• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS NO LICENSE NECESSARY TO DRIVE AUTOMOBILE ON PUBLIC ROADS

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
14,936
Likes
26,181
Location
ORYGUN
Each and every time I run into a half truth that you put out as a truth I just stop reading,
You do not know enough about the law to know what is true and what is false. But, here is a clue. If it appears in the actual written words of the law itself (to which I have provided you with links above), then it is true. If there is no case that says something is the law, then it is not the law. It is that simple.
Whoooooa !! What a sack of horse manure. There are many laws that are Unconstitutional, therefore UNTRUE & unjustly enforced by tyrants within our system.

Supreme Court of the United States

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,530
Likes
6,162
Location
right here right now
United States Corporate Statutes vs Laws of the Land:

Internal Corporate Restrictive Firearms Statutes as found in U.S. Codes and State Statutes are enacted for Gov’t employees to abide by while they are on the clock so they cannot over power, with Arms, the American People while performing their jobs as ‘public servants’. Statutes are enacted to help run gov’t more efficiently and to keep restrictions on Gov’t employees, not the average American. Because of collective ignorance of the Law; the public fool system, and the gov’t owned media, they have used THEIR OWN internal statutes that are ONLY MEANT FOR THEM to control the rest of us and keep us equipped with less firepower than they themselves have available to secretly and overtly overthrow the American People without a single shot fired.

They add restrictive firearms statutes to THEIR CODES on a daily basis because they have hoodwinked us into believing the internal rules of their corporation, for their own employees that Obama is the CEO of, apply to you an I. We keep abiding by THEIR INTERNAL STATUTES because we’ve never been taught the difference, and it is working out very well in their favor to say the least. Since we keep abiding by THEIR Restrictive Firearms Statutes (only meant for gov’t employees), they keep adding more, more, and more, until eventually they will be the only one’s with guns while you and I are left with nothing more than sticks and stones.

Basically, they’ve pulled the ole switcheroo on us. They are enjoying the Rights of the People, while restricting the People with Internal Corporate Statutes that only apply to them.

This is how they are controlling society instead of SERVING SOCIETY, but the con is being exposed by people who know the Law and know the difference between internal corporate statutes and actual Rights of man.

First allow me to pose a common sense question:

Can anyone point me to the actual footnote or statute under the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution that states I must pay $200.00 for a Tax Stamp in order to own or possess an Automatic Weapon or Silencer, or any other weapon or accessory I wish to own? Or the footnote under Article II pointing me to US Codes stating I must obtain a concealed carry permit from the STATE prior to exercising my already inherent Right of bearing my firearm, either concealed or openly?

I’m having a hard time finding ANY reference to US Codes in the Constitution, which just happens to be, still to this day, the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND that restricts Government employees, and from what I’ve read in Marbury vs Madison, it looks like the Supreme Court (Gov’t employees Supreme Court) has ruled that any secondary law (which would be a statute, code, rule, regulation, such as those found in US Codes or State statutes) that comes into direct conflict with the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, is to be ignored with impunity.

Here, read it for yourself:

Marbury v. Madison: 5 US 137 (1803):

“No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.”

If any statement, within any law, which is passed, is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison.

Am I reading that wrong?

What would be considered secondary laws that are in direct conflict with the Law of the Land? Could it be those restrictive firearms codes and statutes as found in US Codes and State statutes? Silly things like ‘you must obtain a class III weapons permit…’, or ‘you must obtain a concealed carry permit…’, or ‘you must pay $200.00 for a tax stamp…’?

Do US Codes supersede the Constitutions Supreme Authority? Are the US Codes actually the REAL law of the land, and the Constitution is just a silly Document that should be ignored?

If so, were the US Codes written PRIOR to the Constitution? And if so, can someone please send me the Congressional Record of that? Do US Codes and State statutes Supersede the LAW OF THE LAND? Can someone please refer me to that case law or the footnote in the Constitution stating so?

For some strange reason I cannot find ANY footnotes or Amendments in the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND that points me to US Codes or State Statutes to validate the Law known as Article II ~ Scratches head in confusion.

If someone can help me find the actual footnote under the 2nd Amendment that points me to the US Codes stating I must purchase a $200.00 Tax Stamp to exercise the Rights that Document protects, it would be greatly appreciated.

Go ahead, I’ll wait (watching clock and drumming fingers on desk).

While some of you are searching for that (here’s a tip: It does not exist), the others who already know the answer feel free to continue with the learning curriculum.

Are you ready? Here we go!

Do you know your American History? Are you sure? I hope you’ll take the time to personally verify the information below; you’re about to take the Red pill.

Are you aware that you have NOT had a legitimate gov’t body on American soil since the 41st Congress walked out sine die (without a return date) in 1861. D.C. basically sat dormant for ten years and the foreign money masters decided to take over America under a corporate ponzi scheme. In 1871 they inhabited those halls of congress in D.C. and incorporated that ten square mile radius and they named their newfound shitty little corporation the ‘UNITED STATES’, which is NOT the same as the ‘united States of America’ in an attempt to hoodwink/fool the People into believing they once again had a legitimately seated gov’t body (see District of Columbia Act of 1871).

American History

‘UNITED STATES’ that is masquerading as your legitimate gov’t body on American soil and the con continues to this day.

Yes, the UNITED STATES is a foreign corporation operating under the International Organization Immunities Act (UN) since 1945.

The UNITED STATES is not the same as the ‘united States of America’.

All your so-called ‘elected officials’ must expatriate their American National Citizenship and swear an allegiance to that foreign corporation before they may hold public office.

Proof: Oath of office makes all elected officials foreign agents

And be sure to listen to the audio of Rod Class explaining this to you at the bottom of that post to help you better understand what has actually happened.

That corporation has its own set of rules, codes, statutes, that they like to call ‘laws’ (US Codes Title 1 – Title 54) that only apply to internal employees of that corporation who are being compensated to abide by the ‘you may not possess 30 round magazines’, or ‘you may not possess an automatic weapon without a tax stamp’, or ‘you must obtain a concealed carry license’, statutes.

See their internal statutes here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

Employees of that corporation must abide by those internal and restrictive firearms statutes while they are on the clock receiving pay, because they are being compensated, as they have signed into an employment contract to hold that gov’t job, unlike most of us who are NOT being compensated.

Statutes are NOT laws, they are internal rules for INTERNAL employees of that corporation, just as BURGER KING or XEROX has their own internal statutes/rules/codes/regulations that only apply to their internal employees while they are on the clock and being compensated to abide by them, so does the corporation known as the UNITED STATES.

Now you know why Title 26 of THEIR CODE reads like this,

‘INTERNAL Revenue Code’ …. Those taxing statutes are only enforceable on their own INTERNAL EMPLOYEES who have signed into an employment contract to hold their government jobs, and do not apply to the average American who is not a gov’t employee. That is why the Income Tax is also voluntary for anyone who wishes to participate. They cannot force NON gov’t employees to file, but if you wish to voluntarily file and pay, they sure as hell aren’t going to stop you from donating to their corporation.

You must remember that America is a Common Law Nation, and you must also remember that Slavery and Involuntary Servitude are against the law on American soil (see Amendment XIII), and no man may compel performance from another man without fairly and justly compensating that man.

What would constitute performance in the context of this writing?

Answer: Forcing another man/woman to abide by internal statutes/rules/codes/regulations of a corporation he/she does NOT work for.

They have hoodwinked the majority of the country into believing their internal rules/codes/statutes/regulations (which are not laws) apply to EVERYONE on this landmass, but they do not. They only apply to employees of that corporation who are being compensated to abide by them while they are on the clock fulfilling their part of the employment contract. If you are a local/state/federal employee, then you are not allowed to possess certain weapons without a tax stamp, and you must obtain a concealed carry permit, or you may not possess 30 round magazine, etc. …… While you are on the clock and receiving pay, only!

If you work for BURGER KING or XEROX, you are required to abide by that corporation’s internal rules/regulations/statutes while you are on the clock, but when you clock out at 5PM you are no longer contractually obligated to abide by those internal rules until you clock back in to work the next morning at 7AM.

Those of us who are NOT local/state/federal employees are not contractually bound by those internal corporate statutes, as we are not receiving a gov’t paycheck on the 1st and 15th like all other gov’t employees who are being compensated to abide by that corporation’s internal statutes.

Yes, the UNITED STATES is a Federal Corporation, they even tell you this in their own codes.

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002

If they are not paying you to abide by those ridiculous firearms rules/codes/statutes/regulations (which are NOT laws), then they simply do not apply to you, as slavery and involuntary servitude are against the law on American soil (see Amendment XIII).

So, what is gov’t doing to us?

Because you have in your possession a Certificate of Live Birth; a Driver’s License, and a Social Security No., (all of which are gov’t issued ID’s), this corporation likes to run wild with their presumptions that YOU are one of their own internal employees who are contractually obligated to abide by their internal rules/codes/statutes/regulations, but they are forgetting to tell you one thing:

If they expect any kind of performance out of you other than merely possessing those ID’s, they are lawfully required to compensate you, just as they are compensating all other local/state/federal employees who are being compensated to abide by that corporations own internal statutes, which are NOT laws.

They aren’t compensating you on the 1st and 15th of the month, therefore those internal statutes do NOT apply to you, period! But if you’re willing to play along and wilfully abide by those statutes without compensation, they sure as hell aren’t going to stop you. This is how they control the majority of society, because most of us don’t know the difference between internal statutes and actual laws.

Keep calling something like a code or a statute a ‘Law’, and before you know it everyone starts believing they actually ARE laws.

They make BILLIONS, possibly TRILLIONS of dollars every year off unsuspecting Americans who don’t know the law; who don’t know their Rights by presuming you into a quasi-employment position within their shitty little corporation, and they are conveniently forgetting to send you your check on the 1st and 15th.

So, how do we protect our Rights from gov’t agents/agencies that insist on Interfering with your Right to own/possess any firearm you choose, which would include fully automatic weapons or an F-16 without any type of license or extortion fee tax stamp?

First we have to learn the difference between a ‘criminal complaint’ and an actual claim.

Here’s what happens:

Some gov’t goon/agency gets word that you possess and automatic weapon without a tax stamp (extortion fee) and they send out their goons to kick down your door and arrest you in the dark of night. The D.A. then files a ‘criminal complaint’ against you for possession of that/those weapons without the proper tax stamps/permission and attempts to throw you in a cage for 10 years and wreck your life/family/finances, etc.

You must realize that he is only COMPLAINING about your possession (hence the criminal complaint), because he has no actual claim. He’s hoping like hell that you do not know the law and you or your attorney file any kind of paperwork back into his silly complaint, such as an affidavit; a rebuttal; a counterclaim, etc., which now creates joinder. Now that you’ve acknowledged his silly complaint as anything legitimate, he now takes his complaint and runs with like an actual claim and the STATE now becomes the injured party ….. Cool little con they have there, eh?

He had no lawful case (claim) until you started playing attorney and filing paperwork back into his silly complaint, which ultimately legitimizes the toothless piece of paper known as a ‘criminal complaint’ and gives it legs.

As free men/women on American soil we do NOT answer silly complaints. If we answered every single complaint someone made against us on a daily basis, we’d never get anything done. But we do answer to verifiable claims made by another man/woman who claims to be an injured party; or claims we have harmed them or their private property, and if we have done them harm, we try to compensate them for our trespasses.

The D.A. cannot be an injured party because your possession of an automatic weapon without a tax stamp did not harm HIM or his personal property, therefore he is bringing controversy where there is no controversy; he’s attempting to unjustly enrich himself and the almighty STATE by hoodwinking you with a silly complaint that has zero force or effect in actual law.

When the D.A. files a criminal complaint against you, it reads like this:

STATE OF TEXAS vs John P. Doe [Illegal possession of class III weapon]

What he is doing is filing a complaint on behalf of some entity that goes by the name ‘STATE OF TEXAS’, but on American soil you have the Right to confront your accuser and attempt to compensate him for any harm you may have caused (see Article VI) – Can this entity known as the ‘STATE OF TEXAS’ take the stand and point you out across the room and say,

‘That man right over there harmed me and my personal property by possessing that automatic weapon and I require compensation for the trespass!’ ?

Answer: No, it cannot.

Basically the prosecutor has himself an imaginary friend he’s hoping you don’t call to the stand to verify you’ve caused him harm, injury, or loss.

The Plaintiff must appear and verify his claim, on the Record – Only a ‘man’ may utter with his voice in open court and verify a claim, a corporation such as the STATE OF TEXAS cannot.

So what we have here is a D.A. who is filing false claims against his fellow man to unjustly enrich himself and the almighty STATE OF TEXAS Corp. or UNITED STATES by attempting to hoodwink you with a ‘criminal complaint’, because they make BILLIONS of dollars through the courts with this con on a yearly basis. Remember that gov’t cannot file claims against the People, as the People are the one’s who created the gov’t – gov’t can only file complaints.

He’s operating under the presumption that YOU are one of that corporation’s own internal employees who is contractually obligated to abide by that corporation’s internal ‘laws’ known as codes and statutes, which are NOT actual laws of this land. It is not against the law to presume, and if you don’t rebut, you must agree, and when two entities agree, we now have law. Yes, it is quite the con, but they make billions of dollars through the court system on a yearly basis from non-employees of their corporation because we don’t know the difference between statutes and actual laws.

So how do we combat this criminal behavior?

Answer: We must file a claim against him to counter his silly complaint!

You can learn a lot about this subject from another post of mine, here:
The STATE OF TEXAS vs John Q. PUBLIC [illegal possession of]

He is committing barratry; attempting unjust enrichment; extortion; harming your good name within your community; malicious prosecution, theft/robbery of property without due process of law, and wasting your very precious and valuable time dealing with his toothless nonsense known as a ‘criminal complaint’, and now you are going to file a claim (not a complaint, but an actual claim) against him and drag him into court as a defendant for trespassing on your Rights by filing false claims against you.

You are going to require compensation from him for the trespass(es), and because your compensation is going to exceed twenty dollars (see Article VII), you are going to invoke your Right to a ‘trial by jury’. Now the D.A. has become a defendant in a trespass claim and YOU are now the prosecutor in a court of record, and in a court of record, the Tribunal is Independent of the Magistrate. You are now the prosecutor; the man who filed false claims against you is now the wrongdoer, and the Jury now becomes the Judge. The guy who normally plays God (the Judge) is now lowered to the status of a mere referee who is to carry out the court’s orders and keep court decorum, only. He can no longer tell you to sit down and shut up, as this is now YOUR court, and it is YOUR claim in that public building, and he is only there to referee by your request.

The D.A. has his case (criminal complaint) and you must bring forth YOUR case (an actual claim) so you aren’t playing defendant in THEIR court.

These scumbags make BILLIONS of dollars every year with this con of filing ‘complaints’ (read that as false claims) against their fellow man because we have never been taught the Law.

That corporation has THEIR set of rules for their own internal employees (US Codes Title 1 – Title 54) as found here,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

And we have our own set of rules, known as the Common Law – Do. No. Harm.

You will NOT find any reference to those statutes (US Codes) in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights because they are a SEPARATE set of rules/codes/statutes/regulations that are NOT part of the Law of the Land known as the Constitution. They are rules for internal gov’t employees who are being compensated to abide by the ‘you may not possess 30 round magazines’ statutes. You will not find BURGER KING or XEROX statutes in the Constitution either, as they are a SEPARATE set of rules that only apply to employees of those corporations while they are on the clock and receiving pay.

The Second Amendment clearly states:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

That word ‘shall’ means at anytime in the future, and there is ZERO Amendments or Footnotes anywhere in the Bill of Rights that reference man to go to US Codes to validate the Law, because US Codes are NOT Laws, they are totally Independent of the Constitution, and have zero force or effect in Law unless you are an employee of that corporation and under contract to perform by those internal statutes, period!

To change that Law (2nd Amendment), it would have to be ratified by 3/4’s of the States, then voted on by the Senate, and that will NEVER-EVER happen on American soil and they damned well know it, so all they can do is HOPE you continue to go along with their con by convincing you that their internal corporate statutes are laws by continuing to use the media to call them laws, instead of what they actually are – Internal Corporate Statutes of the corporation known as the UNITED STATES.

This corporation’s CEO and Board of Directors (Obama, Senators, Congressmen) can change their own internal firearms statutes at will-on a daily basis because it is a separate set of rules that only applies to employees of that corporation, but do not apply to the average American who is not on the gov’t payroll. Just like BURGER KING or XEROX can change their own internal ‘laws’ at will, so can the ‘UNITED STATES Corp.’, and they don’t need a Constitutional Amendment to do it, because those statutes are NOT Laws of this Land, and only apply to employees of that corporation. They can change them daily, as they most often do, and need no ratification from the several States, because they are NOT laws, they are statutes that only apply to the CEO (Obama) and those gov’t agents/employees beneath him.

In closing: You may own/buy/sell/possess any weapon of choice without permission from that corporation if you are not an employee of that corporation, and all they can do is COMPLAIN about it – hence their ‘criminal complaints’, and you are not lawfully required to buy a tax stamp or a concealed carry permit either, unless you are under employment contract and receiving pay to abide by restrictive firearms statutes, which are NOT laws.

America, like England, Australia, Canada, and Ireland are ‘Common Law Nations’, and you may do anything you damned well please as long as you are not harming another man or his property, and that includes owning/possessing an automatic weapon without having to purchase an extortion stamp, as well as openly (or concealed) carrying any firearm of your choice, anywhere you go, unless it is prohibited by Private Property Owners such as a local business, etc.

Remember, the Plaintiff MUST appear and verify his claim. The STATE OF TEXAS cannot take the stand and verify the complaint (false claim), and the D.A. cannot verify the claim either, as you did not harm HIM or HIS personal property, therefore he is filing false claims against you, and that is a very big NO-NO in Law that can cost him his house; his automobile; his retirement fund; his freedom if a Jury sees fit. The D.A. cannot verify a claim on his or his plaintiff’s behalf because he himself has no first hand knowledge of anything his plaintiff is claiming, so all he can do is file a complaint on his plaintiff’s behalf. He can on the other hand CERTIFY the complaint, because he’s the one who drafted it, but anyone can certify something is on a piece of paper, just as a Notary certifies a document, but she cannot VERIFY anything on it because she herself has no first hand knowledge of anything on the document, therefore all she can do is certify she witnessed the document, but certifying something and verifying something are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT ANIMALS

A living man must show up in court and VERIFY you have caused him or his personal property, harm, injury, or loss. If there is no man, there is no controversy, and if there is no controversy, what the fuck are we doing here today?

Remember also…

Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647. “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.”


They make BILLIONS of dollars every year filing COMPLAINTS against people who do not know the law and do not know the difference between as silly ‘criminal complaint’ and an actual claim.

In closing: You may own, possess, buy, sell, any weapon or weapons accessory (including fully automatic weapons, silencers, mini-guns, tanks, etc.) you can afford, and you are NOT lawfully required to ask anyone from any gov’t agencies permission to do so, nor you are required by law to purchase a permit to do so, either. As long as you are not harming your fellow man, no actual law has been broken, and the STATE OF*** cannot take the stand and verify harm because the STATE is not a living man.

If you’d like to learn more about how to defend your Rights against rogue Gov’t agents and their Agencies by countering their complaints with claims, I’d suggest you get to YouTube and look up ‘Karl Lentz Common Law’.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
Whoooooa !! What a sack of horse manure. There are many laws that are Unconstitutional, therefore UNTRUE & unjustly enforced by tyrants within our system.

Supreme Court of the United States

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

TAEZZAR,

Thank you for your comments. I will respond to them individually below.

1. There are many laws that are Unconstitutional, therefore UNTRUE
RESPONSE: Please provide me with any statute made by our ELECTED lawmakers that you believe is unconstitutional and untrue and we will put it to the test using the actual law itself. Fair enough?

2. [And these unconstitutional laws are] unjustly enforced by tyrants within our system.
RESPONSE: The ELECTED law enforcement agencies of "We the People" enforce the statutes made by the ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People" until such time as the ELECTED courts of "We the People" declare that statute unconstitutional. There is nothing wrong with that. That is exactly what law enforcement agencies of "We the People" are supposed to do. That doesn't make them tyrants. In the unlikely event that a statute made by the ELECTED lawmakers of "We the People" is declared unconstitutional by the ELECTED courts of "We the People", then the ELECTED law enforcement agencies of "We the People" stop enforcing that statute immediately. The law enforcement agencies of "We the People" do not enforce statutes which they know to be unconstitutional. If they did, they would never be re-elected.

3. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803).
RESPONSE: It is not clear to me why you cited this case. Do you contend that this case supports your claim that many laws are unconstitutional and untrue and that they are unjustly enforced by tyrants? Regardless, I have provided you with a link to Marbury v. Madison. below. Please click on the link and cut and paste the section of that case which you believe supports your claims and then post it for us here. Fair enough?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...3188&q=Marbury+v.+Madison"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

Thanks,

Best Regards,

Snoop

 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
14,936
Likes
26,181
Location
ORYGUN
ALL gun laws violate the Second Amendment !
What part of "shall not be infringed", do they NOT understand ?
Any law that exempts one part of society but controls the other part. They are numerous !

What I have to do your work for you. Antone that knows Marbury V Madison knows :
The very last paragraph.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
But, here is a clue. If it appears in the actual written words of the law itself (to which I have provided you with links above), then it is true.
and, yet you think there are two kinds of arrest's.....fuk me running U are inept for thirty years of law and YES it is that simple!

Go ahead and fight your way out of that wet paper bag that is the fourth amendment. fight onward, just go dog go...
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
….man, no actual law has been broken, and the STATE OF*** cannot take the stand and verify harm because the STATE is not a living man.
I think you for got to include the ",,,And, that is why there is a treason clause in every constitution...."

Should I explain them words to it? Naw, not even.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
and, yet you think there are two kinds of arrest's.....fuk me running U are inept for thirty years of law and YES it is that simple!

Go ahead and fight your way out of that wet paper bag that is the fourth amendment. fight onward, just go dog go...
Michael59,

and, yet you think there are two kinds of arrest's.....fuk me running U are inept for thirty years of law and YES it is that simple!
RESPONSE: I don't know how may types of arrests, stops or detentions there are between CRIMINAL stops and TRAFFIC stops combined. All I know is that the actual written words of the law itself specifically says that law enforcement officers are not required to obtain a warrant to make a TRAFFIC stop and issue a TRAFFIC ticket. NEWS FLASH: A law enforcement officer does not violate the U.S. Constitution by making a traffic stop and issuing a TRAFFIC ticket without a warrant. What you think or what I think does not matter. All that matters is what the actual written words of the law says. Nothing else matters.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Michael59,

and, yet you think there are two kinds of arrest's.....fuk me running U are inept for thirty years of law and YES it is that simple!
RESPONSE: I don't know how may types of custodial arrests, non-custodial arrests, stops or detentions there are between CRIMINAL stops and TRAFFIC stops combined. All I know is that the actual written words of the law itself specifically says that law enforcement officers are not required to obtain a warrant to make a TRAFFIC stop and issue a TRAFFIC ticket. NEWS FLASH: A law enforcement officer does not violate the U.S. Constitution by making a traffic stop and issuing a TRAFFIC ticket without a warrant. What you think or what I think does not matter. All that matters is what the actual written words of the law says. Nothing else matters.

Best Regards,

Snoop
and, yet there is no mention in the grand old charter aka CONSTITUTION of traffic arrest only "arrest." are you starting to see the picture?
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
ALL gun laws violate the Second Amendment !
What part of "shall not be infringed", do they NOT understand ?
Any law that exempts one part of society but controls the other part. They are numerous !

What I have to do your work for you. Antone that knows Marbury V Madison knows :
The very last paragraph.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged.
TAEZZAR,

1. There are many laws that are Unconstitutional, therefore UNTRUE
RESPONSE: Provide me with any statute that you believe is unconstitutional and we will put it to the test together. I will do the research and show you what the law says about its constitutionality. Would that be of help?

Snoop
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
TAEZZAR,

1. There are many laws that are Unconstitutional, therefore UNTRUE
RESPONSE: Provide me with any statute that you believe is unconstitutional and we will put it to the test together. I will do the research and show you what the law says about its constitutionality. Would that be of help?

Snoop
I'll one up you there buddie and i'll do it with a maxim.
The safety of the people cannot be judged but by the safety of every individual
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Here is one for you s4t: Words should be considered only as commonly understood and not with a meaning others construe to their own purpose.

edited to add: A privilege is, as it were, a private law.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
and, yet there is no mention in the grand old charter aka CONSTITUTION of traffic arrest only "arrest." are you starting to see the picture?
Michael59,

Your comment: , yet there is no mention in the grand old charter aka CONSTITUTION of traffic arrest only "arrest."
RESPONSE: YOU ARE DEAD WRONG! THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE WORD, "ARREST" IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.


The fourth amendment reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." WHERE IS THE WORD, "ARREST", MICHAEL?

EVEN IF THE WORD, "ARREST" WAS IN THE FOURTH AMENDMENT (AND IT IS NOT), THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS RULED THAT A TRAFFIC STOP IS NOT AN "ARREST" ANYWAY. IT IS A "TEMPORARY DETENTION."

Are you starting to see the picture?

CLICK HERE and scroll down to the 4th paragraph. Wren v. United States, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3416424011044753637&q="fourth+amendment"+"traffic+violation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003. That case reads, "The Fourth Amendment guarantees "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures." TEMPORARY DETENTION [NOT ARREST] of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a "seizure" of "persons" within the meaning of this provision. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 653 (1979); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 556 (1976); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975). An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it NOT BE 'UNREASONABLE' under the circumstances. As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile IS REASONABLE where the police have PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that a TRAFFIC VIOLATION has occurred. See Prouse, supra, at 659; Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 109 (1977) (per curiam)."

CLICK HERE and scroll down to the final paragraph. Wren v. United States, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3416424011044753637&q="fourth+amendment"+"traffic+violation"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003. That case reads, "[T]he officers HAD PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that petitioners HAD VIOLATED THE TRAFFIC CODE. That [PROBABLE CAUSE] rendered the [traffic] stop REASONABLE under the Fourth Amendment [without a warrant]... ."

Are you starting to see the picture?

Best Regards,

Snoop.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
Here's a question.

It's all about the law correct? The "Law" is everything...

If Article I Section 10 says "No State Shall Make Anything But Gold and Silver Coin a Payment In Tender Of Debt"

How is it that every state violates their Constitution by using Federal Reserve Notes?

It couldn't be that they all incorporated back in the 1960's could it? THE STATE OF TEXAS et al are all caps corporations...Hmmmmm

Goldhedge,

Thank you for your comments. I will respond to them individually below.

1. If Article I Section 10 says "No State Shall Make Anything But Gold and Silver Coin a Payment In Tender Of Debt". How is it that every state violates their Constitution by using Federal Reserve Notes?
RESPONSE: They do not violate the Constitution by "USING" Federal Reserve Notes. They would violate the Constitution only if they actually "ISSUED" their own currency (paper money). (Under the Constitution, THE STATES remain free to "issue" their own COINS as long as they were actually made of gold of silver).

BACKGROUND: Before the United States Constitution was drafted, signed and ratified, the states were parties to the old Articles Of Confederation. (It was like a weaker version of our Constitution.). Under the old Articles of Confederation, THE STATES COULD ACTUALLY 'ISSUE" THEIR OWN CURRENCY (PAPER MONEY) AND THEIR OWN COIN. But, the absence of a uniform currency (paper money) made trade between the states, and with foreign entities, much more difficult and less efficient. CLICK HERE. http://ushistoryscene.com/article/articles-of-confederation/. Section 2 of that article reads"

Article IX of the Articles of Confederation stated, “The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective State.” 5 While Congress had the right to regulate all forms of American currency [paper money], the Articles failed to call for a singular form of currency [paper money]. This meant that the national government could print money, but each state could as well. Consequently, America had no uniform system of currency [paper money] which made trade between the states, and with foreign entities, much more difficult and less efficient.

Id.

Later, the founding father's sought to correct that problem. So, in drafting Article1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution (the section that limits a state's powers), the founding fathers wrote, "No State shall... MAKE [not use] ANY THING but gold and silver coin a [LEGAL] TENDER [MEANS "MONEY"] in Payment of Debts... ." TRANSLATION: NO STATE CAN ISSUE ITS OWN PAPER MONEY AND NO STATE MAY ISSUE ITS OWN COINS, UNLESS THEY ARE ACTUALLY MADE OF GOLD AND SILVER. This change from the terms of the old Articles Of Confederation to the terms of the U.S. Constitution resulted in the FEDERAL government being the only government empowered to "ISSUE" CURRENCY [paper money] and resulted in a SINGLE CURRENCY [paper money] all across the United States.


2. It couldn't be that they all incorporated back in the 1960's could it? ...
RESPONSE: No. No state was incorporated in the 1960's. The FEDERAL and STATE governments are not corporations. I have already provided you with quotes and links to the real law on that very subject above. I will not duplicate those quotes and links again here.

3. THE STATE OF TEXAS et al are all caps corporations...
My RESPONSE: As if capital letters make any difference. Under the law, capital letters do not indicate a corporation or corporate status. That is an amateur legal theory. The practice of using capital letters in legal and financial documents began during a period when such documents were manually typed on old-fashioned, manual typewriters. At the time, these manual typewriters did not have BOLD type, ITALIC type, different FONTS, colored HIGHLIGHTING features or COLORED TEXT. At the time, there was ONE, AND ONLY ONE way for an author TO EMPHASIZE the actual text being manually typed on a manual typewriter. THAT WAY WAS TO USE CAPITAL LETTERS. So, the authors of these manually-typed, legal and financial documents used capital letters FOR THE SAME REASON THAT I DO---TO EMPHASIZE THE MOST IMPORTANT WORDS, like the NAMES OF THE PARTIES to such documents, for example. The practice of using capital letters to emphasize the most important words in such legal and financial documents, like the NAMES OF THE PARTIES to such documents, became a custom and this custom survives to this very day. But, using capital letters in such legal or financial documents was not then and is not now a "secret code" which "denotes a corporate status" or any other such non-sense AND THE COURTS HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID SO IN WRITING. (See below).

The law does not now and never has recognized capital letters as a "secret code" which "denotes a corporate status" or any other such amateur non-sense. Claims to the contrary are amateur legal theories and are simply not true. Consider the REAL LAW below.

THE ACTUAL REAL LAW ITSELF ON WHETHER CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A CORPORATE STATUS:

1). United States v. Rodney [DALE] Class, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, the court wrote, "Defendant [Rodney DALE Class] objects to the appearance of HIS NAME IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS in the indictment, contending that CAPITAL LETTERS apply only to [means "DENOTE"] a 'FICTIONAL' ENTITY OR A CORPORATION and not a 'a living flesh and blood man' such as himself... ." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "This [CAPITAL LETTER] objection and the related argument that the use of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS somehow deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction FIND NO [means "HAVE NO"] SUPPORT IN THE LAW [Translation: These claims are amateur legal theories] and, in fact, HAVE BEEN SQUARELY REJECTED [read this phrase again]... . See United States v. Mitchell, 405 F.Supp. 602, 603 (D.Md.2009) (characterizing similar [CAPITAL LETTER] objections as 'PATENTLY WITHOUT MERIT')[read this phrase again]... . However, the Court now clarifies, to the extent there is any doubt [making fun of Class' CAPITAL LETTER amateur legal theory], the person charged in this case is Rodney [DALE] Class THE HUMAN BEING, AND NOT A CORPORATION OR OTHER 'FICTIONAL ENTITY', as Defendant [Rodney DALE Class] suggests." (at the 10th paragraph at about 15% through the text of the case).

2). U.S. v. Harding, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). The court wrote, "Harding [an amateur legal theorist] takes issue with the use of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS [depicting his name on court documents], which he argues DENOTES A CORPORATE ENTITY, not a living person." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "Because THEY ARE CONTRARY TO ESTABLISHED LAW [and are, therefore, amateur legal theories], HARDING’S ARGUMENTS [about CAPITAL LETTERS] WILL... BE REJECTED [read this phrase again]." (beginning at the 4 paragraph and continuing for several paragraphs).

3). U.S. v. Welch, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, the defendant/amateur legal theorist claimed that he was not the taxpayer identified in the court documents because HIS NAME WAS SPELLED IN CAPITAL LETTERS WHICH HE CLAIMED DENOTED A CORPORATION. But, the court ruled otherwise and cited the following cases in support, "... Johnson v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo.1999-312, aff'd 242 F.3d 382 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that petitioner's contention that "he was not the taxpayer named in the ...[court documents] because THE NAME ON THE ... [court documents] WAS SPELLED IN CAPITAL LETTERS, AND THAT CORPORATIONS, NOT INDIVIDUALS, SPELL THEIR NAMES WITH CAPITAL LETTERS" WAS FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]); United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032, 1036 (8th Cir.1992) (holding, in response to a similar [CAPITAL LETTER] argument, that "[t]hese [CAPITAL LETTERS] issues are COMPLETELY WITHOUT MERIT, PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS, AND WILL BE REJECTED without expending any more of this Court's resources on their discussion" [read this phrase again]). Elsewhere in the case, the court wrote, "[T]he simple fact that Defendant Welch's [the defendant’s] NAME has appeared on... [court] documents WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS DOES NOT SUGGEST that the... [court documents] apply to any [person] OTHER THAN [the Defendant] Jim Davis Welch, THE INDIVIDUAL [and not a corporation]. See Ford v. Pryor, 552 F.3d 1174, 1179 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding that the argument that a summons did not identify... [the defendant] BECAUSE HIS NAME WAS TYPED IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS WAS 'WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS' [read this phrase again]); ... ." (at the 3rd to last paragraph in the case at about 95% through the text).

4). U.S. v. Blackburn, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES, including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). The court wrote, "Mr. Blackburn [an amateur legal theorist] claims that the case [against him] must be dismissed because the Indictment... SPELLS HIS NAME IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS... . He cites to style manuals and administrative codes [which do NOT have the force of law] demonstrating that ALL CAPITAL LETTERS ARE [sometimes] USED WHEN SPELLING A CORPORATION'S NAME IN LEGAL DOCUMENTS, but [sometimes] not when referring to a living person. Because he is a 'living, breathing, flesh and blood sovereign man,' Mr. Blackburn [the amateur legal theorist] contends that the Indictment CAN ONLY SPELL HIS NAME IN UPPER AND LOWER CASE SPELLING to be [legally] effective against him. This [CAPITAL LETTER] argument has been [futilely] ATTEMPTED by several defendants in federal district court WITHOUT SUCCESS [read this phrase again]. See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 405 F. Supp. 2d 602, 604-05 (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2005); United States v. Singleton, 2004 WL 1102322, at *3 (N.D. Ill., May 7, 2004). The courts [referred to in all of these cases cited herein] held that USE OF ALL UPPER CASE LETTERS or a mixture of UPPER and LOWER case letters IS NOT RELEVANT TO... JURISDICTION... . Id. The... use of CAPITAL LETTERS in referring to a defendant in legal documents IS SIMPLY IRRELEVANT [Translation: Capital letters do not denote a corporation or corporate status]. Mitchell, 405 F. Supp. 2d at 604. Here, the government and the Court have addressed Mr. Blackburn, both in court and on paper, IN A... MANNER THAT CLEARLY IDENTIFIES HIM [the individual]... . [Thus,] MR. BLACKBURN'S [the amateur legal theorist's] ARGUMENT [ABOUT CAPITAL LETTERS] IS THUS REJECTED [read this phrase again]." (beginning at the 2nd paragraph in the section entitled "2. Judicial Notice" at about 50% through the text).

5). U.S. v. Beavers, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). The court wrote, "The Defendants [both amateur legal theorists] refer to themselves as the "flesh and blood SENTIENT man and woman" and NOT A CORPORATION OR CORPORATE ENTITY, as they assert is suggested [as "denoted"] by the fact that THEIR NAMES APPEAR in the style of the case IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. The Defendants contend that based upon the distinction between the ALL-CAPITALS NAME and the living person, they are not subject to the Court's authority [jurisdiction]." (at paragraph 7, not including block indented portions at about 20% through the text). Later in the text, the court also wrote, "The Defendants [both tax protesters and amateur legal theorists]... appear to argue that because THEIR NAMES ARE LISTED IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, INDICATING [means "DENOTING"] A CORPORATION and not "flesh and blood" persons, they are not subject to the Court's jurisdiction. The Defendants do not cite, nor can the Court find, any [legal] authority [meaning "law"] to support this assertion [Translation: This is an amateur legal theory]. As the Government notes, COURTS... HAVE REJECTED THIS [CAPITAL LETTER] ARGUMENT AS FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]. See United States v. Gonzalez, 222 F. App'x 238, 243 (4th Cir. 2007) (finding that the defendants' motions alleging the court lacked jurisdiction because the "indictment SPELLED THEIR NAMES IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, [and] the government failed to properly identify them as `real, live flesh and blood m[en]' were ‘COMPLETELY FRIVOLOUS’ [read this phrase again])... ; United States v. Bradley, 26 F. App'x 392, 393 (6th Cir. 2001) ("Edgar [the defendant in the case cited here] also plays the `name game,' contending that `Edgar Francis Bradley' is a natural born man of the State of Ohio, while `Edgar F. Bradley' is merely a CORPORATE FICTION."). The Court finds these Defendants' [AMATEUR NAME GAME] arguments... [are] UNAVAILING, FRIVOLOUS, AND WITHOUT LEGAL SUPPORT [read this phrase again]." (at the 10th paragraph, not including block indented portions, at about 25% through the text).

6). U.S. v. Curry, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). The court wrote, "Next, Curry [the defendant] contends that... THE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS MEANS THAT THE DEFENDANT [Curry] 'IS AN ARTIFICIAL OR FICTITIOUS PERSON [meaning a CORPORATION]'." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "Curry's [the defendant's ] CAPITAL-LETTER ARGUMENT IS ... UNAVAILING AND FRIVOLOUS [read this phrase again]." (at the 5th paragraph at about 95% through the text).

7). Johnson v. Superintendent, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). The court wrote, "Johnson [an amateur legal theorist] states that, 'the use of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS in my name indicates that I was brought into this cause AS A CORPORATION without my `consent'.... ." The court ruled otherwise and held, "THESE [CAPITAL LETTER] ARGUMENTS ARE MERITLESS [read this phrase again]." (at the 2nd paragraph at about 30% through the text).

8). U.S. v. Bowden, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS' AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including their amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, the Bowdens (both tax protesters and the defendants) claimed that, "there was no contract between the United States and 'wesley d. bowden' [IN ALL LOWER CASE LETTERS], that 'your [referring to the government's] fictitious WESLEY D. BOWDEN [IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS] is your property, but do[es] not include the living man, wesley d. bowden [IN ALL LOWER CASE LETTERS],' that 'betty s. bowden (IN ALL LOWER CASE LETTERS] is a living woman NOT A CORPORATION,'" Thus, the Bowdens (the tax protesters/defendants) mistakenly believed that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A CORPORATE STATUS and that lower case letters denote a living human being. But, the court ruled otherwise and held, " ...[THE] ARGUMENT that the spelling of a defendant's 'NAME IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS... REFERS TO AN ARTIFICIAL ENTITY [meaning a corporation], rather than a natural person' HAS 'BEEN LONG REJECTED [read this phrase again]... . THE TYPEFACE USED... DOES NOT AFFECT THE COURT'S JURISDICTION AND SOMEHOW DIVEST THE COURT'S JURISDICTION')... ." The court also went on to REJECT the "SO-CALLED "STRAW-MAN' [AMATEUR LEGAL] THEORY which falsely claim that ONLY DOCUMENTS USING AN INDIVIDUAL'S NAME WITH STANDARD CAPITALIZATION, [meaning] LOWER-CASE WITH ONLY THE BEGINNING LETTERS OF EACH NAME CAPITALIZED, ARE LEGITIMATE... ." (beginning at the 11th paragraph at about 35%through the text).

9). Bell v. Tobe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS”). In this case, an amateur legal theorist unsuccessfully sued a lender and its lawyer who had won an earlier case against him. The amateur legal theorist complained that in the earlier case, his opponent "misus[ed] THE NAME of this Sovereign American Citizen [referring to himself] by placing it IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, misusing my last name, and referring to me erroneously as a `person,' which is a `term of art' meaning a creature of the law, AN ARTIFICIAL BEING, and a CORPORATION... . He [the defendant] states that he is "NOT A CORPORATION... ." Thus, the defendant mistakenly believed that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A CORPORATE STATUS. But, the court ruled otherwise and dismissed the case on the grounds that it had "NO BASIS IN LAW OR FACT [Translation: This is an amateur legal theory]". (at the 2nd paragraph at about 30% through the text).

10). U.S. v. Luginbyhl, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS”). The court wrote, "Defendant's argument concerning THE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS in case captions and court documents is not new to the Court. This Court and other courts have... CONSITENTLY REJECTED these [CAPITAL LETTER] arguments as MERITLESS [read this phrase again]. See United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing numerous cases that have REJECTED 'hackneyed tax protester' arguments); United States v. Lindsay, 184 F.3d 1138, 1144 (10th Cir. 1999) (concluding that the defendant's refusal to review court correspondence on which his name appeared IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS was an obstruction of justice and PROVIDED A BASIS FOR A HARSHER PENALTY); Smith v. Kitchen, 1997 WL 768297 *1 n.1 (10th Cir. Dec. 12, 1997) (concluding that a party was not prejudiced because of the court's practice of captioning all documents WITH A PARTY'S FULL NAME IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS); United States v. Gonzalez, 2007 WL 805992 * 3 (4th Cir. March 14, 2007)... (concluding that defendants' arguments alleging that because the indictment spelled their names using ALL CAPITAL LETTERS that the government failed to properly identify them as "real, live flesh and blood m[en]" [meaning identified them as corporations] were COMPLETELY FRIVOLOUS [were amateur legal theories]). (at the 3rd paragraph at about 35% through the text).

11). U.S. v. Powell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...n&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORCORPORATE STATUS”). The court wrote, "Mr. Powell [an amateur legal theorist] elaborated that he was not the person charged in the indictment: 'I am Victor Powell,' he told the court at one point, 'but that name on the charging instrument IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS IS A CORPORATE FICTION... . Mr. Powell [also claimed that]... he was not a criminal defendant BUT RATHER A CORPORATION." Thus, the defendant mistakenly believed that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A CORPORATION. But, the court ruled otherwise and held, 'YOU'RE AN INDIVIDUAL... . YOU'RE NOT A CORPORATION.'" (at the 6th paragraph at about 45% through the text).

12). Defluiter v. Lard, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, the plaintiff made the following allegation, "Gary-Lee: Defluiter®®... is not... representing himself. Joseph G. Scoville shall not change to the CORPORATE FICTION —— GARY LEE DEFLUITER [in all CAPITAL LETTERS] ®®". Thus, the plaintiff believed that his name in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTED A CORPORATE STATUS. But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "[T]he use of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS for the name of a party in the caption IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE... . Captioning court documents with ALL CAPITAL LETTERS COMPLIES WITH FED. R. CIV. P 10(a). The use of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS in the caption of court documents`is a typographical convention WITHOUT LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE [Translation: does not SIGNIFY anything, much less a corporation].' Similar [CAPITAL LETTER] arguments have been raised in various criminal and civil cases across the country AND HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS FRIVOLOUS [means "are amateur legal theories"]." (beginning in the 4th paragraph at about 40% through the text).

13). U.S. v. Benabe, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, Benabe [the amateur legal theorist] claimed he was not the "ALL-CAPITAL, CORPORATE FICTION... named in the indictment." Thus, the defendant mistakenly believed that CAPITAL LETTERS on court documents DENOTE A CORPORATION. But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "We have REPEATEDLY REJECTED the[se] theories of individual [rather than collective] sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk... . Regardless of an individual's claimed status of descent, be it as a "sovereign citizen," a "secured-party creditor," or a "flesh-and-blood human being [meaning NOT A CORPORATION]," THAT PERSON IS NOT BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS. These [amateur legal] theories SHOULD BE REJECTED, HOWEVER THEY ARE PRESENTED [read this phrase again]." (at the 19th paragraph at about 20% through the text).

14). U.S. v. Mitchell, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, "The defendants [all amateur legal theorists]... persistently claim that they are not properly identified in the caption of the indictments because THEIR NAMES ARE PRINTED IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, thereby failing to properly represent them as "FLESH AND BLOOD" MEN [meaning that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A CORPORATION]." But, the court ruled otherwise and held, "[T]he use of CAPITAL LETTERS in the caption of an indictment IS IRRELEVANT to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. The government attorneys and the court have addressed the defendants, both in court and on paper, IN A... MANNER THAT CLEARLY IDENTIFIES THEM [AS INDIVIDUALS]... . 'It makes NO SENSE to rest a jurisdictional distinction UPON THE USE OF ALL UPPER CASE LETTERS or a mixture of UPPER and LOWER CASE LETTERS... .' United States v. Singleton, 2004 WL 1102322, *3 (N.D.Ill. May 7, 2004) (denying motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on the argument, in part, that the defendant was 'A FLESH AND BLOOD MAN' [and not a CORPORATION])." (beginning in the 5th paragraph at about 25% through the text).

15). Thompson v. Scutt, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 (RULING AGAINST ALL OF THE DEFENDANT'S AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES including the amateur legal theory that CAPITAL LETTERS DENOTE A "CORPORATE STATUS"). In this case, the court wrote, "Petitioner [an amateur legal theorist] also claims that he is being wrongly imprisoned on behalf of a separate legal entity referred to as ‘CHRISTOPHER BURNELL THOMPSON’ [in all CAPITAL LETTERS]. It appears that Petitioner contends that the court's use of HIS NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS in the criminal complaint and/or judgment REFERS TO [means "DENOTES"] a separate or FICTITIOUS ENTITY [meaning a CORPORATION], and is enforceable only against THAT OTHER [IMAGINARY] ENTITY [a CORPORATION]. This claim is PATENTLY FRIVOLOUS [means "is an amateur legal theory"]. The use of Petitioner's NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS has NO BEARING on the validity of the judgment [means "is irrelevant"]... . " (at the first paragraph in section "F. False imprisonment" at about 80% through the text).

THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories (ex: "capital letters denote a corporate status") are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS and OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the entire rest of the world. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

FACT: Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on the subject of whether capital letters denote a corporate status WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on this same subject will always be the same as reflected in the cases above. https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.

BONUS LAW: Many of the cases linked to above did not just rule against the single amateur legal theory that "capital letters denote a corporate status". Many of the cases linked to above ALSO RULED AGAINST EVERY OTHER AMATEUR LEGAL THEORY RAISED IN THOSE CASES. These additional rulings are shown below. (The cases below appear in the same order they appear above.).

1). United States v. Rodney [DALE] Class, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 This case also addressed the following amateur legal theories of Rodney DALE Class (ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE), claiming that statutes "only apply business entities, government instrumentalities and other CORPORATE 'persons,' but not to natural persons such as himself" citing as support the inapplicable United States Tax Code, the inapplicable Texas Administrative Code and the inapplicable Delaware Administrative Code (all of which are inapplicable in this criminal case), claiming that he registered his name as a "registered trade name" which he claimed the government could not use in prosecuting him, requesting a CIVIL "declaratory judgment" in a CRIMINAL case, claiming that the government failed to name an "indispensable party" (a principle that only applies in a CIVIL case, not a CRIMINAL case such as this), claiming that the government "failed to produce a Corpus Delicti" (which actually means "body of the crime", but which Class mistakenly believes means a "body of a person who was injured"), raising as a defense the following irrelevant statutes: The Smith Act, The Administrative procedure Act, The Taft-Hartley Act, The Federal Reserve Act, The Emergency Relief Appropriations Act, the Copy Right Act, raising the Rules Of CIVIL Procedure in this CRIMINAL case (which rules do not apply in CRIMINAL cases), mistakenly claiming that The Dick Act nullified all laws limiting the possession and use of firearms (The Dick Act merely created the National Guard and did not nullify anything), raising the inapplicable and irrelevant "Clearfield Trust Doctrine" (which Class also cites in the "Judge DALE forgeries" while pretending to be "Judge DALE"), claiming his firearms did not fit the definition of a firearm in the irrelevant National Firearms Act (an irrelevant statute with which he was not charged with violating in this case), raising the Double Jeopardy clause (even though he never faced two trials for the same offense), raising his fraudulently-obtained North Carolina conceal and carry permit as a defense (which permit ALSO made it illegal for him to carry firearms onto federal grounds where, as here, such was prohibited by federal law), raising an executive order on the public works administration as a defense, raising the National Industrial Recovery Act, raising The Privileges And Immunities Clause, raising The Equal Protection Clause, raising the Uniform Commercial Code (which only applies in CIVIL cases, not CRIMINAL cases, such as this), raising the claim that he is a "Private Attorney General" (a term which does not apply in any CRIMINAL case and which NO DEFENDANT, such as Rod Class was in this case, can ever be). The court described Class' amateur legal theories as follows, "[They are] UTTERLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE" (a sign of MENTAL ILLNESS) "purport to cite legal principles that either DO NOT EXIST (a certain sign of MENTAL ILLNESS) or are provisions of civil law [that are] WHOLLY INAPPLICABLE to this criminal case (also a sign of MENTAL ILLNESS)", and holding that Class’ purported defenses "ARE IRRELEVANT", "INAPPLICABLE", TOTALLY UNRELATED", ENTIRELY INAPPLICABLE", have "NO APPARENT RELEVANCE", and are UNSUPPORTED AND IRRELEVANT" (all signs of MENTAL ILLNESS).

2). U.S. v. Harding, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006 This case also addressed the following amateur legal theories which are also peddled by Rod Class (ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming that The United States IS A CORPORATION with no jurisdiction outside the District Of Columbia, claiming that there was no victim which Harding (an amateur legal theorist) mistakenly believed is called a "corpus delicti" (which actually means "body of the crime", NOT "body of the victim injured or killed by the violation"), claiming that "the fringe on the American flag [in the courtroom] denotes ADMRALTY [jurisdiction]" (as if the fringe on the American flag in the courtroom had the power to change the WRITTEN WORDS of the REAL law in the books at the law library several miles away).

5). U.S. v. Beavers, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006. This case also address addresses several other amateur legal theories which are also peddled by Rod Class (AND ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): denying citizenship, denying residency and claiming to be a freeman, claiming sovereign citizenship, claiming foreign citizenship and alleging "a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic [sounding] gibberish".

8). U.S. v. Bowden, https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...2&as_sdt=40006. This case also addresses several other amateur legal theories which are also peddled by Rod Class (ALL OF WHICH FAILED HERE): claiming foreign diplomatic immunity from prosecution on the grounds of being an "ambassador from the Kingdom of God", claiming foreign state immunity from prosecution by claiming to be a foreign "state, rather than a U.S. citizen", claiming that "no contract existed" which required the taxpayer to pay taxes (as if that would make any difference), claiming that the federal court had no jurisdiction because the defendants were "citizens of the sovereign state of... [their home state] over which the IRS had no authority", claiming that the taxpayer was "not a citizen of the United States, but rather a 'Citizen of the Sovereign Body Politic of the Republic state of... [his home state]", claiming to be the victim of [imaginary] "constitutional deprivations, treasons and generalized abuse of power".

THE BOTTOM LINE: Note that ALL amateur legal theories are always EXACTLY BACKWARDS and OPPOSITE to what the REAL law actually is. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! Amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL. They are FAKE. They are LIES. Amateur legal theories and the REAL law are the EXACT OPPOSITES of one another. Amateur legal theories are an IMAGINARY ALTERNATIVE to the REAL law that is actually used by the REAL legal system and the entire rest of the world. Amateur legal theories have a 100% FAILURE RATE in court BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKE. They are NOT INTENDED TO WORK and they DO NOT WORK! They never have. They never will. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to attempt to discredit and delegitimize our REPUBLICAN form of government, the ELECTED representatives of "We the People" and to incite hatred and violence against innocent Americans. Nothing more.

FACT: Just in case you do not already know, all FUTURE DECISIONS on the subject of these same amateur legal theories WILL FOLLOW THE DECISIONS SHOWN ABOVE (CALLED "PRECEDENT"). So, the law on these same subjects will always be the same as reflected in the cases above. https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/binding-precedent/. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent. https://dictionary.thelaw.com/binding-precedent/.

I hope this helps.

All The Best,

Snoop
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
Are you starting to see the picture?
There I thought I would spread around some of your redlipstick. cute is it not? There is no temporary detainment because if there was then you would be detained for what ever reason some POS wanted to detain you for. Detainment is arrest and just because common errors happen does not make it acceptable to arrest people. But you? You would rather be violated than free as your writing suggests. here brought one down for just you.

A privilege is, as it were, a private law.
there, driving is a privilege which is private law. Not your law but their law. Does their law affect you? shouldn't. But you want it to affect you so you want it to affect all the rest of us kind of how your melting snowflake posterior is.

NOT happening here as points of law do not make law just as common errors are not law. There is a process of arrest and back to the common law aka law merchant which has polluted it; the common law. the first way to get arrested is disturbing the peace the second way is to commit a felony and the third way is upon warrant based upon probable cause.

So take you euphemisms and tell the polite officer that you want another one of them....*referencing animal house.*

you obviously do not know what an arrest is.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
ALL gun laws violate the Second Amendment !
What part of "shall not be infringed", do they NOT understand ?
Any law that exempts one part of society but controls the other part. They are numerous !

What I have to do your work for you. Antone that knows Marbury V Madison knows :
The very last paragraph.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged.
TAEZZAR,

Thank you for your comments. I will respond to the individually below.

1. What I have to do your work for you.
RESPONSE: I think this is supposed to mean, "Why do I have to do your work for you." Assuming this is correct, my answer is, "You don't". As an expert in the law, I am already familiar with this case and its holding.

But, you cited this case in support of the claim that, "THERE ARE MANY LAWS THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, therefore UNTRUE & UNJUSTLY ENFORCED BY TYRANTS within our system." But, Marbury v. Madison DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT PROPOSITION. Instead, Marbury v. Madison simply held that, "a law repugnant to the constitution is void.... ." There is NOTHING about that holding or any other language in Marbury v. Madison WHICH SUPPORTS THE PROPOSITION THAT"THERE ARE MANY LAWS THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, OR THAT THOSE LAWS ARE UNJUSTLY ENFORCED BY TYRANTS within our system." That is my point.

SEE PROOF HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...188&q="Marbury+v.+Madison"&hl=en&as_sdt=40006


2. Antone that knows Marbury V Madison knows: The very last paragraph.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged.

RESPONSE: I think this is supposed to mean, "Anyone who knows Marbury v. Madison, knows the very last paragraph." Assuming this understanding is correct, my response is, "Yes. I am already familiar with this case and its holding.

But, you cited that case in support of the following claim, "THERE ARE MANY LAWS THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, therefore UNTRUE & UNJUSTLY ENFORCED BY TYRANTS within our system." But, Marbury v. Madison DOES NOT SUPPORT THAT PROPOSITION. Instead, Marbury v. Madison simply held that, "a law repugnant to the constitution is void.... ." There is NOTHING about that holding or any other language in Marbury v. Madison WHICH SUPPORTS THE PROPOSITION THAT"THERE ARE MANY LAWS THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, OR THAT THOSE LAWS ARE UNJUSTLY ENFORCED BY TYRANTS within our system." That is my point.


With that said, I applaud you for accurately quoting the language that you cited above. Many (if not all) of the quotes of the law on amateur legal theory websites ARE ENTIRELY FAKE. Thank you for accurately quoting this case, even though it does not support your claims.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,530
Likes
6,162
Location
right here right now
But shhhh poop, nothing that you write is the truth. Everything that you write here is your opinion, not fact, or even FACT.

We humans are interested in common law and Gods law. Please take your admirality and fake equity and cram it back into the corporations they service...
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
But shhhh poop, nothing that you write is the truth. Everything that you write here is your opinion, not fact, or even FACT.

We humans are interested in common law and Gods law. Please take your admirality and fake equity and cram it back into the corporations they service...
Arminius,

First, I have spent the last few days researching and writing a response to the cut and paste document that you posted above in comment 202. I have not forgotten you.

Second, thank you for your comments. I will respond to them individually below.

1. nothing that you write is the truth.
RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is not so. Everything that I write is the truth. Please provide us with one single sentence of mine above which you contend is not true.

2. Everything that you write here is your opinion, not fact, or even FACT.
RESPONSE: This is not so. The law to which I have provided you with quotes and links above is not my "opinion". The law to which I have provided you with quotes and links above is not even my own words. I did not write a single word of it. So, none of that law is my "opinion". In the sense that I have provided you with the real law above, I have provided you with FACT, not opinion (and not amateur legal theories}

3. We humans are interested in common law and Gods law.
RESPONSE: Good. Every single case to which I have you with quotes and links IS THE COMMON LAW!

4. Please take your admiralty and fake equity and cram it back into the corporations they service...
RESPONSE: The notion that every case in the world secretly involves admiralty law (or admiralty jurisdiction) is not true. It is just another amateur legal theory. In the real law, admiralty law only applies to real shipping on the real high seas. Nothing else. Except for my few responses to Goldhedge's few cut and paste comments on admiralty, I have not posted quotes or links above to a single admiralty law. As to your claims about "fake equity", you do not know what "equity" means. You would have to know what "real equity" is in order for you to know what "fake equity" is. Explain to us what you think "equity" is.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,530
Likes
6,162
Location
right here right now
up yours pal. I don't jump thru your bs hoops period
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
9,866
Likes
6,142
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
some one does not read the context of the case law they cite and they do cite a lot of it...….and! Once again: Points of law do not law make.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,566
Likes
57,595
Location
Rocky Mountains

HOW DID HE WIN?

He was facing 4 years in jail according to the alleged judge, He walked out of court, did not pay any fees to the court and under threat and duress agreed to un supervised probation where he agreed to have his truck searched (that is the only thing he agreed to). No jury found him guilty of anything, so there was no conviction or sentencing.

This video shows the fraud of the Court system and the treason and rebellion against the rights of people guaranteed by the Constitution. It also shows what was done to stop the abuse by the Clerk of the Court, the District Attorney and the alleged Judge. They refused to file documents, refused to respond to documents, the Appellate court refused to rebut the Writ of Prohibition filed.

No jurisdiction was ever shown to exist, and no court of record was ever established. No contract with the court was ever entered into, and Averill (judge) claimed in open court "You cant opt out of the system" in response to refusing to file Gary's county recorder file stamped Affidavit of non U.S. Citizenship and supporting court cases on his right to travel. Gary was looking at 4 years in jail, walked out with unsupervised probation limited to one issue. Filed: Affidavit to Abate, Habeas Corpus, Counterclaim, Judicial Performance criminal complaint, Subpoena to Attorney General to testify to Constitutionality of Codes (refused by A.G.) and Motion to Quash.

Immafreemanns advice: Never refuse to sign ticket, sign ticket non-assumpsit or no-contract or under protest. If you refuse, cop will take you to jail and the pain starts. If not in jail, you don't pay bail, don't go to immediate arraignment where ordered to plea, don't have public defender who waives all your rights ordered to represent the DEFENDANT, and once you pay bail they can take your money but without bail you can refuse to show up and instead file your paperwork requiring abatement and your Habeas Corpus and state your refusal to have any party represent you, prove your right to defend yourself and not be "re-presented" or be forced to agree to "re-present the DEFENDANT".

Notice the routine scheme to force a PublicDefender on you immediately who then waives all rights? File your affidavits of fact and make the record by getting file stamped copies, shows their intent to commit fraud later when they refuse to rebut them and proceed without jurisdiction. Then any orders given can be countered with a writ of error or a void judgment for a failure to prove jurisdiction. Do your homework get a copy of everything in your file 15 days after being accused and prove no warrant or probable cause hearing had taken place, or any sworn complaint by a first hand witness exists in the record, and get a copy of the Docket also showing same. Take a witness if possible who then files an affidavit of no sworn witness oath (in front of another) alleging you commited a crime was in the record at the court.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12

HOW DID HE WIN?

He was facing 4 years in jail according to the alleged judge, He walked out of court, did not pay any fees to the court and under threat and duress agreed to un supervised probation where he agreed to have his truck searched (that is the only thing he agreed to). No jury found him guilty of anything, so there was no conviction or sentencing.

This video shows the fraud of the Court system and the treason and rebellion against the rights of people guaranteed by the Constitution. It also shows what was done to stop the abuse by the Clerk of the Court, the District Attorney and the alleged Judge. They refused to file documents, refused to respond to documents, the Appellate court refused to rebut the Writ of Prohibition filed.

No jurisdiction was ever shown to exist, and no court of record was ever established. No contract with the court was ever entered into, and Averill (judge) claimed in open court "You cant opt out of the system" in response to refusing to file Gary's county recorder file stamped Affidavit of non U.S. Citizenship and supporting court cases on his right to travel. Gary was looking at 4 years in jail, walked out with unsupervised probation limited to one issue. Filed: Affidavit to Abate, Habeas Corpus, Counterclaim, Judicial Performance criminal complaint, Subpoena to Attorney General to testify to Constitutionality of Codes (refused by A.G.) and Motion to Quash.

Immafreemanns advice: Never refuse to sign ticket, sign ticket non-assumpsit or no-contract or under protest. If you refuse, cop will take you to jail and the pain starts. If not in jail, you don't pay bail, don't go to immediate arraignment where ordered to plea, don't have public defender who waives all your rights ordered to represent the DEFENDANT, and once you pay bail they can take your money but without bail you can refuse to show up and instead file your paperwork requiring abatement and your Habeas Corpus and state your refusal to have any party represent you, prove your right to defend yourself and not be "re-presented" or be forced to agree to "re-present the DEFENDANT".

Notice the routine scheme to force a PublicDefender on you immediately who then waives all rights? File your affidavits of fact and make the record by getting file stamped copies, shows their intent to commit fraud later when they refuse to rebut them and proceed without jurisdiction. Then any orders given can be countered with a writ of error or a void judgment for a failure to prove jurisdiction. Do your homework get a copy of everything in your file 15 days after being accused and prove no warrant or probable cause hearing had taken place, or any sworn complaint by a first hand witness exists in the record, and get a copy of the Docket also showing same. Take a witness if possible who then files an affidavit of no sworn witness oath (in front of another) alleging you commited a crime was in the record at the court.
Goldhedge,

First, I have to know, do you actually believe this guy? Really?

He obviously believes that amateur legal theories are real. But, they are not. They are FAKE.

I am willing to bet that this guy simply made up this bullshit story to help him sell amateur legal theories to others.

IF (and that is big "IF") he ever really "won" a case, it was not because he used amateur legal theories. It was for an entirely different reason.

Amateur legal theories have no effect on anything. They do not do anything.

Got a full legal name of this guy or a case number, so I can pull the court file and verify the accuracy of his claims?

Thanks,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,530
Likes
6,162
Location
right here right now
Great video above about dealing with the psychopaths that claw their way up to judgeships in the lucrative devilship of commercial courts pretending to have jurisdiction. True there may be some good honest folks in those ranks, but I assure you that they are few and far between. I have met in person a few of these psychopaths and first hand witnessed this psychopathy. I once watched a stymied DA put his head between his hands at the obviousness of the greed and psychopathy the judge was exhibiting as the judge took over prosecuting the case.

Consider the token power they get to wield, as aptly demonstrated in the vid above. This is true psychopath territory. The truth is far beyond these escapades of gross invented greed perpetuated and maintained by these psychopaths.

Every bit as much as the lying psychopath who is here trying to get us to believe that past judgements by other greedy psychopaths rule over us real men and women people. They do this by getting us to accept the fictions they spin to control us.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
Great video above about dealing with the psychopaths that claw their way up to judgeships in the lucrative devilship of commercial courts pretending to have jurisdiction. True there may be some good honest folks in those ranks, but I assure you that they are few and far between. I have met in person a few of these psychopaths and first hand witnessed this psychopathy. I once watched a stymied DA put his head between his hands at the obviousness of the greed and psychopathy the judge was exhibiting as the judge took over prosecuting the case.

Consider the token power they get to wield, as aptly demonstrated in the vid above. This is true psychopath territory. The truth is far beyond these escapades of gross invented greed perpetuated and maintained by these psychopaths.

Every bit as much as the lying psychopath who is here trying to get us to believe that past judgements by other greedy psychopaths rule over us real men and women people. They do this by getting us to accept the fictions they spin to control us.
Arminius,

I am still working on my response to your long cut and paste article peddling amateur legal theories. I have not forgotten you.

Thank you for your comments above. I will respond to them individually below.

1. Great video above about dealing with the psychopaths that claw their way up to judgeships in the lucrative devilship of commercial courts.
RESPONSE: All of the judges who preside over all traffic court cases (including this one) WERE ELECTED BY "WE THE PEOPLE". While "We the People" occasionally ELECT the wrong person to be a judge, "We the People" usually get it right. As to your claim that ELECTED public servants like ELECTED judges have lucrative jobs, that is not so. These ELECTED judges do not receive the money that traffic offenders pay in fines. The state does. Virtually every attorney who becomes an ELECTED judge TAKES A SEVERE PAY CUT TO SERVE THE PEOPLE. If they wanted lucrative jobs, they would have remained in private practice and made an unlimited amount of money.

2. pretending to have jurisdiction.
RESPONSE: I realize that it hard for you to accept, but ELECTED traffic court judges do not pretend to have jurisdiction over the people before them. ELECTED traffic court judges do have jurisdiction over the people before them. This is because the state is simply all of the people of the state speaking with a single voice through their ELECTED representatives. And, these ELECTED judges are part of the ELECTED government of the state (which is simply all of the people of the state). The state {all of the people of the state} ALREADY HAS JURISDICTION over every individual inside the borders of the state (whether a citizen or not, whether a resident or not, whether they consent to jurisdiction or not, whether they entered into a contract with the state or not, whether the law refers to them by name or not, whether they are paid or not, etc.). The state {all of the people of the state} has had jurisdiction over all of the individuals within their state borders for decades, if not centuries. All that is necessary for the state (which is simply all of the people of the state) to have jurisdiction over you is for you to be inside the borders of the state. Nothing more. Nothing you do (or do not do) after being stopped inside the borders of a state has any affect on the state's jurisdiction over you. Nothing the state does (or does not do) after stopping you inside the borders of the state has any affect on the state's jurisdiction over you. The "consent" that is necessary to have jurisdiction over you comes from all of the people of the state COLLECTIVELY, not from you INDIVIDUALLY. And, the state has has that COLLECTIVE consent for decades if not centuries.

3. True there may be some good honest folks in those ranks, but I assure you that they are few and far between.
RESPONSE: If you knew more about the legal system, you would know that virtually all of these ELECTED judges are good honest folks. It is the bad ELECTED judges who are really few and far between.

4. I have met in person a few of these psychopaths and first hand witnessed this psychopathy. I once watched a stymied DA put his head between his hands at the obviousness of the greed and psychopathy the judge was exhibiting as the judge took over prosecuting the case. Consider the token power they get to wield, as aptly demonstrated in the vid above. This is true psychopath territory. The truth is far beyond these escapades of gross invented greed perpetuated and maintained by these psychopaths.
RESPONSE: The reason that amateur legal theorists perceive ELECTED judges to be psychopaths is because ELECTED judges do not conform to amateur legal theories. Instead, they conform to real law, as they are legally required to do. But, amateur legal theorists do not know anything about the real law. Instead, they mistakenly believe that amateur legal theories are the law. But, they are not. So, when a judge disregards amateur legal theories ("I am a sovereign government", "I do not consent to jurisdiction", "I have a right to travel which is the same thing as the right to drive a car without a license", "I was not engaged in commerce", "laws do not apply outside Washington, D.C.", etc.) and proceeds forward with the case, amateur legal theorist interpret such as "corruption". But, it is not. The ELECTED judges are simply following the law. Because amateur legal theorists know nothing about the REAL law, they can not recognize it when they actually see it in action with their own eyes (as reflected by the comment above as a whole).

5. Every bit as much as the lying psychopath who is here trying to get us to believe that past judgments by other greedy psychopaths rule over us real men and women people. They do this by getting us to accept the fictions they spin to control us.
RESPONSE: My telling the truth about the law does not make me a lying psychopath. If you knew more about the real law, you would know that past judgments by other greedy psychopaths provide you more rights, not less of them. But, no judgments by other greedy psychopaths uphold amateur legal theories ("I am a sovereign government", "I do not consent to jurisdiction", "I have a right to travel which is the same thing as the right to drive a car without a license", "I was not engaged in commerce", "laws do not apply outside Washington, D.C.", etc.). This is because amateur legal theories are NOT REAL. They are FAKE. No court has (or ever will) uphold FAKE law (amateur legal theories). Courts will only uphold REAL law. My purpose here is the teach you the difference.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,530
Likes
6,162
Location
right here right now
My purpose here is the teach you the difference.
Ohhh, aren't you so special...

Truth is you're so obviously vested interest sucked in by your lying guild fictitious world that you really don't have a clue of the real world.

Coming here to teach us to be your slaves to your commercial fake law isn't going to work...
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,566
Likes
57,595
Location
Rocky Mountains
Goldhedge,
First, I have to know, do you actually believe this guy? Really?
IF (and that is big "IF") he ever really "won" a case, it was not because he used amateur legal theories. It was for an entirely different reason.
Got a full legal name of this guy or a case number, so I can pull the court file and verify the accuracy of his claims?
Snoop
Point is... you never 'win' a case because it's dismissed for fraud by the court! If your case is dismissed... where is the case number??
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
Point is... you never 'win' a case because it's dismissed for fraud by the court! If your case is dismissed... where is the case number??
Goldhedge,

1. Point is... you never 'win' a case because it's dismissed for fraud by the court!
RESPONSE: Not so. The ELECTED judge does not dismiss a case because of his/her own fraud. The ELECTED judge is not a party to the case and has no interest in the outcome of the case. It is the other way around. It is the parties who engage in fraud on the court. The ELECTED judge does not introduce any fraudulent testimony or fraudulent document into evidence, the parties do, because they have an interest in the outcome. If a case really is dismissed for fraud, it because of the ELECTED judge is dismissing the case for fraud on the court by one of the parties, who have an interest in the case. While federal judges are appointed and confirmed by those ELECTED by "We the People", the following is an example of a federal judge dismissing a case for such reasons. READ THE SECOND (2nd) PARAGRAPH HERE. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...nt-federal-misconduct-bureau-land-management/.


2. If your case is dismissed... where is the case number?
RESPONSE: You misunderstand what a case number is. Every case is assigned a case number at the time it is filed with the court (not when the case is over or when it is "won"). Every subsequent document filed in that case must have that same case number on its face. This insures that every document filed in court goes to the correct court file. SO, EVERY CASE HAS A CASE NUMBER AND LAWYERS CAN FIND A CASE BY USING THAT CASE NUMBER YEARS AND DECADES LATER. Rod Class has LOST 76 cases in a row. And, I have the case number of all 76 of his LOSES.

If you do not have the case number, tell me what this guy's full legal name is and I will be able to find all of his cases anyway, including the one he claims to have won using amateur legal theories in the video above.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
Ohhh, aren't you so special...

Truth is you're so obviously vested interest sucked in by your lying guild fictitious world that you really don't have a clue of the real world.

Coming here to teach us to be your slaves to your commercial fake law isn't going to work...
Arminius,

1. Truth is you're so obviously vested interest sucked in by your lying guild fictitious world that you really don't have a clue of the real world.
RESPONSE: Not so. I know that here in the real world, amateur legal theories are the exact opposite of the real law that I have provided to you above. For that reason, I know that here in the real world, amateur legal theories cannot possibly work in a real case when your legal rights and liberties are at stake. I know that here in the real world, amateur legal theories have not worked in one single case, as the cases above clearly demonstrate. I realize that you want amateur legal theories to be real. I realize that you want amateur legal theories to be true. I realize that you want amateur legal theories to work. But, amateur legal theories ARE NOT REAL, ARE NOT TRUE and DO NOT WORK. Your wishful thinking will not make these lies become the truth. They will still be lies.

2. Coming here to teach us to be your slaves to your commercial fake law isn't going to work.
RESPONSE: Your living in a make-believe world of amateur legal theories IS THE REAL SLAVERY. I am trying to free you from that make-believe world in which you are COMPLETELY ENSALVED. The truth about the REAL law DOES NOT MAKE YOU A SLAVE. To the contrary, the truth about the law empowers you. Nothing could possibly make you more of a slave than your desperately clinging to a delusional belief system that is not real and which cannot be used here in the real world.

I remind you that there are also people in the Caribbean who genuinely believe that sticking pins into dolls can kill other people a thousand miles away. But, here in the real world, sticking pins into dolls will not kill anyone. It does not matter how much chicken blood is shed. It does not matter how much of a frenzy these adherents work themselves into beforehand. It does not matter what occult symbols are displayed, what chants are uttered or how repetitious the drum beat is. Sticking pins into dolls will not kill anybody. Amateur legal theory is a lot like that. It's believers have an unshakable belief that it is real and that it works. But, here in the real world, that is simply not true. To kill someone here in the real world, you will have to resort to more sophisticated and reliable approaches, like using a gun. Real law is like that. Amateur legal theorists bring dolls and dead chickens into a war where the other side will be armed with guns. The guys with the guns are going to win. The point is simply this. Amateur legal theories, like Voodoo is not real. Here in the real world, amateur legal theories, like dolls and dead chickens have no affect on anything. So, my advice is to throw away your dolls and dead chickens and take your guns to court (of course, you need to be able to tell the difference). Taking your guns to court does not make you a "slave". Your unshakable belief that amateur legal theories, like dolls and dead chickens will overpower guns, is what really makes you a "slave".

Your hatred of me is misdirected. You should hate those that have lied to you about the true status of the law. You should applaud those who tell you truth about the true status of the law and who provide you with proof in the form of quotes and links to the real law itself.

I have no way to benefit by providing you with the truth. I have no way to benefit by empowering you with the truth. I have no way to benefit by raising your legal IQ and your legal competency. It costs me my time and my effort to do so. But, if I can save just one American from falling victim to this delusional belief system, it will all be worth it.

All The Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,530
Likes
6,162
Location
right here right now
I don't hate you, I just despise your pedantic idiotic hubris. And the fact that everything you say is a lie.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,566
Likes
57,595
Location
Rocky Mountains
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
206
Likes
12
great book...

From SOVEREIGN to SERF_Roger_S_Sayles.pdf (PDFy mirror)

https://archive.org/details/pdfy-HPxvNRrx-qHKMQOg/page/n1
Goldhedge,

A recent post of your was a video produced by an amateur legal theorist. This post above is an article written by an amateur legal theorist. Amateur legal theorists obtain their information about the law ONLY from other amateur legal theorists. But, the real law can only be found in the actual written words of the real law itself. You would be better served by simply clicking on the links to the real law that I have provided on these very same legal subjects.

In the video post of yours, the amateur legal theorist claimed to have won a driver's license case by raising his right to travel (which under the real law has nothing to do with driving anything). In the article above an amateur legal theorist claims that an individual in our country has been reduced from a "sovereign" to a "serf" (despite that under the real law, no individual has ever been sovereign in the first place). That means that the title of these two posts alone reflect claims that are in direct conflict with the real law on the these very same subjects. And, yet, amateur legal theorists cannot get enough of these lies.

If you want to know more about amateur legal theories, then watching and reading material from amateur legal theories makes perfect sense. But, if you want the truth about the real law, you will only find it by reading the actual written words of the real law itself. If you want to know the truth about the real law, then you will have to stop avoiding it in the way that you clearly are.

Would you like to know how to find the real law yourself?

All The Best, Snoop
 
Last edited:

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,566
Likes
57,595
Location
Rocky Mountains

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,530
Likes
6,162
Location
right here right now
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.



=============================================
No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9(or their equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one's job. With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent. http://www.preferredservices.org/NonconsentualTaking.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a one-way announcement list. Only the list moderators are able to post a message.
To subscribe: Paycheck-Piracy-on@mail-list.com
To unsubscribe: Paycheck-Piracy-off@mail-list.com
Update your email address, send a message to Paycheck-Piracy-change@mail-list.com with your old address in the Subject: area

Archived files: http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,530
Likes
6,162
Location
right here right now
Courts, Names and the Cestui Que Vie Trust


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
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,566
Likes
57,595
Location
Rocky Mountains
Which is why there are no court cases cited before the 1933 bankruptcy of the US...
 

arminius

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
4,530
Likes
6,162
Location
right here right now
^ do you mean this part?

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.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
38,566
Likes
57,595
Location
Rocky Mountains
Correct.

In "traffic" court
I would ask for full disclosure and evidence of jurisdiction.