Video: Judge Admits That The Court Is A Common Law Court - Are Freemen Correct?

reply to post by Chinesis


In front of the Judge, you state for the record that YOU are the beneficiary, which you are in THAT circumstance, then you state that YOU are appointing the JUDGE as TRUSTEE and that he do your bidding. The Prosecutor IS the executor as s/he has created the debt, the charge AGAINST the strawman debtor.

I have studied this long and hard to find loopholes and inconsistencies in the arguement. I have not found anything wrong with the arguements and have used them with great success.

YOU can change "actor" positions when the need arises. As YOU are the power and the authority.

reply to post by daddio

BUT, through subversion and deciet, we have been enslaved the world over. That said, how do we address the OP's situation? Well, I think a review of the "statutes" are in order and the Inclusio unius est Exclusio Alterius.

I am reviewing the statute the O.P. provided me, and will not speak to it until I have had the time to properly review it. That said, I whole heartedly agree with you that it has been through subversion and deceit that the people have allowed themselves to become slaves to tyranny.

The truth will set us free, and this is why this thread remains an important thread, and why the freedom fighters in this thread - not a single one of them, (to the best of my knowledge) imprudently calling for violent revolution - are working so diligently and so hard at defeating the mysticism of the priest class set.

Hawkiye in an earlier post spoke to the practice of using the term "freeman" as if it is pejorative and I fear to some degree, by distancing myself from that movement, that I have been somewhat guilty of playing into the practice of using "freeman" as a pejorative. Although I have made clear that my alliances are much more in line with the freeman movement than the odious government sycophants, I feel compelled to clarify some of my concerns with the freeman movement.

I pay as much attention as I can to what this movement is trying to communicate, and I believe someone in this very thread spoke to how difficult it is extricating oneself from the system and how important it is to make sure that the exact right wording is used or else 'they got you'. It is exactly this that makes me question the movement. It is almost as if I am an outsider very much aligned with the forces of good, but I the human watching the wizard Gandalf (the freeman movement) do epic battle with the evil wizard Saruman (the priest class lawyer), and both rely heavily upon mysticism to do this battle. I remain human and understand only what I can in those terms, and remain mystified by all this legalese nonsense.

I also remain convinced that one need not know legalese in order to know the law, and when one knows the law no amount of mysticism will work.

The law - all law - is simple, true, universal and absolute. The law is self evident, and what is self evident needs no explanation. When legislation is presented as law but requires explanation, this is the first clue it is not law, merely legislation.

Let Gandalf and Saruman do their battles, if humanity ever hopes to free themselves from the bondage of slavery they must learn to abandon mysticism in favor of truth, which like law, is simple, true, universal, and absolute.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


This knowledge you've shared just makes too much sense!

I must clarify myself when I insinuate that society would degrade to chaos, of course that wouldn't happen (at least for long), but what would transpire is the dictators and self appointed rulers would probably wish to commit suicide. They wouldn't have anymore subjects to rule!

I stand by this information will never become mainstream or have a legitimate push for the reasoning that TPTB would be unable to handle "free" people.

I will love to see this movement gain more legs and would even be willing to be one of the legs myself.

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

What most here do not/can not comprehend nor do they understand it for obvious reasons, is that the "Federal Constitution" IS a corporate contract between the founding fathers. They did not trust each other. It was a very hard fought victory to get the Bill of Rights added at the end, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison worked hard to get it included TO PROTECT the actual and real people of America.

If you read the contract as it is written you will see the nuances in it that SHOW it to be just that, a contract for corporate control. This was the idea of the imperialists. SO, in that the "powers of the legislature" are supposedly vested IN the PEOPLE, which is not true, the powers are vested in the elected "people" and not the general population. Were ALL laws presente dto the people, like it should be, government would be limited, as it should be, and people would actually be free and the country would prosper.

BUT, through subversion and deciet, we have been enslaved the world over. That said, how do we address the OP's situation? Well, I think a review of the "statutes" are in order and the Inclusio unius est Exclusio Alterius.

We are flesh and blood living souls and NOT "persons" which IS corporate fictions, ALL law is commerce law/equity law. That is a fact no matter what anyone else thinks or states. I have posted cases that show this to be the case. WHY would there be, incapsulated in the definition of "person", "it has been held to also include foreign and domestic corporations"? That says it all, there is a difference between Natural Persons and "persons".

Symantics be damned. If the statute reads "any person", "a person" or "no person", IT DOES NOT APPLY TO FLESH AND BLOOD ACTUAL PEOPLE!!!! That's it.

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.

I am learning little by little Daddio. For instance the phrase Inclusio unius est Exclusio Alterius just came automatically to me as the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other.

Quick question to all...

Any of you in the central FL area that might be interested to work with me in "taking the system down?"

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You speak the absolute truth JPZ...

This is why our court system is an adversarial system in which the ultimate decision is in the hands of the jury.
The ultimate fate of those who are charged rests with a decision that is in the hands of 12 of the said charged individual's peers.

And the juror, the COMMON CITIZEN, has the MOST powerful vote in the system, which is their vote on a jury trial. This is more powerful than any vote in congress, the senate, the supreme court, or a decision by the sitting President.
As I said before, it only takes ONE person to hang a jury.
It only takes one common citizen on a jury trial to negate an entire statute that has been voted into as law and then passed by all 3 systems of government.

It only takes one. That is some serious power if correctly understood.
Just imagine if only 30% of the possible jurors were more aware of this.
We could change the legal landscape of America overnight.

Our court system was designed to bring justice to those who have suffered injustice at the hands of the unscrupulous.
It was not designed to establish some 600,000 odd codes and acts that we honestly probably break on a daily basis without being aware of it.
These codes were enacted for one reason and one reason only. To extract the wealth of the nation.

And that includes the mental health of a nation's human resources (God how I hate those two words).

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by daddio

 

BUT, through subversion and deciet, we have been enslaved the world over. That said, how do we address the OP's situation? Well, I think a review of the "statutes" are in order and the Inclusio unius est Exclusio Alterius.

I am reviewing the statute the O.P. provided me, and will not speak to it until I have had the time to properly review it. That said, I whole heartedly agree with you that it has been through subversion and deceit that the people have allowed themselves to become slaves to tyranny.

The truth will set us free, and this is why this thread remains an important thread, and why the freedom fighters in this thread - not a single one of them, (to the best of my knowledge) imprudently calling for violent revolution - are working so diligently and so hard at defeating the mysticism of the priest class set.

Hawkiye in an earlier post spoke to the practice of using the term "freeman" as if it is pejorative and I fear to some degree, by distancing myself from that movement, that I have been somewhat guilty of playing into the practice of using "freeman" as a pejorative. Although I have made clear that my alliances are much more in line with the freeman movement than the odious government sycophants, I feel compelled to clarify some of my concerns with the freeman movement.

I pay as much attention as I can to what this movement is trying to communicate, and I believe someone in this very thread spoke to how difficult it is extricating oneself from the system and how important it is to make sure that the exact right wording is used or else 'they got you'. It is exactly this that makes me question the movement. It is almost as if I am an outsider very much aligned with the forces of good, but I the human watching the wizard Gandalf (the freeman movement) do epic battle with the evil wizard Saruman (the priest class lawyer), and both rely heavily upon mysticism to do this battle. I remain human and understand only what I can in those terms, and remain mystified by all this legalese nonsense.

I also remain convinced that one need not know legalese in order to know the law, and when one knows the law no amount of mysticism will work.

The law - all law - is simple, true, universal and absolute. The law is self evident, and what is self evident needs no explanation. When legislation is presented as law but requires explanation, this is the first clue it is not law, merely legislation.

Let Gandalf and Saruman do their battles, if humanity ever hopes to free themselves from the bondage of slavery they must learn to abandon mysticism in favor of truth, which like law, is simple, true, universal, and absolute.

First, let me thank you for taking the time to take a look at the statues. I know that your time is valuable and you do not know me from Adam which makes me appreciate it even more.

What I find amusing in this whole thread is that not a single person was answered my question about missing enacting clause = no subject matter jurisdiction. I know that Duality is looking into it also (whether he is liked by people in this thread or not) I still appreciate it.

We are all men and women, free men and women as a matter of fact, which is why the court is not ready to allow any "freemen" to win their case on record.

Doing so would be to open Pandora's box and people would latch to that to secure their freedom like there's no tomorrow.

People are sick of other people trying to step on their freedoms.

As for me, I feel like I been in prison for many years considering that all of my licenses, professional or otherwise have been suspended (when I was blind and thinking that I needed licenses) and it is about time that I take back my freedom and tell the tyrants, enough!

I only feel free when I leave the state of FL, that alone shows that there is something wrong with this whole system.

The law - all law - is simple, true, universal and absolute. The law is self evident, and what is self evident needs no explanation. When legislation is presented as law but requires explanation, this is the first clue it is not law, merely legislation.

This just went in my motion, word for word! Hope you don't mind.

The truth will set us free, and this is why this thread remains an important thread, and why the freedom fighters in this thread - not a single one of them, (to the best of my knowledge) imprudently calling for violent revolution -

While we have the right to violently revolt, not a single person has called for that in this thread. The reason being is that all of us freedom fighters, as well as those that want to see the light understand that a violent revolution will allow the powers that be to crack down.

I think that we all have come together on a common goal, that we are all working together to find a solution to my problem as long as I keep my end of the unspoken bargain. That bargain is that no matter how I proceed, that I inform you all of the end result, how I handled the court etc.

This is a good thing for all parties as I can offer myself to be the sacrificial lamb and if it works we all celebrate, if it fails we can all learn WHY it failed and see where the hole is and plug it.

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by Chinesis

 

In front of the Judge, you state for the record that YOU are the beneficiary, which you are in THAT circumstance, then you state that YOU are appointing the JUDGE as TRUSTEE and that he do your bidding. The Prosecutor IS the executor as s/he has created the debt, the charge AGAINST the strawman debtor.

I have studied this long and hard to find loopholes and inconsistencies in the arguement. I have not found anything wrong with the arguements and have used them with great success.

YOU can change "actor" positions when the need arises. As YOU are the power and the authority.

I have heard of this but never seen it in action. I'll just add I read of a case where the man tried to appoint the judge as Trustee but the judge declined to be the trustee and the man did not know what to do so consequently got the brunt of it. the remedy is supposedly if the Judge declines the trustee appoint the prosecutor and order him ti drop the charges and destroy the records. If he is smart enough to decline remind them both with no trustee they cannot proceed. Maybe daddio can comment if he agrees or not.

Wow guys check this out:

Florida landscaper Jonathan Ryan was busted by New York City cops after being pulled over during a traffic stop for making a right turn on a red light. During the traffic stop, it came to light that he had mistakenly left a firearm in his trunk when he drove up from Florida to help his girlfriend move. Fortunately, a jury recognized that he committed no harm and that there was no victim, and therefore he committed no crime.

Fully Informed Jury Association Link

Again, "a jury recognized that he committed no harm and that there was no victim, and therefore he committed no crime."

And yet, people keep saying that these courts and judges are not MERCHANTS! You can "request a deal" from our Honorable OP video judge through Merchant Circle!

Request a deal from Honorable Belvin Berry

Request a Deal from Honorable Belvin Perry Jr

Thank you for your interest in Honorable Belvin Perry Jr. Once you have filled in your email address below, your request for a deal will be sent to 2 Government merchants in Orlando, FL.

Note: Your email will only be used for your transaction with this merchant - you will receive no unsolicited emails (i.e. spam) from MerchantCircle.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Hawkiye in an earlier post spoke to the practice of using the term "freeman" as if it is pejorative and I fear to some degree, by distancing myself from that movement, that I have been somewhat guilty of playing into the practice of using "freeman" as a pejorative. Although I have made clear that my alliances are much more in line with the freeman movement than the odious government sycophants, I feel compelled to clarify some of my concerns with the freeman movement.

I pay as much attention as I can to what this movement is trying to communicate, and I believe someone in this very thread spoke to how difficult it is extricating oneself from the system and how important it is to make sure that the exact right wording is used or else 'they got you'. It is exactly this that makes me question the movement. It is almost as if I am an outsider very much aligned with the forces of good, but I the human watching the wizard Gandalf (the freeman movement) do epic battle with the evil wizard Saruman (the priest class lawyer), and both rely heavily upon mysticism to do this battle. I remain human and understand only what I can in those terms, and remain mystified by all this legalese nonsense.

You are absolutely right Jean Paul but you have fallen for a bit of thier magic here still. The point is that what people label as the freeman movement is a blanket label and the label has been asserted by the attorney and politican class as derogatory of anyone who challenges their authority. They hold up some poor soul who tried to play thier game by out arguing with them over what thier statutes mean, they usually find the worst example they can, make an example out of him and claim he is the face of the so called "freemen" movement. And everyone who fell for it tries to distance themselves from it. See what I mean?

If you read my post concerning the OP's case I Told him his argument probably won't work, and to avoid all that make the judge prove he has the right to judge him instead That clears away the smoke and mirrors and gets right to the heart of the matter. Daddio gave him another option to remove the smoke and mirrors right from teh get go. We are the real face of the movement.

The problem is people do not know who they are and this allows the attorneys to work the magic on them and they try to out magic the attorneys not even knowing what kind of magic they are using. First thing people do when they go into court is sign in. They just gave consent to the court to decide the case however they please. Nothing else they do or say matters the judge will do what he wants. Why? Because you gave him permission. Some courts will have you sign afterwards but either way you are consenting to the proceedings with the judge having the last say. When the judge asks you your name ask him if you will be entering into a contract with him or the court if you answer, and see what he will say.... He'll not answer and try more smoke and mirrors via intimidation lying or whatever

These courts operate by presumption and it is up to you to rebut those presumptions. That is the smoke and mirrors. So you have to know what is is they are presuming about you. And they sure is hell are not going to tell you, that is your problems as far as they are concerned. And they go out of their way to obscure this using legalese or a different language. They are presuming you are a corporate fiction/chattle and subject to all the corporate policy known as statutes, most people don't know that and you see people here saying that is absurd etc. Even many of the attorneys don't understand that. It is in thier volumes of jurisprudence and other books and documents. The first presumption to rebut is that they have any jurisdiction over you. Learn how to do that and all else is moot.

This is why many people who go to court and get reemed don't understand how they ignored all the logic reason and even laws and case cites. Its very simple you gave them permission to do it and didn't even know you did. You are presumed to know the law and that signing a contract binds you to the contract. What you didn't know it was a contract? Well why didn't you find out what you were signing? If your a free man then you are responsible for your actions and it is assumed you understand what you are signing etc etc. You get the idea...

reply to post by greenovni


I am glad to see that you are fully beginning to understand the power that we have as citizens with our vote as a juror. The common citizen is the most powerful legislator in the land, but very few realize this.

The power of jury nullification was essentially established by common law precedent starting with the Zenger trial.
The jurors simply refused to issue a guilty verdict.

They were held in jail for weeks for not doing so, but they did not relent and they stayed in jail until justice was served. They truly had a set of values and morals that they were willing to die for.

As the late Bill Cooper (RIP) once said ,"if a person does not have a set of morals and values that they are willing to die for then that person is already dead."

greenovi.... I sincerely applaud what you are doing.

Earlier I actually asked you if there was a possibility of taking the verdict of deciding your constitutional issue in the state of FL to a jury trial.
I do not know if this is the case, but I do know that, despite what we are told, we have a guaranteed right to a jury trial.

I would seriously consider checking it out.

As I have said previously.... The only hope that we have remaining is for the people of this country to wake up to the God Given right bestowed upon them by birth in the country of America.
We have more power with our one jury vote than the entire system of legislation regarding law in America.

Best wishes my friend. Thank you for standing up for what is right.
But ask yourself one question....

To what degree do you wish to make yourself a martyr?

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by Chinesis

 

In front of the Judge, you state for the record that YOU are the beneficiary, which you are in THAT circumstance, then you state that YOU are appointing the JUDGE as TRUSTEE and that he do your bidding. The Prosecutor IS the executor as s/he has created the debt, the charge AGAINST the strawman debtor.

I have studied this long and hard to find loopholes and inconsistencies in the arguement. I have not found anything wrong with the arguements and have used them with great success.

YOU can change "actor" positions when the need arises. As YOU are the power and the authority.

I have heard of this but never seen it in action. I'll just add I read of a case where the man tried to appoint the judge as Trustee but the judge declined to be the trustee and the man did not know what to do so consequently got the brunt of it. the remedy is supposedly if the Judge declines the trustee appoint the prosecutor and order him ti drop the charges and destroy the records. If he is smart enough to decline remind them both with no trustee they cannot proceed. Maybe daddio can comment if he agrees or not.

edit on 15-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

The Judge CAN NOT refuse, when appointed, he must do your bidding. You see, the prosecutor, by filing the case is the executor. He can not escape that. He has created the debt by bringing forth the action, HE must settle the debt he created. The judge and prosecutor work together, so that is collusion and conspiracy to deprive, extortion is a better term but is harder to prove. The judge can also NOT practice law from the bench, that is a federal crime and a determination of law that does not exist. They have been getting away with it because no one challenges it. The biggest problem I have is WHERE IS THE GRAND JURY? For ANY crime to be enjoined into the court system, it must be found that there is probable cause of the case brought before a grand jury for indictment of YOU. Due Process.

I have used the beneficiary terms in court and they try and continue the case, seven times was the most I have dealt with, to see how far they would go before quitting. It is funny watching the eyes of the other people in the courtroom light up when you speak like this. They are amazed that it gets dismissed.

You MUST stick to your guns, take no flack and object. When he askes what you are objecting to, Determination, the judge can not make ANY determination FOR you, tell him you Reject his offer of Contract. Even if he gives you a new court date, Rejection of Offer to Contract. Done.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Hawkiye in an earlier post spoke to the practice of using the term "freeman" as if it is pejorative and I fear to some degree, by distancing myself from that movement, that I have been somewhat guilty of playing into the practice of using "freeman" as a pejorative. Although I have made clear that my alliances are much more in line with the freeman movement than the odious government sycophants, I feel compelled to clarify some of my concerns with the freeman movement.

I pay as much attention as I can to what this movement is trying to communicate, and I believe someone in this very thread spoke to how difficult it is extricating oneself from the system and how important it is to make sure that the exact right wording is used or else 'they got you'. It is exactly this that makes me question the movement. It is almost as if I am an outsider very much aligned with the forces of good, but I the human watching the wizard Gandalf (the freeman movement) do epic battle with the evil wizard Saruman (the priest class lawyer), and both rely heavily upon mysticism to do this battle. I remain human and understand only what I can in those terms, and remain mystified by all this legalese nonsense.

You are absolutely right Jean Paul but you have fallen for a bit of thier magic here still.

The point is that what people label as the freeman movement is a blanket label and the label has been asserted by the attorney and politican class as derogatory of anyone who challenges their authority. They hold up some poor soul who tried to play thier game by out arguing with them over what thier statutes mean, they usually find the worst example they can, make an example out of him and claim he is the face of the so called "freemen" movement. And everyone who fell for it tries to distance themselves from it. See what I mean?

If you read my post concerning the OP's case I Told him his argument probably won't work, and to avoid all that make the judge prove he has the right to judge him instead That clears away the smoke and mirrors and gets right to the heart of the matter. Daddio gave him another option to remove the smoke and mirrors right from teh get go. We are the real face of the movement.

The problem is people do not know who they are and this allows the attorneys to work the magic on them and they try to out magic the attorneys not even knowing what kind of magic they are using. First thing people do when they go into court is sign in. They just gave consent to the court to decide the case however they please. Nothing else they do or say matters the judge will do what he wants. Why? Because you gave him permission. Some courts will have you sign afterwards but either way you are consenting to the proceedings with the judge having the last say. When the judge asks you your name ask him if you will be entering into a contract with him or the court if you answer, and see what he will say.... He'll not answer and try more smoke and mirrors via intimidation lying or whatever

These courts operate by presumption and it is up to you to rebut those presumptions. That is the smoke and mirrors. So you have to know what is is they are presuming about you. And they sure is hell are not going to tell you, that is your problems as far as they are concerned. And they go out of their way to obscure this using legalese or a different language. They are presuming you are a corporate fiction/chattle and subject to all the corporate policy known as statutes, most people don't know that and you see people here saying that is absurd etc. Even many of the attorneys don't understand that. It is in thier volumes of jurisprudence and other books and documents. The first presumption to rebut is that they have any jurisdiction over you. Learn how to do that and all else is moot.

This is why many people who go to court and get reemed don't understand how they ignored all the logic reason and even laws and case cites. Its very simple you gave them permission to do it and didn't even know you did. You are presumed to know the law and that signing a contract binds you to the contract. What you didn't know it was a contract? Well why didn't you find out what you were signing? If your a free man then you are responsible for your actions and it is assumed you understand what you are signing etc etc. You get the idea...

edit on 15-3-2011 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

Remember that I am learning now, while I have spent weeks in research, I am not as good as you and daddio.

I am reading everything you have sent, everything daddio has posted and am now working on the court survival guide - it is 12:35 here so I am really tired.

Is there a step by step that you know of to make it happen your way?

I just realized that there is another thing I can do while learning, that is simply not show up to court, the judge will sing a warrant for my arrest but since it is a contempt case, the judge must also say how much the purge is with said warrant, then try to raise the $$ to purge out of the warrant and learn the methods you and daddio recommend with actual time to implement them.

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by greenovni

 

I am glad to see that you are fully beginning to understand the power that we have as citizens with our vote as a juror. The common citizen is the most powerful legislator in the land, but very few realize this.

The power of jury nullification was essentially established by common law precedent starting with the Zenger trial.
The jurors simply refused to issue a guilty verdict.

They were held in jail for weeks for not doing so, but they did not relent and they stayed in jail until justice was served. They truly had a set of values and morals that they were willing to die for.

As the late Bill Cooper (RIP) once said ,"if a person does not have a set of morals and values that they are willing to die for then that person is already dead."

greenovi.... I sincerely applaud what you are doing.

Earlier I actually asked you if there was a possibility of taking the verdict of deciding your constitutional issue in the state of FL to a jury trial.
I do not know if this is the case, but I do know that, despite what we are told, we have a guaranteed right to a jury trial.

I would seriously consider checking it out.

As I have said previously.... The only hope that we have remaining is for the people of this country to wake up to the God Given right bestowed upon them by birth in the country of America.
We have more power with our one jury vote than the entire system of legislation regarding law in America.

Best wishes my friend. Thank you for standing up for what is right.
But ask yourself one question....

To what degree do you wish to make yourself a martyr?

Not sure about a jury trial as this is the very first time I'm going to fight these btards! I know we are guaranteed a jury

About becoming a martyr, I just want to be free and finally break out of this open prison.

Moor in court

Moor in court 2

Arguably the best court footage i've ever seen. He stood his ground admirably, and you can see the complete 180 by the judge. It's hilarious actually, he made them all look stupid. Enjoy

reply to post by greenovni

Remember that I am learning now, while I have spent weeks in research, I am not as good as you and daddio.

I am reading everything you have sent, everything daddio has posted and am now working on the court survival guide - it is 12:35 here so I am really tired.

Is there a step by step that you know of to make it happen your way?

I just realized that there is another thing I can do while learning, that is simply not show up to court, the judge will sing a warrant for my arrest but since it is a contempt case, the judge must also say how much the purge is with said warrant, then try to raise the $$ to purge out of the warrant and learn the methods you and daddio recommend with actual time to implement them.

The manual will walk you through step by step, it's a little bit into it before you get to that part. I feel for you man you have to know this stuff cold the judge will do anything and everything to trip you up. Chances are your first time you will mess it up. It is just the nature of it. I am sorry that is not encouraging but you just have to chalk it up to a learning experience. I would NOT recommend not showing and having them issue a warrant. Ask for a postponement. You are probably best off following your plan for now since you are more familiar with it then all the stuff we have told you, since you don't have anyone close to you that can help you. You can try lawlearners.net... and see if there is anyone in your area. And as I said its a learning experience. But if you feel up to trying the other after reading the manual then have at it. The judge will probably get angry with you and try and intimidate you etc.

Remember its not the end of the world and if you get tripped up he just wants money from you. And after this you can study further to try and undo what he has done to you. Don't beat yourself up over this. Lots of folks have been where you are and been kicked around a lot worse and that motivated them to learn to try and free themselves. None of us are as free as we would like to be. And it can be a hassle when so many things you do draw the attention of these corporate goons who harras you thinking they have jurisdiction over you and you have to go through the same process over and over because of the ignorance of each one of them. Some times you have to go along to get along and decide if it's a hill worth fighting for and perhaps dying on. Otherwise you can waste your whole life being mad at these thugs 24/7 and fighting them all the time just to prove a point and then another one comes along right after the last one to infinity.

double post

Originally posted by daddio

The Judge CAN NOT refuse, when appointed, he must do your bidding. You see, the prosecutor, by filing the case is the executor. He can not escape that. He has created the debt by bringing forth the action, HE must settle the debt he created. The judge and prosecutor work together, so that is collusion and conspiracy to deprive, extortion is a better term but is harder to prove. The judge can also NOT practice law from the bench, that is a federal crime and a determination of law that does not exist. They have been getting away with it because no one challenges it. The biggest problem I have is WHERE IS THE GRAND JURY? For ANY crime to be enjoined into the court system, it must be found that there is probable cause of the case brought before a grand jury for indictment of YOU. Due Process.

I have used the beneficiary terms in court and they try and continue the case, seven times was the most I have dealt with, to see how far they would go before quitting. It is funny watching the eyes of the other people in the courtroom light up when you speak like this. They are amazed that it gets dismissed.

You MUST stick to your guns, take no flack and object. When he askes what you are objecting to, Determination, the judge can not make ANY determination FOR you, tell him you Reject his offer of Contract. Even if he gives you a new court date, Rejection of Offer to Contract. Done.

I have been telling people for ages that you NEVER accept a plea deal until you have been indicted by a grand jury. I have sat in county lock up for months refusing to be bailed out and applying for a motion for habeas corpus so as to force the grand jury to indict me as quickly as possible.
One time I was indicted, but one time I was not.

We have THREE very important votes in our system.
1)common vote (congressman, fake presidential vote, referendums, etc...)
2)jury vote
3)grand jury vote

The old saying is that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, but that is more psy-op BS to make people think that when they are called to grand jury then it is an almost automatic vote for indictment.
But people are getting smart to this idea and are seeing that the grand jury is also more powerful than any lawman, senator, congressman, etc... in the land.

We need to understand our rights and stop falling for the smoke and mirrors of the current justice system.

We, as citizens, can bring class action lawsuits and indict the people of OUR choosing. The justice system works both ways. It has been usurped to give those in power more power, but if used correctly, it can take that same power away from those who have usurped the power of our courts.

Originally posted by greenovni

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by greenovni

 

I am glad to see that you are fully beginning to understand the power that we have as citizens with our vote as a juror. The common citizen is the most powerful legislator in the land, but very few realize this.

The power of jury nullification was essentially established by common law precedent starting with the Zenger trial.
The jurors simply refused to issue a guilty verdict.

They were held in jail for weeks for not doing so, but they did not relent and they stayed in jail until justice was served. They truly had a set of values and morals that they were willing to die for.

As the late Bill Cooper (RIP) once said ,"if a person does not have a set of morals and values that they are willing to die for then that person is already dead."

greenovi.... I sincerely applaud what you are doing.

Earlier I actually asked you if there was a possibility of taking the verdict of deciding your constitutional issue in the state of FL to a jury trial.
I do not know if this is the case, but I do know that, despite what we are told, we have a guaranteed right to a jury trial.

I would seriously consider checking it out.

As I have said previously.... The only hope that we have remaining is for the people of this country to wake up to the God Given right bestowed upon them by birth in the country of America.
We have more power with our one jury vote than the entire system of legislation regarding law in America.

Best wishes my friend. Thank you for standing up for what is right.
But ask yourself one question....

To what degree do you wish to make yourself a martyr?

Not sure about a jury trial as this is the very first time I'm going to fight these btards! I know we are guaranteed a jury

About becoming a martyr, I just want to be free and finally break out of this open prison.

In civil cases that often is not a right. Be wary.

Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

What most here do not/can not comprehend nor do they understand it for obvious reasons, is that the "Federal Constitution" IS a corporate contract between the founding fathers. They did not trust each other. It was a very hard fought victory to get the Bill of Rights added at the end, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison worked hard to get it included TO PROTECT the actual and real people of America.

If you read the contract as it is written you will see the nuances in it that SHOW it to be just that, a contract for corporate control. This was the idea of the imperialists. SO, in that the "powers of the legislature" are supposedly vested IN the PEOPLE, which is not true, the powers are vested in the elected "people" and not the general population. Were ALL laws presente dto the people, like it should be, government would be limited, as it should be, and people would actually be free and the country would prosper.

BUT, through subversion and deciet, we have been enslaved the world over. That said, how do we address the OP's situation? Well, I think a review of the "statutes" are in order and the Inclusio unius est Exclusio Alterius.

We are flesh and blood living souls and NOT "persons" which IS corporate fictions, ALL law is commerce law/equity law. That is a fact no matter what anyone else thinks or states. I have posted cases that show this to be the case. WHY would there be, incapsulated in the definition of "person", "it has been held to also include foreign and domestic corporations"? That says it all, there is a difference between Natural Persons and "persons".

Symantics be damned. If the statute reads "any person", "a person" or "no person", IT DOES NOT APPLY TO FLESH AND BLOOD ACTUAL PEOPLE!!!! That's it.

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.

If you were going to be so aggressive in your assertions, they could at least be correct.

Commercial law and equity are distinct realms of law as are contract and tax law (for instance). How you surmise that all litigious proceedings today are based on trust law, I do not know.

You have also misread what that 'definition' of a person is, either by accident, or through a dishonest attempt to buttress your argument. The piece you quoted quite plainly says 'as well as corporate bodies et c'. The preceding part of that sentence recognizes individuals as legal persons. You (Mr. J Smith) are not a corporation, nor a corporate body recognized as an individual in law. That assertion is just not true.