| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Nov 2002 : 18:06:07
|
Posted by the ECC with permission of the "victim" requesting guidance and assistance from our forum members:
I have just experienced my first "test" of the government in New Zealand, and it is not looking good.
I had cancelled all "vehicle" registration and put a homemade plate on my "conveyance" with a Bible verse. On Monday, this was noticed by a meter maid who decided to call the police in. I was there and agreed to wait for the police to arrive. I tried to explain to the officer that I moved about the common ways according to the Law of God, but he was not in a listening mindset. He demanded my name and address, which I have to give according to their statute law. When I refused, I was arrested and taken into custody. The actual charges read "the accused, being a PERSON on a ROAD . . .". While being driven to the police station, I had more time to explain the difference between their law and the Law of God, but this got nowhere as both officers in the car simply mocked my convictions. In hindsight, it is obvious that they viewed my refusal to answer as "proof" that I had something to hide and figured my "religious" convictions must just be a convenient cover.
Once at the police station, I had my wallet forcibly taken, from which they obtained my legal fiction "name". I still had my US driver's license as well as other things with my name on them. Now they wanted a current address, which I refused to give. For this they kept me overnight in jail until I could appear in court. I talked with many police officers during this time, as they also wanted my fingerprints which I was also refusing to give. Not one officer I spoke with had respect for the Law of God and they were ignorant of any maxims of law or of any law besides their precious statutes. I figured I would have to wait for a judge to sort things out.
Court the next day was the real shocker. Of course, the judge simply wanted me to plead guilty or not guilty. I first invoked the diplomatic priviledge of visitation, for which he wanted documentation. When I held up my Bible he dismissed it immediately. I tried to make further statements, such as that the law did not apply to me and that I was not under his jurisdiction, but he ignored all of them. He entered pleas for me since I would not answer to the charges. However, he could not release me on bail without an address, so he gave me a second hearing after lunch.
He sent me out with the chaplain and the public defender (who I had refused the first time arround). Their job was to persuade me to give the court my address. The public defender seemed to understand what I said to him, and knew the maxim that "the law of the land and the Law of God are one and the same." He then asked another public defender to speak for me, who had no idea of what I had said. In the second hearing I explained to the judge that I had no address since I was not an article of commerce. He said, "this has nothing to do with commerce" and demanded to know my ADDRESS where I LIVE. With his statement on the record and his assurance that he would let me out on bail, I gave him the proper spelling of my lawful Christian name and an address. I pointed out that his paperwork had me as a legal fiction, but this held no weight with him.
He had lied to me, and once he had my address I was sent back to the police station for fingerprinting, not home on bail. I still refused the fingerprinting so had to spend a second night in jail. At court the next day I was before the same judge. Through the public defender I asked him to recuse himself, but he did not. I then told him "I am who I say I am, not who the court says I am." I tried to explain all the faults in their paperwork on me, but was again cut off before anything meaningful could be said. They took me back to the police station, tortured me until I gave my fingerprints (which their statute law allows), and sent me home.
A friend who attended the second day's hearing explained to me afterwords that I was in an admiralty court, so the judge could do what he wanted to. It is clear that I was getting too close to the truth for his comfort, so he would cut me off in a way that made me sound like a nut-case with kooky legal theories. So now they have my name, address and fingerprints, and I have a court date to answer the charges for not giving these things to them willingly. I also have several tickets for my conveyance, but these are probably unenforceable since they have no registration to tie them to.
I do not regret what I went through, for I was able to witness the truth of the gospel to many police officers and inmates as well. The police never could figure out what to make of me, for they only know how to deal with the ungodly. They revealed themselves to be just as evil as the men they throw behind bars. Read Matthew 23 and replace "scribes and Pharisees" with "police and judges" and you get an incredibly accurate picture. The inmates soon stopped mocking me and could see that my faith was real and that I truly was a righteous man. Now I know why Jesus hung out with the publicans and sinners. Second Corinthians also came alive for me during the time in jail, and I am now convinced with Paul that "all who desire to live godly in Chirst Jesus, will suffer persecution."
I tell you all this because I need some advice on how best to move forward. My conveyance is sitting at our house, but I do not want to go out in it again until I know what I am going to say to the next police officer, and if necessary, the next judge. Since they already have all my "details", I won't fight giving them again, so I shouldn't have to spend more time in jail. However, they may tell me I can't drive my conveyance, leaving me or the whoe family stuck wherever they pulled me over. Any ideas on what to say to a NWO police officer who has swallowed all the lies about modern law? What about these judges in admiralty court who are a law unto themselves? They know I am right, but instead want the full weight of the system pressed down upon me in order to bring me back under their control.
I'm assuming I will get to make my case during the actual trial, but they may railroad me there as well. They were obviously greatly offended to hear that I was righteous enough not to need their oversight and that there is a law higher than their own. The New World Order is obviously fully functional in the New Zealand "justice" department, as it must be now under Bush's "Homeland Security", so the real question is whether standing on the truth can still lead to freedom, or just more persecution.
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2002 : 19:19:17
|
Greetings In Jesus, The Christ, Our Lord, Our King and lawgiver.
Even following sound doctrine, they would not even follow. One example
is according to their worldly "proceedures" whereby a pleadng (guilty or
not guilty)is only for CRIMINAL CASES. In other words, that so-called
"citation or whatever" is not a "criminal matter."
Their scheme is commerce for revenue collections. Remember, they are but like
drunkards, which have invented a socialist agenda to cover their turf and
their appointed lackeys. Their "courthouses" are WHOREHOUSES set up by the
very same pimps which have through centuries of attorn-ey-like-dishonesties,
attempted to hold the key of knowledge and then when His children are entering,
they continue to attempt to stop.
We know the way to His Kingdom! We know His Light!
Ali (the boxer}, when he said,"Float like a butterfly and sting
like a bee," or Mark Twain, when he said,"A patriot is scorned and ridiculed,
and then others join when he suceeds," comes indirectly from the His word, and
eventually, the traps which these scoundrels have invented will be enforced
by His words. For in the beginning was the word, and the word was God.
Dios Con Vosotros,
Manuel
|
 |
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2002 : 22:05:07
|
Dear "Victim",
You have gotten yourself in a real pickle.
In the first place, you waited for the police to arrive after the meter maid called. A SOVEREIGN waits for no man. He is free to come and go as he pleases. If someone wants to "do business" with him, but the Sovereign does not care to do business in return, then it is up to THEM to track him down. You were not acting as a Sovereign in this regard.
In the second place, you obviously recognized the authority of the officers and the court, since you were trying to "explain" the Common Law to them. This is not only futile, it is absolutely ludicrous! The vast majority of the "Worker Ants" for the System not only CANNOT POSSIBLY go against their brainwashing, but they do not care one iota, as well. Might ONLY understands Might.
In the third place, you carried the vestiges of your slavery with you in your wallet, in the form of US identification. So they had you there, because you were acceding to recognition of your Strawman as more than a legal fiction.
In the fourth place, you answered to your name before the judge, and it was all downhill from there. They only had to tighten the screws a little bit to make you buckle to the pressure -- giving your name, your addresss, etc. These were the final nails in the coffin. The judge must have had a good laugh when you tried (AGAIN!) to to "explain" your position. MIGHT ONLY RECOGNIZES MIGHT. And you placed yourself in an inferior position -- not having the proper KNOWLEDGE and CONFIDENCE to BLUDGEON
Yes -- you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in your position, but you did not follow the LETTER of the LAW in stating your case. And if the System holds you to anything at all, it is the LETTER. So even ONE uncrossed "t" or undotted "i" will get you in the slammer.
I am afraid that I know of no recourse for this situation, as you in effect recognized the authority of the System in too many ways. However, in the future, my suggestion is that you TAKE BACK YOUR NAME from the control of the System. Use of YOUR NAME against you, is the ONLY way that "They" have power over you. You can short-circuit their
|
|
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 29 Nov 2002 : 22:32:07
|
Dear "Victim".
Somehow this WebSite cut off my remarks before finishing, so will "tie it up" quickly.
You can short-circuit their efforts by TAKING BACK YOUR NAME through Common-Law Copyright. You then own the rights to the use of your name, and NO ONE has the right to use it (especially for commercial gain -- which ALL courtroom process does) without your express written permission. You are so very right in recognizing that the address would associate you as "an article of commerce." In fact ALL Western courts are private, commercial entities set up specifically for commercial purposes -- to collect the interest on war debt. They do this by deception, so it should come as no surprise that the judge lied to you. To expect otherwise would be foolish.
Anyway, once you have copyrighted your name ONLY under Common Law -- as statutory "law" does not allow it (hmmm . . . I wonder why?) -- THEN you can invoke penalties for its use without your permission. You do this by using THEIR SYSTEM AGAINST THEM. This is done through their very powerful, very streamlined debt collection process -- as set out in the rules of their UCC Code.
This is NOT the same as "registering" yourself under their system! The COMMON lAW protects you from their ravenous PROCESS. You are only PUTTING THEM ON NOTICE that you have taken back your name, and have specified the penalties for its unauthorized use.
This is not a very complicated process, BUT it takes some time to understand the various steps. I do not know what the process might be in NZ -- only in the US. How far the Common Law extends in NZ is another unanswered question. BUT I know for a fact the the UCC extends worldwide, and would be recognized in any Western court.
God has blessed you with faith and awareness. Your unwavering desire for the Truth will lead you to it eventually. For now, it may be wise to understand that you have lost THIS battle. BUT there will be many others ahead, so perhaps you should save your strength and your resources for those. ALL "THEY" WAHT IS YOUR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS -- in the form of taxes, fines, licenses, registrations, ID's, etc., etc., ad infinitum. A slave that is waking up is an obvious threat and danger to them. Do not provoke them too much at this point. Your day will come.
God bless,
Doer
|
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 30 Nov 2002 : 11:21:54
|
From "Victim" in reply to ECC Member Doer:
Doer: you are absolutely right that I should not have cooperated with them by waiting around, but what about a situation where the police officer pulls you over and you can't avoid him?
And how do I answer might with might? Without any ID on me, they would have kept me in jail until I gave them the requested information. Obviously the judge was going to go along with this for as long as it took. I have already disposed of my IDs and could take back my name, but once they have my body they are not inclined to let go. |
|
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 30 Nov 2002 : 17:48:25
|
Dear "Victim",
Please read my last reply again – paying close attention to the part about the COMMON-LAW COPYRIGHT.
IF YOU OWN YOUR NAME (the rights to use YOUR GOOD NAME for ANY purpose) then NO ONE may use it without your express, written permission. We must understand that ALL Western "governments" (I use that term loosely) are really COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES (CORPORATIONS) set up SPECIFICALLY for the collection of war debt. THEY DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW (the REAL LAW written in the heart of every Conscious Man -- as manifested in the Common Law) unless they are FORCED to do so BY OUR WITNESS. They only know their own "law" (I use that term loosely) -- which is their CORPORATE POLICY -- their "statutory laws." This is why the government officials in Washington are no longer referred to as "lawmakers," but instead are "policy makers."
Anyway, WHEN YOU RESERVE THE RIGHTS TO YOUR GOOD NAME, NO ONE may use it for any purpose (ESPECIALLY COMMERCIAL PURPOSES -- which ALL government-regulated activity is -- even so-called "criminal activity"). So when you get pulled over for a traffic "violation," you are really being seduced into entering into a CONTRACT with the COMMERCIAL CORPORATE STATE.
YOU ARE NEVER UNDER ARREST in such a situation. Why? – BECAUSE YOU HAVE BROKEN NO LAW! After all – whom is the injured party? ONLY if there is an injured party, are you liable. Since the Corporate State is a LEGAL FICTION, they cannot be injured – BY DEFINITION. You have only violated one of their corporate policies. They only work using the age-old tools of INTIMIDATION. So ask the "officer" -- "Am I under arrest?" You NEVER are! This is a COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION that you are being ensnared into. BUT we have the ULTIMATE FREEDOM. We can REFUSE to "do business" with these people. After all, we can refuse to enter ANY contract. It is a Maxim of Law that any contract entered into by coercion is NULL AND VOID UNDER THE LAW. On the other hand, NO GOVERNMENT may interfere with, nor void, ANY private contract. (UNLESS you give them permission – by giving up your Sovereignty and thereby your rights when you enter their courts.)
So how do you TAKE BACK YOUR GOOD NAME? -- YOU COPYRIGHT IT ! ! ! ! ! This can ONLY be done under Common-Law copyright, because “The System” does not allow copyrighting of personal names – only corporate. Why? – because then they would have no control over you!
So, then, how do you copyright your name? As a SOVEREIGN, you proclaim a new law that you created by sending your messengers out amongst the public places to post the notices. Remember – YOU ARE A SOVEREIGN. So START ACTING LIKE ONE ! ! ! ! ! (Actually, there is ONLY ONE SOVEREIGN. But – because we are created in HIS Image – then we take on HIS attributes, one of which is Sovereignty. So we are Sovereign IN HIS NAME.) So the Common-Law Copyright is posted in the local courthouse and/or published in a newpaper with affidavit of publication being sent to you by the publisher. There are specific rules for doing this, which must be FOLLOWED TO THE LETTER.
This process thereby gives only YOU the exclusive right to use your name. Then, anyone using your name without your express, written permission must pay you damages. McDonald’s charges 1.5 million dollars to use their name. You can sell hamburgers any time that you like, but do not put the name “McDonalds” on your hamburgers, because it will cost you $1.5 million in damages. So let’s make the use of YOUR name be worth, say, $500,000. That is a reasonable sum to charge for the use of YOUR GOOD NAME, is it not?
So the next time an “officer of the law” (I use that phrase loosely) stops you for a “traffic violation,” he is asking you (seducing by intimidation, really) to enter into a contract with him. You do that UNCONSCIOUSLY by following his orders to give up YOUR GOOD NAME for his free use -- by handing it over in your license/registration. IF you owned your good name in the first place, you could tell him “I do not wish to do business with you.” OF COURSE he will “put up a stink” and test your knowledge and conviction! He will continue to use intimidation until you either give in, or until he is satisfied that you are whom you say you are – which is NOT the Strawman.
If the “officer” is ignorant of THE LAW (the Common Law) – as most such “worker ants” usually are – then you can comply AFTER you have given him ample warning and notice as to the terms under which you will do business with him. Once he understands that it will cost him $500,000 for every individual use of your name, then you have him “nailed to the cross” (pardon my use of that phrase.)
You must know HOW TO SIGN YOUR NAME WITHOUT INVOKING LIABILITY. You must also know how to go after these slime-balls for the unauthorized use of your property – YOUR GOOD NAME. But this is “only” a commercial business transaction, so we need not get emotional about it. The point is – once (or twice) after an “officer” or two has been bankrupted to the tune of 500,000 by unauthorized use of your name, then they will think twice before “doing business” again with a SOVEREIGN.
But you must learn about this process on your own, as there are many steps, and YOU MUST FOLLOW THE LAW TO THR LETTER – lest you become ensnared again. This is only a skeletal outline of the principles involved.
For now, I recommend that you “bite the bullet” and recognize defeat in this particular battle. It is only a small skirmish, and there are far greater battle for you that are sure to follow. You need not prolong this suffering needlessly, nor to put your family through more trauma than necessary. After all -- ALL “THEY” WANT IS THE MONEY. It is only a cold, commercial business transaction for them. You have made your point – albeit too weakly. Gather strength for the next battle, and become far more prepared.
God Bless You (He already has, I see)
Doer
|
|
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 30 Nov 2002 : 19:01:24
|
Doer,
I don't want to get off the subject of this particular thread, but I don't understand this argument that you and others put forward that you can copyright your name. What case law can you point to that this is possible? I know that this is the latest purported process to put man's government at bay, but I honestly don't understand it and no one that I have asked has been able to provide an answer based on anything other than theory and supposition. Perhaps you could reply on the Current Events thread. I don't think I would be the only one that would be interested in this subject if you can explain it satisfactorily.
Peace unto you.
|
Edited by - DanielJacob on 30 Nov 2002 19:09:47 |
|
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 01 Dec 2002 : 03:17:37
|
Daniel Jacob,
This has nothing to do with "statutory law" nor "case law" (whatever THAT is! -- because there really is no such thing as "case law." It is only the OPINION of lawyers in black robes -- which opinions are taken as the "gospel truth" by all the brainwashed worker ants. There is no law that says we MUST follow a black-robed lawyer's opinion -- BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE LAW. And how many times have "lower courts'" opinions been "overturned" by "higher courts'" OPINIONS? Doesn't that tell you something?)
Anyway -- it all goes back to our SOVEREIGNTY and our God-given RIGHTS. We still have those, you know -- under the Common Law. The thing that most people do not understand is that, SATAN MUST FOLLOW THE LAW. Even his perverted "laws" that he devised through his countless minions to confuse and entrap us -- even those MUST FOLLOW THE LAW. Satan's "laws" are only a twisted form of the Original Law -- that LAW which is written in the hearts of ALL Conscious Men and Women.
Why MUST Satan follow THE LAW? BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER ! ! ! ! He has not the power to CREATE law. Only Our Creator has that power, and HE has already created all the Laws that are or ever will be. So Satan is stuck here. He can ONLY use what is available to him, but he has the ability to "twist" things just a little bit to throw us off.
AS IT APPLIES TO OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS -- The "System" recognizes Common Law at all times! This is because The System's perverted "laws" are BASED ON, and can have their being only in, the Common Law. The System cannot "create" its own "laws" because they will NEVER STAND. Only TRUTH stands the test of time -- not lies. Therefore, The System MUST use a "form" of Truth from which its own perverted "laws" can arise.
As an example, under Common Law, we have an inalienable RIGHT to get married. We do NOT need to go the State for a LICENSE to get married -- yet that is exactly what most brainwashed worker ants do! Getting a license to do ANYTHING, is an admission that you are asking the State for PERMISSION to do something which is your RIGHT. So you give up your Right in exchange for a PRIVILEGE from the State -- and pay for the process as well! WHAT A DEAL ! ! ! ! But True Marriage was set up by Our Creator as a vehicle for our learning. It is a contract – a HOLY COVENANT – between the Man, the Woman, and their Creator. They do NOT need to ask the State for permission to get married – only their Creator! To ask the State, is to leave God out altogether. The STATE then becomes the ruler over such a “marriage.” That is why the State then has COMPLETE CONTROL over such a “marriage.”
There is one – and only one – condition under which a person would go to the State for permission to get married. That condition is, because the person is incompetent to make his own decision! So naturally, the State then assumes this, and thereby makes the parties to the marriage as wards of the State. That is the ONLY reason that the State then has the power to control our lives. Any fruits of such a marriage (children) then belong to the State. It can thus force the parties in such a marriage to brainwash their children in government schools, to make them take Ritalin an other drugs, to vaccinate them, to make them ingest toxins such as fluoride, to separate the husband and wife, to put restraining orders against the husband because the wife is upset with him, and on and on and on – ad infinitum. This is truly INSANITY. But what do you expect when you are not competent to make your own decision?
A Common-Law Marriage is performed before the Community as witnesses, in a ceremony by a “holy man” or other respected leader of the Community. Vows are exchanged to create the Covenant (Holy Contract), and symbols of the Covenant, such as rings, are also exchanged to seal the Contract. The specifics of the ceremony are then entered into the Family Bible, signed by the holy man or leader, and several witnesses. The Family Bible is also used to record births, deaths and other important family events. TO THIS DAY, such a family record is recognized as a LEGAL DOCUMENT by EVERY COURT in the land. Obviously, it is a COMMON-LAW document.
SO – the State ALWAYS recognizes Common Law. THE REAL PROBLEM is that WE DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE COMMON LAW OURSELVES. Were we to be fully conversant with it, then the courts and judges would immediately see that in us and leave us alone. This is the PRINCIPLE. I cannot explain it any further.
Only understand that we have the Common-Law RIGHT to our personal NAME – through copyright. It then becomes our property, and NO COURT NOR JUDGE NOR ANY GOVERNMENT can then use it without compensating us for the use. End of story. That’s it. Finis. What can be more clear?
I am in the process of copyrighting my name. It requires very specific language to allow for as many contingencies as possible. It is then published in any paper of general circulation once a week for four consecutive weeks. An “affidavit of publication” is then sent by the publisher as part of the process. This SHOULD be the end of it, but it is not. For you see – we need a way to COLLECT on any unauthorized use of our property. This is where the very effective, very streamlined PROCESS of collection comes in -- through the rules set up specifically for such events – in the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code.)
Many “patriots” and “true believers” want NOTHING to do with the UCC or any other “rules and regulations” of The System. I do not feel that way. The Devil can tell the Truth also – when it suits his evil purpose. And this is one of those instances. We can use Satan’s own tools against him. What is more elegant than that? So we need to become familiar not only with the Common Law (which is our strength and our salvation – because it comes from our Creator), but we need also to become familiar with Satan’s “law” – in this case, the UCC.
God bless,
Doer
|
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 01 Dec 2002 : 15:13:31
|
| They expect the CAPITAL lettered man to 'appear' in court. Who are you? What did you verbally agree to? And who agreed........you or the legal fiction? wwwmatters.now.nu (http://ecclesia.org/truth/) the third hundreds has a copy of a non-statuary abatement you may or may not be able to use. If used and served on them........you basically say correct the error in the name and come get Me with a Lawful warrant. They will not respond to the abatement. Serve a default, and carry on your Father's business. That old U.S. license gave them plenty of presumption to think you were an excaped slave. But Me thinks you were bought by the Blood of the Lamb. The translation from one kingdom to another Kingdom can occur within a twinkleing of an eye. Any 'evidence' they acquire by force and threat is bogus evidence. |
|
|
|
DanielJacob
Advanced Member
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 01 Dec 2002 : 17:28:34
|
Greetings brother Doer,
Thank you for your reply, It is only through an honest exchange of ideas that we can learn. Are we not told that steel sharpens steel? With this exchange in mind, I will express my perspective on your remarks:
quote:
This has nothing to do with "statutory law" nor "case law" (whatever THAT is! -- because there really is no such thing as "case law." It is only the OPINION of lawyers in black robes -- which opinions are taken as the "gospel truth" by all the brainwashed worker ants. There is no law that says we MUST follow a black-robed lawyer's opinion -- BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE LAW. And how many times have "lower courts'" opinions been "overturned" by "higher courts'" OPINIONS? Doesn't that tell you something?)
While I can agree that statutory law and opinions of judges are just that, I must disagree that case law has nothing to do with common law. Common law, so-called, as understood and observed in this country, and by this people, is case law. It is only by trial, determined by impartial judges that make ‘rulings’, called judgments, based upon the customs and usages of a people, that the common law, so-called, can be determined. As the customs and usages of the people change over time, the common law of that people change also. The real question becomes: are there any of those judges or courts left? Probably not but it does not change the facts.
quote:
Anyway -- it all goes back to our SOVEREIGNTY and our God-given RIGHTS. We still have those, you know -- under the Common Law. The thing that most people do not understand is that, SATAN MUST FOLLOW THE LAW. Even his perverted "laws" that he devised through his countless minions to confuse and entrap us -- even those MUST FOLLOW THE LAW. Satan's "laws" are only a twisted form of the Original Law -- that LAW which is written in the hearts of ALL Conscious Men and Women.
I am not exactly sure I understand the point that you are trying to make here. Since you are evidently speaking in biblical terms as concerns sovereignty; I would ask where in the scriptures does it say anything about our being sovereign or that we have certain rights? The only right that I am aware of in scripture is the right to the Tree of Life, the Christ. One purchased by blood owes a blood debt and is bound to that Master until he pays that blood debt. Too our good fortune our Master is not a task Master and therefore His Yoke is meerly to guide us as we go and not a burden as is the other's yoke. Most often when rights are spoken of, it is concerned with man made concepts of ownership that have no foundation in God’s Law that I know of. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. We have no ownership, everything that we are blessed with belongs to our Father.
quote:
AS IT APPLIES TO OUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS -- The "System" recognizes Common Law at all times! This is because The System's perverted "laws" are BASED ON, and can have their being only in, the Common Law. The System cannot "create" its own "laws" because they will NEVER STAND. Only TRUTH stands the test of time -- not lies. Therefore, The System MUST use a "form" of Truth from which its own perverted "laws" can arise.
Brother, if the system recognized common law, as we understand that term, at all times then we surely would not be having this intercourse. While I can agree that there are some statutory laws, mostly criminal in nature (murder, theft, rape, etc) that have codified those parts of the common law; the greater majority are based solely upon the lex mercatoria; the common law of merchants and thieves. It is the melding of the lex non scripta, what most understand to be the common law, and the lex mercatoria that has produced what is commonly referred to in this country, and in the courts, as simply the common law.
Concerning common law marriage: It is not necessary, although it was most common to have a ‘Minister of God’ officiate the marriage, for the union of man and woman. The simple statement before two or more witnesses that they were man and wife was sufficient in most courts of law. Your example of placing the event in the family bible is most appropriate. It later became customary for the couple to post their banns of marriage in the local circular. When the marriage later took on a more commercial nature then the ring became the symbol of consideration. The license issue arose only when peoples of mixed races wanted to marry since under the common law it was unlawful to marry out of your race.
quote:
SO – the State ALWAYS recognizes Common Law. THE REAL PROBLEM is that WE DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE COMMON LAW OURSELVES. Were we to be fully conversant with it, then the courts and judges would immediately see that in us and leave us alone. This is the PRINCIPLE. I cannot explain it any further.
Sorry brother, I wish that that statement were true, but again, if that were in fact the situation then we would not be having this exchange of thoughts. The sad fact is that the courts do not recognize the common law other than that of the lex mercatoria. When the comment, common law, is raised in the courts they are thinking Law Merchant.
quote:
Only understand that we have the Common-Law RIGHT to our personal NAME – through copyright. It then becomes our property, and NO COURT NOR JUDGE NOR ANY GOVERNMENT can then use it without compensating us for the use. End of story. That’s it. Finis. What can be more clear?
It is this presumption that I have such trouble with. Where in the common law, so-called, is this spoken of? Bracton does not write about it. Coke does not write about it. Blackstone mentions copyright only in the context of intellectual property that results in something more substantial than a mere name and arises only because of the book binders of England at that time which lends to my argument concerning the melding of the lex non scripta and the lex mercatoria. Where are the stare decisis cases that give rise to the common law that talk about this? Where did this idea come from? I can find no basis for this concept except from the suppositions of those that would profit from such a proposition.
Can we agree that the common law, co-called, is stated in maxims? If we can, then by the maxims of law names are the notes, marks, and symbols of things, given by those in authority, so-called, to those in subjection to that authority. By the common law only the former, or Christian name, has any gravity in law. The surname, or family name, carried no weight in the common law. See The Law of Names, Public, Private & Corporate by Anthony Linell, 1938, pp. 1-18. I am called Daniel Jacob, is that my name? I don't know. I do not have any knowledge of the name my Father has written in His book of Life for me. He has never told me. But when he calls me by it I will know and I will answer.
quote:
Many "patriots" and "true believers" want NOTHING to do with the UCC or any other "rules and regulations" of The System. I do not feel that way. The Devil can tell the Truth also – when it suits his evil purpose. And this is one of those instances. We can use Satan’s own tools against him. What is more elegant than that? So we need to become familiar not only with the Common Law (which is our strength and our salvation – because it comes from our Creator), but we need also to become familiar with Satan’s "law" – in this case, the UCC.
Brother, I seek only to do the will of our Father in Heaven. I am not opposed to ideas or processes that can be substantiated by positive law, be it common, so-called, or otherwise. I am opposed to those that would prey on and profit from the ignorance of the flock. I must correct you though in your statement concerning using Satan’s own tools against him. Our Lord spoke exactly concerning this matter when He said "How can Satan cast out Satan?". Too many times I have heard the phrase "We are going to use their own law against them!". Yea, right.
Peace unto you brother…
|
|
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 02 Dec 2002 : 00:42:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robert-James
They expect the CAPITAL lettered man to 'appear' in court. Who are you? What did you verbally agree to? And who agreed........you or the legal fiction? wwwmatters.now.nu the third hundreds has a copy of a non-statuary abatement you may or may not be able to use. If used and served on them........you basically say correct the error in the name and come get Me with a Lawful warrant. They will not respond to the abatement. Serve a default, and carry on your Father's business. That old U.S. license gave them plenty of presumption to think you were an excaped slave. But Me thinks you were bought by the Blood of the Lamb. The translation from one kingdom to another Kingdom can occur within a twinkleing of an eye. Any 'evidence' they acquire by force and threat is bogus evidence.
Robert-James,
You are right about this -- and this is the ULTIMATE process for True Justice. However, one must be well-versed in it, and "Victim" may not have the time nor resources to become so. Still, there is the matter of COMPENSATION for affront to a Man's Sovereignty. I know of no means to do that under the Common Law, and suing "Them" in their own courts is futile, if not ludicrous. The UCC offers a means, but one must be well-versed in that process, and many "True Believers" are reluctant to use Satan's "law" against him.
Be Well,
Doer |
|
|
|
Silver
Junior Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2002 : 17:27:07
|
Hi Guys, I'm new here, but this discussion is right up my alley also.
I was arrested and force to take a plea bargan and lost my family also, and spend 9 long months
in the dog house. I'm still not free ! I ask God to show to show me how to get away from this
coruept system, and he has lead me step by step... at this point in time, I am wanting to file
the UCC-1, but I am, told that I have to have a Birth Cert Number, and I do not have it.
I lost that, when Somebody cleaned out our house while I was in the Jerry Can ! (Jail)
and they force my wife to move away and file a serparation on me. Its been over a year since this happen. I want to get going on this Ucc-1, but have not done so, because I do not have a BC.
but I do have a passport. Won't that do just as well !
So this posting is right in line with the on going discussion. Please give us two "jail brids" some advise on how to get out of this "Stinky Jerry Can" ! ;) thanks !
This mess makes me think of the cat and mopuse, Tom And Jerry ! and its no fun,....
I would love to get some money out of those guys who have pulled the wool over my eyes,
but if I can walk away as a free man, and have my family back in the end, that would make me
leap for joy .... |
|
|
|
underhorse
Junior Member
USA
20 Posts |
Posted - 27 Dec 2002 : 11:40:19
|
Greetings,
I had a letter of information written on the screen, apparently it was too long as it disappeared. So I'll make it short.
check out these sites for your information on insurance "bonds" of the courts and it's oficers and the process for notifying them "it ain't me". Or contact me directly and I will try to help. (I've had some succes at it) www.theawaregroup.com / www.outlawlegal.com / www.peoplesrights.com / www.rightwaylaw.com / www.student12.hightechlearn.com
Yes, there is a way through the "administrative" process to attach "them" It's called a form 95 complaint for damages.
|
|
|
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2003 : 00:51:40
|
Copyright of the name actually appears to originate with the Torah and with ancient custom among the Israelites. You will notice that many Jews do not, under any circumstances, write out the name of the Lord. They will call him "The Lord," or redact the name by writing G-d without the "o." This keeps with showing respect to the Lord's name, and that it shall not be used without his permission (in vain). Some people even consider it wrong to speak the real name of
G-d, unless he personally commands them to do so at a certain time.
So there you have it. Copyright of the name just may be older than the Common Law.
Any thoughts?
Blessings,
--Berkano |
|
|
|
berkano
Advanced Member
uSA
129 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2003 : 01:31:55
|
[I know this thread is a bit old, but my message is probably relevant to any confrontation.]
This is a note for the "victim" in New Zealand:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil:"
It seems to me that by giving any audience to the meter maid whatsoever, the battle was lost thereby, at the opening moment.
The meter maid was questioning your sovereignty; you were being accused. By agreeing to wait around for the cops, you entered into a joinder of issues via the system of combat.
Waiting around to prove that you were right or to prove that you were a sovereign was a form of "resisting evil." Instead of eye for eye, you were going in "tit for tat."
You see, Christ never attempted to prove his gospel to unbelievers. The only people he tried to prove it to were the sincere souls who came asking about it, not disputing his sovereignty as the Lord.
Anyone, anywhere, who disputes your sovereign status, automatically becomes an enemy when you try to prove them wrong. A fool is never wrong. The worker ants are generally fools. Therefore, if they are questioning you, they have already adjudicated you the guilty party, in the wrong, and they don't want to hear your arguments. They just want to exercise power and see how it harms you to their benefit.
Let me share an example from my own life.
In my early twenties, I drove my petro-powered chariot whithersoever I whisted. The tags were expired, I had no insurance or registration, and the windshield had a large crack evident from 30 feet away. I was an absolute slave to the system, with no knowledge of common law or sovereign status. I lived in my car, prefering to travel around and camp rather than stay in one place.
I was often pulled over by police officers, who questioned me about the condition of my windshield, asked for registration, insurance, etc. I never once challenged the officers. The discussion invariably went kind of like this:
Officer: "Hi. I noticed that you have a large crack in your windshield. You know, I pulled you over for that reason. It really could be dangerous." (I've never known anyone who was "in danger" due to a crack in the windshield, but it is moot to argue the truth with Caesar's stooges.)
Me: "You know, officer, you have a point there. I had been thinking about it myself, and looking at it, if it gets much bigger it could be really dangerous (if the window fell out!). I am meaning to replace it, too. Unfortunately, as you can tell from the age of this car, I am very poor and just scraping by, so I haven't had all the cash I need to get a new plate of glass. It is going to take a few more weeks before I can take it to the shop."
Officer: "Well, can I see your license and registration and proof of insurance?"
Me: "Ah, gimme just a few moments and I'll try to search all this mess. [a minute of rummaging passes]. Well, here is my license, but I can't find a registration or insurance card in this mess. You know, since I've been living in the car with no place to call home, I seem to be a bit disorganized. Will I have to pay any fines or penalties?"
Officer [at this point feeling pity for me]: "Ah, no, I'm not required to give you any tickets. I can let you off with a warning that you need to fix it and get everything in order, but be advised that if I see you too far into the future with the windshield still broken, I could pull you over and ticket you."
Me: "Wow, thank you, officer! By the way, I haven't seen you in this area before. What name do you go by?"
Usually the officer gave me his name and a salute and I was on my way after having broken several statutory laws related to motor vehicles.
The outcome of most situations like this is determined largely by your presence and spirit. If you are lacking violence inside, most bad intentions of others will be transmuted into something that will not harm you as is possible. I never once got a ticket. I never once got arrested in these confrontations. And my car was never taken to the impound. I know it was because the very way I carried myself proved to that officer that I had no ill intent toward anyone. Without words, I carried the message, "I am just a poor slob who is barely able to survive. If you mess with me, you will leave me without a car, the only means of survival I have."
But try putting that in words, and you are going to have a rough time.
I'm not guaranteeing that this will work for just anyone else. It is the substance of the inner heart that determines outcomes, not the careful choosing of words.
We've got to let go of the need to challenge until the truth of the entire situation is entirely open to our view. |
|
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2003 : 06:41:08
|
Berkano,
You give excellent advice. The only point that I do not see, is that we do not challenge The System. My view is that, if we live in Truth, that alone will be a challenge to the Lying System. Not to say that we are looking for a fight, but Truth by its nature, shines a Light upon darkness, thereby challenging it. In those challenges, we build strenght and character by witnessing The Truth.
Doer |
|
|
|
Cowboy
Regular Member
USA
38 Posts |
Posted - 27 Feb 2003 : 13:54:04
|
underhorse -
The ..student12.. link didn't work . |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2003 : 05:49:00
|
Now that I have my "day in court", I can finally admit that I was the "victim" who started this post. What an education I have received over the intervening months both from brothers on this forum, and brothers elsewhere. Here is "the rest of the story".
I was charged with failing to provide name and address to a police officer after he decided he needed to write some tickets for my van that lacked a "proper" government license plate. Subsequently I was charged with failure to provide fingerprints as well. The first charge carried a maximum penalty of $10,000 and the second carried a maximum of one month in prison and a $40 fine.
While I thought I knew what I was doing when the arrest first occurred, the fact that I was arrested proved I still had much to learn. Many things I said as well as identification I was carrying at the time compromised the position in law I was trying to stand on. The judge in my pre-trial hearing knew this and would not let me squirm out of his grip. In the end I had to sign a bail notice and agree to show up again today.
My initial impression of the police and court system was one of total disgust and anger. I felt violated, bulldozed and persecuted for nothing. Yet the Father had things to teach me that my stubborn head could only learn this way. Today, after the trial I thanked the arresting officer for providing the motivation for me to learn more, much more, about Law. I also told the officer who tortured fingerprints off of me that I forgave him and the other three officers involved. This was genuine, for I view these men now as doing the will of God. They are supposed to perform their duties in a way that is increasingly unjust in these last days, so that the true sons of God will "come out and be separate". We are entering another kingdom, but the benfits of the old one keep many from seeking to exit it. My determination to exit is now greatly magnified, and progress continues to be made. When I see the kingdoms of this world becoming increasingly corrupt and intolerable, I now know that this is exactly in line with the Father's plans.
Knowing that I would not make the same mistakes again, my chief desire this day was to have the matter of these charges resolved. I knew it was my fault for even being there, so I was willing to compromise with "the enemy" in order to achieve this result. I believe the Father prepared the way in two ways. The first was that I went before the only woman judge in the city. My young children sat in her courtroom during the trial that preceded mine, and behaved like angels. This was "pre-trial testimony" as to whom she was dealing with. The second is that the prosecutor failed to show up and they had to scramble to find a fill-in. This replacement prosecutor had no idea about my case, especially regarding the unusual way I would respond to the charges.
Here are the highlights of the trial as best I can remember it. My opening line was that the defendant named on their papers was deceased, and that I was there to speak on his behalf to clear up the matter. This immediately threw them for a loop, mainly because neither of the officers who were to testify in my trial, and could identify me as the accused, was there yet. The judge sent me out of the court and had me speak to the court nurse, who did a preliminary psychiatric evaluation on me. We mostly discussed law, so the nurse had no idea what I was talking about, but she at least got the point that my initial comment was due to the fact that my surname on all their papers was written in all capital letters. I explained to her that this meant I was dead in law.
When I was called again, the judge pretended not to understand what I was talking about, but it was clear she could not proceed unless I admitted to being the person named on her paperwork. The two police officers had showed up as well and had done their best to persuade me to admit that this was my name, but to no avail. One of the first things the judge asked the prosecutor was essentially, "what is this case doing in my courtroom?" Here she indicated that she knew the reality - I was not charged with any real crime! This is when I knew that all of my carefully crafted and embarrassing questions would be of little use. She had basically declared a truce, but now needed my help to make it reality.
I only asked her one difficult question regarding her law. I asked if "the Law of God and the law of the land are all one." This is a maxim of law, meaning it is an undisputed truth in law. She lied and said that the traffic laws I was charged under were the law of the land, and that was all we were going to deal with today. She then tried to negotiate me into a position of admitting guilt for the first charge. I responded that I could not be a witness against myself. This was critical, because if it went to trial, they only have one witness and the law requires two. We discussed my "peculiar" views a bit and she turned back to the prosecutor. Soon the second charge on failing to provide fingerprints was dismissed entirely. Then it was back to me.
The concern of the prosecutor was that I was out there "driving" without a license and without government issued plates on my car, and that I would simply continue to do so if none of their charges stuck. The judge asked me whether I was going to get a driver's license. I explained to her that unfortunately, the only way her government would issue me one was if I lied to them. She asked if this had to do with the ALL CAPS spelling of the name and I explained that this was only one problem. She treated this as if it were a belief I had made up on my own, but by now she knew I had other tricks up my sleeve if she chose to push the matter. She said she would like to resolve this matter, but she still needed me to admit to being the person on the charge sheet in order to do so.
I took the time to explain to her that my altercation with the police occured because I was in transition from one kingdom to another, and that I was getting things in order so that she would never see me in her courtroom again. I told her I had made mistakes, including carrying cards with an ALL CAPS name, and would handle things differently in the future, but I did not admit to commiting a crime. I wanted it to be clear that I was not some "patriot" determined to fight her system to the death and prove I was right. I had the opportunity to tell her specifically that my journey had started as one of leaving the kingdom of the US and entering New Zealand, but that as my understanding had grown it was now the kingdom of God I was entering. At that point I said that I too wanted the matter resolved, so I was willing to admit to being the person on her charge sheet if that would help resolve the matter. By this time we had exchanged enough words and her tone was such that I knew she would not use this against me. She was really asking me not to make a fool of her in her own courtroom, and I knew that honoring this was to be my first priority, provided it did not compromise my position. I also had several pages of questions that would make her life miserable if she did try to pursue things further.
Now that she could do something with the first charge, she discussed a suspended sentence. This would mean that no penalty would be imposed and the charge could only come up again if I was brought back into court on future, related charges. This did not sound like an ideal resolution to me, but it did not look like I would get anything better. A bit more discussion followed and then she asked the prosecutor if there was any jail time possible under this charge. Since it only involved a fine, it turned out that she could not issue a suspended sentence. At that point she recommended that the prosecutor move to dismiss the charges, which he promptly did. Her final words to me were that she recommended I seek psychiatric evaluation for my "strongly held religious beliefs".
So there was no trial, all charges were dismissed, and the judge knew that I had no intention of applying for a driver's license. The whole thing ended gracefully, with her appearing in control of it all, yet I got exactly what I hoped for. I made no speeches worthy of Perry Mason, and I got no embarrasing admissions out of her (which I had hoped for before the trial). The cops were a bit miffed, for I had slipped through their fingers, yet they didn't know why. No one watching the proceedings could tell that I had the judge over a barrel, for it never appeared that way for a moment. I was later told that she was one of the toughest, meanest judges in the city, yet she did not behave that way towards me at all.
The journey countinues, for I am not entirely out of the world's system yet. But this was a great encouragement to see how the Father protects us from our mistakes provided our heart is truly seeking to follow where He leads.
Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help
Whose hope is in Yahweh his God
|
Edited by - Caleb on 11 Apr 2003 16:58:12 |
|
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2003 : 13:04:03
|
Caleb,
Your story is a truly amazing inspiration! Were we to have but a pinhead of Faith, we could literally move mountains!
Be Well,
Doer |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2003 : 01:24:39
|
An important point that needs to be stressed again, is that you kept the Judge in Honor, therefore she was obligated to rule in your favor. She had no other moral or legal choice.
Peace,
Lewis |
Edited by - Lewish on 12 Apr 2003 01:25:31 |
|
|
|
Owenbrittont
Advanced Member
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 14 Apr 2003 : 22:52:35
|
| What is this form 95 complaint that Underhorse mentioned ??? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
