| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| n/a |
Posted - 04 Feb 2004 : 22:31:47
Greetings,
Yes, I've crossed the bar, I confess. Forgive me.
However, I always responded, correcting the all caps misnomer with My Christian name and Family name as follows: Burk-Elder: Hale, Third, everywhere.
I have maintained in My responses that the plaintiffs have erred in process with the misnomers stating it plainly, and have informed them of the correct indicia I'm known by. They have responded to My responses and counterclaims that had the correct name in the titles of My courtwork. Plaintiffs had filed motions for orders to restrain Me and preliminary injunction to remove Me from the land I'm Trustee over and upon which I have a lease based on a Covenant under God's Law for a small portion thereof.
Recently, I responded to the plaintiffs' motion for contempt by restating My Christian name and that the plaintiffs have responded to the same as I written it in the titles of My courtwork [acquiesced], and I included exhibits as admissions [not as cites or relying thereon] which included Public Law 97-280 [Congress Declares the Bible as the Word of God]; the Proclamation signed by Pres. Reagan approving that unanimous joint resolution; quotes from the US Styles Manual regarding courtwork and the proper way to write names in courtwork titles, etc.; and the definition of misnomer from Blacks Law 6th addition.
In the hearing, when the judge stated who he claimed I was [he didn't bother to ask], I asked the judge, "Which Burk-Elder: Hale, Third?" He was angered and said he read all my courtwork, maligned it and called it "gibberish". He stated, "Are you the one claiming an interest in the land?" I said, "Yes". He said, "Then you're the one I'm talking about." I said, "For the record, your honor, the only one here is the Bondservant of Christ." He said, "Alright."
I was not charged with contempt for violating the order that never was written/orderd in the first place [plaintiffs' malicious prosecution, libel, perjury, misprision, to say the least]. But what was most interesting was that in the order setting deadlines afterwards, My proper Christain name and Family name appeared in the title of the courtwork for the first time [after, several times, never being there]. However, they included the misnomers in the title as a/k/a's even though I had said that they [misnomers] were either dead or corporate fictions unknown to Me in My response to the plaintiffs' motion for contempt.
Did I get anywhere? There is still the land issue to be heard. Comments?
Regards,
Burk-Elder |
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Caleb |
Posted - 05 Mar 2004 : 04:25:47
Dear Elder,
If they have dragged you into one of their fictitious COURTS, there is only one way you can "win." That is to make them do nothing. "The name" is a key issue, but only useful if it can be used to stop them from proceeding. Some examples of this would be:
1) They are using an ALL CAPS fiction
"Your honor, the PERSON on your charge sheets is (civilly) dead." What court can proceed against a dead PERSON?
2) They are using your Christian Name
"Your honor, I see here you are prosecuting me in my Christian name. You can only do so if you have my permission. For the record, you do not have my permission to prosecute me in my own name."
Handle either of the above properly and the case should be thrown out. This is the ONLY positive outcome you can hope for in a fictitious COURT. If they are allowed to proceed, it is pretty much guaranteed to prove harmful to your well-being.
The Scriptures are the basis of all Law. However, the COURT you are being dragged into is unable to hear Law, so the scriptures are of limited use there. Like "the name" they can only be used to stop the whole proceeding by showing that you do not belong to their jurisdiction. Read my post under the "NO LICENSE" thread for more on this.
"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end"
Isaiah 9:7 |
| Oneisraelite |
Posted - 11 Feb 2004 : 16:54:49
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King:
Peace be to the house.
"a.k.a." The question arises, are you "also known as" the ALL CAP fiction on that piece of paper? If you are not, you have no business accepting it as it is not yours. They are saying that these are all one and the same "person" and hopefully they are not. If you are using that [standing surety for] ALL CAP fiction in any forum whatsoever, for any benefit, privilge and/or advantage, then you are who they say you are.
Would like to give you a verse and a definition from Black's Law Dictionary - Sixth Edtion.
Lev 25:23 The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are STRANGERS and sojourners with me.
This is not a directive to us, but rather a STATEMENT concerning His perfected title to the land, ALL OF IT, and that He will NEVER sell it [What could one possibly give Him for it, FRN's?]. First of all, never claim to be the "owner"; the OWNER is away and you are just occupying till His return and; "I will be most happy to pass on any claims you believe you may have against Him or His Inheritance, upon His return".
The second thing we mentioned was a definition and here it is:
"Stranger(s). As used with reference to the subject of subrogation, one who, in no event resulting from the existing state of affairs, can become liable for the debt, and whose property is not charged with the payment thereof and cannot be sold therefor.
By this term is intended third persons generally. In its general legal signification the term is opposed to the word "privy." Those who are in no way party to a covenant or transaction, nor bound by it, are said to be strangers to the covenant or transaction."
Okay, make it two definitions; this one from Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English
SUBROGA'TION, n. In the civil law,the substituting of one person in the place of another and giving him his rights.
For easier comprehension, under the word SUBROGATE Webster tells us that "SUBROGATE" is NOT IN USE and to see SURROGATE! Obviously he had not read Black's Law Dictionary - Abridged Sixth Edition. :)
We pray this has been somewhat helpful.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, not the STATE OF ISRAEL. You leave us no choice in this matter. |
| Manuel |
Posted - 10 Feb 2004 : 01:20:31
DanielJacob,
These merchants have brought their piracies from the high seas and have added their tactics of robbery to those on land. I will not judge their outcome, for there is but One Lawgiver and Judge, but I will surely testify of them.
In Him, I am,
Manuel |
| DanielJacob |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 23:55:18
Greeting all...
Below is a posting that I made to another forum hoping to generate some input/feedback, but infortunately I got little and none. Perhaps inquiring minds here will provide some discussion for edification.
In Section 9 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, the originating document for the courts, it states in part: quote:
And be it further enacted, That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas….[text]saving to suitors[/text], in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States…..[emphasis mine]
The districts and district courts, which were formed in 1790, primarily serve as federal trial courts for admiralty and maritime cases, under International Law, could not come into existence without the formal expressions of remedy contained in Section 9 and particularly in the 'saving to suitors' clause quoted above and codified at Title 28 U.S.C. §1333.
So how does all this have relevance you say. Well, we have for some time now seen different positions upon the relevance of the Gold Fringed Flag that stands in these courts as evidence of a foreign (Admiralty or Military, take your pick they are the same) jurisdiction. It would appear, prima facie, that these courts are proceeding in Admiralty jurisdiction, In Rem, using hypothecation against the men and women on the land. In addition, aren't these same courts continually pointing out that plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which the court can rule? Perhaps the wrong side of the court is being moved? quote:
IN REM, remedies. This technical term is used to designate proceedings or actions instituted against the thing [say, your bank account maybe, your automobile, your land], in contradistinction to personal actions which are said to be in personam. Proceedings in rem include not only judgments of property as forfeited, or as prize in the admiralty, or the English exchequer, but also the decisions of other courts upon the personal status, or relations of the party, such as marriage, divorce, bastardy, settlement, or the like. 1 Greenl. Ev. §§525, 541.
2. Courts of admiralty enforce the performance of a contract by seizing into their custody the very subject of hypothecation; for in these case's the parties are not personally bound, and the proceedings are confined to the thing in specie. Bro. Civ. and Adm. Law, 98; and see 2 Gall. R. 200; 3 T. R. 269, 270. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1859.
HYPOTHECATION, civil law. This term is used principally in the civil law; it is defined to be a right which a creditor [IMF, IRS, Federal Reserve Banks] has over a thing belonging to another, and which consists in the power to cause it to be sold, in order to be paid his claim out of the proceeds.
2. There are two species of hypothecation, one called pledge, pignus, and, the other properly denominated hypothecation. Pledge is that species , of hypothecation which is contracted by the delivery of the debtor to the creditor, of the thing hypothecated. Hypothecation, properly so called, is that which is contracted without delivery of the thing hypothecated. 2 Bell's Com. 25, 5th ed.
3. Hypothecation is further divided into general and special when the debtor hypothecates to his creditor all his estate and property, which he has, or may have, the hypothecation is general; when the hypothecation is confined to a particular estate, it is special.
4. Hypothecations are also distinguished into conventional, legal, and tacit.
1. Conventional hypothecations are those which arise by the agreement of the parties. Dig. 20, 1, - 2. Legal hypothecation is that which has not been agreed upon by any contract, express or implied; such as arises from the effect of judgments and executions. - 3. A tacit, which is also a legal hypothecation, is that which the law gives in certain cases, without the consent of the parties, to secure the creditor; such as, 1st. The lien which the public treasury has over the property of public debtors. Code, 8, 15, 1. 2d. The landlord has a lien on the goods in the house leased, for the payment of his rent. Dig. 20, 2, 2; Code, 8, 15, 7, 3d. The builder has a lien, for his bill, on the house he has built. Dig. 20, 1. 4th, The pupil has a lien on the property of the guardian for the balance of his account. Dig. 46, 6, 22; Code, 6, 37, 20. 5th. There is hypothecation of the goods of a testator for the security of a legacy he has given. Code, 6, 43, 1.
5. In the common law, cases of hypothecation, in the strict sense of the civil law, that is, of a pledge of a chattel, without possession by the pledgee, are scarcely to be found; cases of bottomry bonds and claims for seamen's wages, against ships are the nearest approach to it; but these are liens and privileges rather than hypothecations. Story, Bailm. §288. It seems that chattels not in existence, though they cannot be pledged, can be hypothecated, so that the lien will attach, as soon as the chattel has been produced. 14 Pick. R. 497. Vide, generally, Poth. de l'Hypothque; Poth. Mar. Contr. translated by Cushing, note. 26, p. 145; Commercial Code of France, translated by Rodman, note 52, p. 351; Merl. Repertoire, mot Hypothque, where the subject is fully considered; 2 Bro. Civ. Law, 195; Ayl. Pand. 524; 1 Law Tracts, 224; Dane's Ab. h. t.; Abbott on Ship. Index, h. t.; 13 Ves. 599; Bac. Ab. Merchant, &c. G; Civil Code of Louis. tit. 22, where this sort of security bears the name of mortgage. (q.v.) Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1859. [emphasis added]
Does this sound like what is happening in this country?
|
| Lewish |
Posted - 09 Feb 2004 : 18:32:32
Elder,
Were you in a United States District Court which is local to your land? If not, then the court has no jurisdiction to hear the case. See the discussion under Saving to Suitor. Also, read the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Moses Taylor case of 1866. This is an often cited case in support of the above.
Peace,
Lewis |
| BatKol |
Posted - 07 Feb 2004 : 10:11:42
Elder, my two cents is from the school of common sense:
If you are getting advice about what to do when standing on the Land, etc.... Please, please make sure the one you are getting advice from is actually Standing on Land and has been Victorious in keeping the Land!! Don't settle for someone's speculation, or "I know a guy who knows a guy who did this and here's what you do".. Common sense says don't get this kind of advice from a RENTER (I rent so I can't help). To not get advice from somebody who has actually done what you are doing is like getting advice on a motor car from a guy who works on ten speed bikes...
My prayers go out to you! |
| Servant of All |
Posted - 07 Feb 2004 : 00:56:53
Brother Burk-Elder,
It appears that your of a heart to walk righteously. I do hope that you are building on the Cornerstone that the One True God has provided for you. Surely that is true...however, I need to ask just to be sure.
Assuming that you have accepted God's gift of pardon through His Only Son Yahshua-Jesus, the only course can be to put on the protection of Salvation, Christ's Righteousness, Truth, Good News of Peace, Faith, and the fullness of God's Spirit...walk the walk, talk the talk... then, having done all that is assigned as your part, Stand in confidence on the Messiahs' Truth.
Reconcile with your Creator. May God Almighty bless you richly as you trust and obey Him more today!
In His service,
Philip the least |
| Robert-James |
Posted - 06 Feb 2004 : 17:46:13
Brother Burk-Elder,
me thinks that they are wondering why you appear in their FICTIONAL courts. Stand on the Land in question...occupy till "I come". They only have power over PRETENDERS to the Throne. Contact me off ecclesia's public board. There is always The Way to do things properly. Overcomers inherit the Throne, just as Yahushuah overcame for us, and grants the Sitting on the throne, at His Word, to the younger brethern of the Household of YaHuWeH. Sheperd kings. |
| Manuel |
Posted - 06 Feb 2004 : 17:41:38
Greetings In His name, Yahoshua the Messiah,
Burk-Elder,
Good to read your message.
Our war is a Spriritual war against powers and principalities, where land, light and all energy, and all thereof can only come thru Christ, Our Saviour and His Laws.
I am,
Manuel |
|
|
