Do You UNDERSTAND the Charges Against You Today? How do You Plead?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I am a Mason...It is not a conspiracy, it is a model and a template with proven effectiveness! Mason's also tend to be leaders in their community, and as such they have influence over how things are run.

What degree Mason are you, sir?

This is just some amazing stuff here! Excellent advice from all of you! ( Bowing, I'm not worthy)

I saw a clip on TV of someone being "sentenced" (note the legal def of "sentence" and the colloquial are different) and the judge asked this question: Do you understand and accept the terms of this sentence?"

These are TWO separate questions, yet they are tied together - total manipulations of the mind. The first of course is "understand' and the human brain simply latches onto that one and responds yes and ignores the second (understand means two different things as well). Why ask if one "accepts," according to many of the folks on the thread who say the judge is godlike, why ask the question at all? Why if the judge is godlike, does he need to get the person's acceptance? Even worse, the person didn't answer, the lawyer did (as the person is of course dead in the court.).

For clarity as some seem to miss what is being said. To argue with the court once jurisdiction has been given is a failed effort. Those who say that saying you are sovereign and the rules don't apply won't work are right, but the reasoning is a bit off. People who say this when they have already given jurisdiction will loose, as they have entered into contract and agreed to jurisdiction, they are just offering a legal "defense." The OP's point is to say that one should never give jurisdiction in the first place, thereby eliminating the whole defense argument.

One might think of it this way. A guy walking down the street calls you out and wants to fight. You're a pretty good fighter, what you don't know is the other guy has a gun. So you have a decision to make, accept the fight, or walk away. Most folks think because the "judge" asks you to fight you must - remember he has a gun. The OP's point is do not fight, you cannot win - he has a gun, instead realize you do not have to fight and you can resolve the matter in another manner.

It should be said as well, if you fear the law, jail, judges, fines etc. simply do what is done and there is something to be said for it given the state of things. There is no harm in it as this is what is and has been done. No one is asking you not you. What is being suggested in these threads and by others, is to stop being frightened, take back your power, stop being a slave first and a natural human being second. Start to see you are free, even the system that takes from you every single day, when it wants and how it wants, knows you are a naturally free person. As Proto has so eloquently pointed out in many threads, the system is rigged to make you forget that fact, leave it alone as if it is dangerous to you, but in fact is is dangerous to the system, a system that hates you to begin with and controls you simply by creating fear and insecurity when faced with it.

It should also be noted that those who suggest because someone has failed at working this part of the system is proof it does not work. Not all people are equal in their skills. Many go about things wrong, or without clarity, or are not intelligent enough etc. Failure does not negate something. I have come to see that those who are successful at things rarely say anything at all, so there is most likely a significant population of people who use these notions to their betterment and keep it to themselves.

To those who point to case law as PROVING that all of this is nonsense. The logic is flawed. A: Case law is law contained within the fight, they are rules made up in the system one is trying to avoid. The "case law" for the OP's notions is what exactly what he states - there cannot be case law to say that case law does not apply. The second problem is most obvious, no court is every going to make case law rendering itself obsolete. Those who have fought tickets on the law of contracts have been TOSSED OUT. The judge does not go back into chambers and write case law, he ignores it as the whole thing has nothing to do with him - no fight took place.

Many people here don't realize they are providing/suggesting ARGUMENTS to the judge.
You do not want to argue with a judge. Please take time to research Admiralty jurisdiction and Honor & Dishonor.

There are three ways to honor and two ways to dishonor a legal process or court hearing. You must be in HONOR the WHOLE time! Please take time to research Honor & Dishonor because I won't go into the honorable/dishonorable details here... the 3 Honorables are "Accord & Satisfaction" "Conditional Acceptance" "Rejection without Dishonor"... Dishonorables are "ARGUMENT" or "SILENCE" and if you answer this way the judge can do whatever he wants at that point.

If a judge asks you to stand, answer with:"I shall stand your honor, but I do not waive any common law rights nor do I grant any In-personam jurisdiction"

If asked your name answer: "your honor, I shall give you my name upon proof of claim that there is a controversy before the court."

The above two answers are "Conditional Agreements". This is exactly what you want, you agree while throwing the ball back at the judge. If they never get jurisdiction, they cannot proceed. If you reply with "Accord & Satisfaction" by actually answering those questions without conditionals you are playing by their rules and you give them all the jurisdiction they need!

It is EXTREMELY easy to make an argumentative statement. If the judge asks you about the paper or citations he is holding and you answer "I don't know" then you're being argumentative.

I suggest everyone educate themselves as best they can, the government certainly doesn't have your best interest in mind.

I'm not an attorney and this is not legal advice.