| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lewish |
Posted - 08 Oct 2007 : 13:05:03
Greetings Brothers,
I can hardly wait, and I don't think it will happen, for some one to drag me into court again. You see, I have created an LLC in the same name that is on their birth certificate ( of the vessel ).
Now, if I should be taken into court, I will ask the prosecutor to state which entity ( in the all capital letters name ) is being charged in this matter, so that I will know which entity I will be acting as fiduciary for. The last thing they want to do is admit that you the Man are not the defendant in the action. They have no jurisdiction over the Man except by contract ( trust ) or by force and violence. They also don't want to admit that an artificial entity is the defendant, for how could an inanimate object break their U.S. Code?
My friend Charley, has done the same, and on appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court answers, that they would hear his appeal, only if he granted immunity from prosecution to the judges hearing his appeal. Hmmmm, what does that tell you?
Well, time will tell how this works and what more we can do with it.
Peace to you all,
Lewis
A Man on the Land on Washington as a Citizen thereon. |
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Mary |
Posted - 30 Dec 2007 : 08:07:39
quote:
Ultimately, isn't any corporation a fictitious fabrication of the state?
CORPORATION, n. A body politic... Corporations aggregate consist of two or more persons united in a society, which is preserved by a succession of members, either forever, or till the corporation is dissolved by the power that formed it, by the death of all its members, by surrender of its charter or franchises, or by forfeiture.
Maybe not all "corporations", or "body politics", are created by the power of the man-made state; maybe some are created by another authority.
…where two or three are gathered together in my name (authority)…
"...these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king..."
Psa 25:4 Shew me thy ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths. |
| Lewish |
Posted - 25 Dec 2007 : 15:51:55
Hello IO,
And welcome as a new member.
The real question is: "Will the United States bring an 18 USC action against an LLC?" I think not. 18 USC is designed to entrap a man into believing the charges are brought against him. That is why they use terms like "person".
So, let's use my court case as an example. The Defendant was charged with 18 USC 111a. For those of you who don't want to look this up, it is basically "forcefully interfering with a federal officer in the performance of his official duties." Now, can a LLC do that. I think not. It is a dead lifeless entity. Only men can bring it to life. So, how could the U.S. Attorner bring such a charge against an LLC. I don't think he could. He would have to bring it against the man. He has no authority to bring against the man, except under a constructed trust. If the man revokes the contructed trust, which the court presumes the man freely grants, where does that leave the court? Simple. With no jurisdiction.
Now don't it get interesting. grin.
Peace to you all,
Lewis
A Man on the Land on Washington as a Citizen thereon. |
| IO |
Posted - 25 Dec 2007 : 10:03:45
I am interested to hear how this works out. My concern was that when you engage in their arena with their instruments (as ron said)- using an LLC, don't you place yourself as "owner" of the LLC under their authority? Ultimately, isn't any corporation a fictitious fabrication of the state? |
| Lewish |
Posted - 20 Dec 2007 : 14:35:04
Ron,
I agree with your statement about "instruments" being in Commerce. However, I have documents that identify me which are not instruments, do NOT have all caps names on them, and identify me as a Man on the Land called Washington and not as an artificial entity upon an artificial entity i.e. "STATE".
I don't need an Affidavit of Truth to show who I am. The Federal Judge in my case recognized me as a Man on the Land. Where I failed was by failing to recognize the contract that they presumed I agreed to and failing to revoke it and the trust that they constructed to operate under.
Since Federal Public Policy is to discharge all debts, and this has not changed even though 48 Stat. 113 ( more commonly known as HJR-192 ) was repealed, then gold or silver is not relevant. "They" cannot see or touch gold or silver. It is prohibited in their system.
So, in court, take their instrument and write "Accepted for Value, Returned for Value, Discharge and Closure. You are authorized to access my Credit" upon the face of it, and then sign the name of the DEFENDANT by your true name. Return this to the judge. If the judge asks you what you think this will accomplish ( as happened in a recent federal case ), you tell him that this is the only the remedy that you are aware of under current Federal Public Policy. If this is not the remedy for this case, then he needs to give you "Instructive Relief" as to what your remedy is. ( In the case mentioned, the judge simply replied "Case Closed". ) And that was that.
Just a few things for all to think on.
Peace to you all,
Lewis
A Man on the Land on Washington as a Citizen thereon. |
| Jay Scott |
Posted - 18 Dec 2007 : 22:20:55
quote:
Originally posted by ron
... after you "lawfully" collateralize them inside an Affidavit of Truth.
...
My licensing (past) is all collateralized. ...
Thanks, ron, for bringing that up.
What do you mean by "collateralizing"?
Be blessed.
Jay Scott.
|
| ron |
Posted - 18 Dec 2007 : 19:12:58
All instruments you use to identify you to "them" (the STATE) are instruments of Commerce, including your name in all CAPS from birth "certificates" to "licenses and permissions"... If they ask if that's yours...and you say yes....you're dead. They own YOU... so the only answer is to tell the truth... after you "lawfully" collateralize them inside an Affidavit of Truth. Do not use "their" affidavit model...all their paperwork (legal) is copywritten for use by CITIZENS ATTORNIES etc.
They are very very good at their profession...they have been for centuries.
My licensing (past) is all collateralized. I don't need to, am not required to retestify or testify against myself....what does the record show ? Look at book and page number....
ACCEPTED FOR VALUE (0) NOT APPLICABLE TO I/me/us/we
and be gentle as a lamb and wise as an owl...
and/or, since it's all commerce, you could try "I'll be happy to pay whatever you ask, but first, please explain/delineate the "value" of that amount of $.... is it in silver or gold ?
that'll shake their tree.... |
| Lewish |
Posted - 10 Oct 2007 : 12:47:11
David,
You are not going to find anything about Charley in the Public records. Everything is sealed. If you go on PACER to look at the documents in his case, every time you click on a document, you get a message to call a phone number for access. If you call the number, the first thing they ask is "Are you an Attorney assigned to this Case?". When you answer no, then they tell you that you cannot have access to the document.
There is too much stuff there that they don't want the average person seeing.
I am trying to get a photocopy of what the Appeals Court sent him. If I do, then maybe we can arrange for a link to it.
Peace,
Lewis
A Man on the Land on Washington as a Citizen thereon. |
| David Merrill |
Posted - 09 Oct 2007 : 21:01:51
quote:
Originally posted by Lewish
Greetings Brothers,
I can hardly wait, and I don't think it will happen, for some one to drag me into court again. You see, I have created an LLC in the same name that is on their birth certificate ( of the vessel ).
Now, if I should be taken into court, I will ask the prosecutor to state which entity ( in the all capital letters name ) is being charged in this matter, so that I will know which entity I will be acting as fiduciary for. The last thing they want to do is admit that you the Man are not the defendant in the action. They have no jurisdiction over the Man except by contract ( trust ) or by force and violence. They also don't want to admit that an artificial entity is the defendant, for how could an inanimate object break their U.S. Code?
My friend Charley, has done the same, and on appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the court answers, that they would hear his appeal, only if he granted immunity from prosecution to the judges hearing his appeal. Hmmmm, what does that tell you?
Well, time will tell how this works and what more we can do with it.
Peace to you all,
Lewis
A Man on the Land on Washington as a Citizen thereon.
That sounds like an interesting opinion to read.
Please complete a link:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/Opinions+by+date?OpenView&Start=1&Count=100&Expand=1.1
Thanks!
David Merrill. |
| Lewish |
Posted - 09 Oct 2007 : 14:11:42
Hello Bondservant,
The point here is, they, the courts, never want to admit that they are charging an entity and not a Man. So, it matters not that there is an LLC behind the name of the entity I had created under the Statutes of New Mexico.
The Federal prosecutor will always try to make everyone in the room believe that the Man is the defendant. When you strip him of that pretense, the rest of the actors are reluctant to play their roles. It all grinds to a halt.
We had been using the defense of simply demanding that the prosecutor identify the defendant, but that ended up with the judge pretender entering that the defendant failed to appear and a resulting arrest warrant for the Man. So, we came up with this new strategy. So far it seems to have them stumped. They are simply doing a continuance of the hearing. I guess they are hoping to find a way around our strategy. We shall see.
Peace,
Lewis
A Man on the Land on Washington as a Citizen thereon. |
| Bondservant |
Posted - 09 Oct 2007 : 11:10:45
Don't the LLC Statutes in most STATES say that you must always use whatever name you register with a "LLC" or "LC" (or something to that effect) at the end of the name to Statutorily signify that specific name is a legal limited liability corporate entity?
For example, how could "LEWIS LLC" ever be confused with the Birth Certificate entity "LEWIS"? It's obvious to any star chamber black robe that the letters LLC following any name clearly signifies a LLC organized Statutory entity. If you ask an Executive Branch Prosecutor which entity he is going to charge under the U.S. Code, he surely isn't going to say "LEWIS LLC" unless that was the entity that specifically contracted. He will always choose the Birth Certificate all caps entity "LEWIS". The problem here is that the two are written differently in all caps as one must have "LLC" added to it.
I guess I'm not understanding how you can use the Limited Liability Corporation name in their ungodly courts simply because the two are not the same name due to the "LLC" addition required for the one entity which the Birth Certificate entity does not have. |
|
|
