, and more, by Paranoid Patriot...

[video=youtube_share;XrE_44anwG4]http://youtu.be/XrE_44anwG4[/video]that was some very good advice. it is nice to see others fighting the system. lord knows I have as well but most citizens let these CON'S have their way. a DUI is tantamount to rape nowdays ! everything Americans fought for n' died for is going to hell in a hand basket. we have to have police n' judges but not these money grabbers that was brought on by 9/11 ! the u.s.a. Americas freedom is under siege. honu.

j
Paranoid in court...
[video=youtube_share;Nfth402BrX4]http://youtu.be/Nfth402BrX4[/video]

Do you'all still have your cojones...
quote is above
 
Last edited: