| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
 Posted - 16 Mar 2005 : 10:14:03
|
Greetings and salutations brother 1234jagal:
Peace be unto the house.
Your Declaration sounds like an expatriation notice, in the Hebrew this is the word gârash, which according to Dr Strong means "especially to expatriate or divorce", whereas if you have died with the Messiah, then you are civilly dead; but be forewarned, our works must match our words, just as Ya'aqob [James] the Righteous states.
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
People who are dead to the STATE cannot receive STATE benefits, privileges and advantages (dainties); touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you...
For all intensive purposes, once you are dead with the Anointed One you are non-existant (a nonperson or an unperson) to the kosmokrator(s), though they may try to make you believe otherwise, just to see if they can get you to cross back over (re-translate).
Hint: The STATE never created anything living or anything of substance. Everything it creates is nothing more than graven images (written words) just like UNITED STATES or ALABAMA; they are all fictions which only appear to be real because some men believe in them. And those who do will try to convince you that they are real; don't believe them. Those who don't truly believe the Kingdom of Yahuwâh is Substantial, can only believe that the kingdoms of men are real. To accept one is to deny the other.
SUBSTAN'TIAL, a. Belonging to substance; real; actually existing. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 19 Mar 2005 20:50:53 |
 |
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 16 Mar 2005 : 18:55:32
|
I think you are onto a very revealing etymological word breakdown Oneisraelite. But the law, even Bouvier's 1857 law dictionary might be construed differently. Maybe not. It is just that when a man refuses to answer summons (outlawry) or otherwise be arraigned in the recognized court system, then he becomes outlaw. Not necessarily hunted, just without recourse from that particular system.
Point being it is not whether one is regenerate in Christ or not that labels a man in 'civil death'. But your treatment of the term has a certain appeal.quote:
CIVIL DEATH, persons. The change of the state (q. v.) of a person who is declared civilly dead by judgment of a competent tribunal. In such case, the person against whom such sentence is pronounced is considered dead. 2 John. R. 218. See Gilb. Uses, 150; 2 Bulst. 188; Co. tit. 132; Jenk. Cent. 250; 1 Keble, 398; Prest. on Convey. 140. Vide Death, civil.
quote:
CAPUT LUPINUM, Eng. law. Having the head of a wolf. An outlawed felon was said to have the head of a wolf, and might have been killed by any one legally. Now, such killing would be murder. 1. Hale, Pl. C. 497. The rules of the common law on this subject are rauch [sic "much"] more severe in their consequences, than the doctrine of the civil law relating to civil death. See 1 Toull. Droit Civil, n. 280, and pp. 254-5, note 3.
quote:
OUTLAWRY, Engl. law. The act of being put out of the protection of the law by process regularly sued out against a person who is in contempt in refusing to become amenable to the court having jurisdiction. The proceedings themselves are also called the outlawry.
2. Outlawry may take place in criminal or in civil cases. 3 Bl. Com. 283; Co. Litt. 128; 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 4196.
3. In the United States, outlawry in civil cases is unknown, and if there are any cases of outlawry in criminal cases they are very rare. Dane's Ab. eh. 193, a, 34. Vide Bac. Ab. Abatement, B; Id. h. t.; Gilb. Hist. C. P. 196, 197; 2 Virg. Cas. 244; 2 Dal. 92.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 16 Mar 2005 19:01:03 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 06:24:09
|
The law of persons is the law of status or condition. – American Law and Procedure, Vol. 13, page 137, 1910
civil death. Law. The change of status of a person equivalent in its legal consequences to natural death. – Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1916-1960, page 151
If the law of persons is the law of status or condition, and it is, what does one become when he dies the civil death (dies to the world), when one “no longer exists” in that realm? His status changes from PERSON to nonperson or unperson.
Main Entry: un.per.son
Pronunciation: '&n-'p&r-s[^&]n, -"p&r-
Function: noun
Date: 1949 : an individual who usually for political or ideological reasons is removed completely from recognition or consideration
Black’s Law Dictionary, and other sources, attempt to show “civil death” as a punishment and an undesirable thing, but we see from the above entry that one may actually prefer it, i.e. one may actually choose it, “for political or ideological reasons”.
Why would one voluntarily become an unperson? Because Yahuwâh is not a respecter of persons, as it is written.
Extra legem positus est civiliter mortuus. One out of the pale of the law, (an outlaw,) is civilly dead.
PALE, n. 3. An inclosure; properly, that which incloses, like fence, limit; hence, the space inclosed. He was born within the pale of the church; within the pale of christianity. 4. District; limited territory.
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils (tribunals), and they will scourge you in their synagogues (churches); And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles (Nations). But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit (Mind) of your Father which speaketh in you.
TRIBU'NAL, n. [L. tribunal, from tribunus, a tribune, who administered justice.] 1. Properly, the seat of a judge; the bench on which a judge and his associates sit for administering justice. 2. More generally, a court of justice …
It is better to trust in Yahuwâh
than to put confidence in man.
It is better to trust in Yahuwâh
than to put confidence in princes.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 19 Mar 2005 20:57:25 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 06:43:29
|
quote:
David Merrill: "It is just that when a man refuses to answer summons (outlawry) or otherwise be arraigned in the recognized court system, then he becomes outlaw.
It is not the "man" who "refuses to answer summons or otherwise be arraigned"...it is the "PERSON" which cannot "answer [the] summons (outlawry) or otherwise be arraigned in the recognized court system"...for there is no one to carry IT any longer (no one who will stand surety for IT any more) and kosmokrator's AGENTS will not allow us to appear propria persona because they are not the 'elohiym [god] of the living, they are the 'elohiym [god] of the dead (artificial persons). (The mirror-image of Mark 12:27)
...[PERSONS] speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. "...if you cannot afford an attorney (mouthpiece) one will be provided for you..."
When someone comes with a summons etc. simply put on the longest face you have, bring crocodile-tears to your eyes, and say, "I'm sorry, that PERSON is civilly dead". Caveat: It must be Truth; our walk must match our words. Study to show thyself approved. Like the Katman said, "No one can do it for you."
quote:
David Merrill: Not necessarily hunted, just without recourse from that particular system.
We perceive that you may have meant redress, recovery or restitution, but be that as it may, if one is able to sue, one is able to be sued, so your statement, we believe, is correct because you qualified it thusly, "from that particular system".
And shall not Yahuwâh avenge his own elect,
which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
I tell you that he will avenge them speedily.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 17 Mar 2005 09:20:21 |
|
|
|
1234jagal
0
USA
45 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 07:21:51
|
David did any of your declarations work?
Have you used them in court?
Have any of you done away with your drivers license with success?
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2005 : 09:58:44
|
Of course it/they work(s). It is used 24/7 in the court of record. I was simply pointing out the county clerk at one point seemed to be trying to destroy that particular declaration whereby according to the Continental Congress my signature is literally on the parchment. [One suitor searched and found that there are several other signors aside from myself.]
Yes, I have done away with my driver license successfully. Social Security Number too. Date of Birth? That too. It is the court of the impound lot manager that gives me headaches. Vern was able to get his car back though he had to marginally play their game. They waived nearly a year of storage fees. But the matter of abating and avoiding is sound.
[inappropriate remark about sophistry deleted]
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 18 Mar 2005 10:55:11 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 10:38:19
|
I apologize. My quest for the truth has become more and more an obsession. I am displaying symptoms of paranoia by jumping to such quick presumptions and conclusions. I am on the defensive and it is not fair to any of you reading.
Sincerely,
David Merrill.
P.S. Oneisraelite; calling your Post sophistry was unreasonable. I have to learn to watch my mouth. Maybe there is something else bugging me. Like the quiet insideous brewing of the "perfect financial storm". I am getting too edgy to be good company. What I meant was that it is very entertaining to fit various permutations of civil death into the "courts of heaven" v. "courts of man" scenario, it is not proper to draw such scenarios. A recent development I was working with when I discovered courts of record are only found in the district courts by the State of Colorado constitution. That adjustment in my modeling is really profound and agrees with The First Judiciary Act 1790, Chapter 36 forming the districts and the history of Colorado around 1861 when it became much more of a federal enclave than a Territory or State - Buchanan's ('59ers' claims in Auraria and Central City) war chest.
A court of record is by definition in authority and with full jurisdiction. So now a whole new level of control is available to me and all who understand with this discovery. The 'courts of heaven' are often perceived to be of the same definition. Ergo I can now give evidence the plural courts model is erroneous. I articulated passionately without clarifying, accusing you of sophistry for simply playing around with Bouvier's definitions of civil death.
Hopefully this link will be functional in a day or two:
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_William_Thornton.wmv
clip about private attorney
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/hirsch/hirsch031705.html
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2005/20050315
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050314 |
Edited by - David Merrill on 26 Mar 2005 13:36:35 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 11:13:11
|
David Merrill: "What I meant was that it is very entertaining to fit various permutations of civil death into the "courts of heaven" v. "courts of man" scenario, it is not proper to draw such scenarios."
Where do you see the "courts of heaven" referred to in my post. More appropriately we would be discussing the differences between the "COURTS OF PERSONS" and the "courts of men", the latter being acceptable, the former being UNACCEPTABLE.
The Hebrew kings did not rule in their own right, nor in name of the people who had chosen them, but partly as servants and partly as representatives of Jehovah, the true King of Israel. - Easton's Bible Dictionary
Therein lies the key, keeping the proper alignment. When we think to become a law unto ourselves, we do err greatly. A government of, by and for the people eliminates the Law Maker from the equation.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 18 Mar 2005 11:23:35 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2005 : 11:28:43
|
The presumption of the general argument is inferred in your application of civil death (unto THEM). The whole "us" and "them" paradigm. What I broadswipe call paranoia. Notions of complex persecutions are simply misunderstanding the court structure. The courts of heaven are synonymous to courts of record.
Here in Colorado the Sheriff's office is in the METRO building with the jail. I wish I had downloaded a searchable .pdf State constitution years ago. It would have helped me see all that. I got so excited about it I began spouting about it before it was coherent in my mind.
The man implementing the Order and Decree linked was stopped for speeding while traveling with a friend. He made the mistake, instead of R4C after the stop Registered Mail utilizing his evidence repository for the fact in Denver, of just striking out the contract (in the signature box) and conspicuously writing "Refusal for Cause" on the ticket. He removed his copy and handed the clipboard back to the officer. An interesting proof of the varacity of R4C quickly ensued.
The deputy came back from the radio report demanding the man return his copy of the R4C. Demanding more forcefully three times. Then the man made his second mistake, he returned it. The deputy went back and wrote up a new presentment. Now in terms of contract law this makes no sense. Why would the man change his mind about contracting in a matter of four minutes?
When the deputy returned he childishly threw the presentment into the man's face through the open car window. Responding childishly in turn, the man threw the presentment back out the window on the ground. He should have just left with it and R4C properly. The business finished, the man left at the normal rate of acceleration. But you might guess he was stopped by all officers in the area at gunpoint for eluding (and maybe contemplation of littering).
Searching his car, the officer lifted the carpeting and discovered a Driver License signed "True Name dba FIRST MIDDLE LAST". The officer "stole" that under the drunk driver/no points left doctrine I suppose. But the license was valid with plenty of points so I imagine the attorney general and Dept of Revenue are commanding all these "without prejudice" or otherwise deviant signings be recalled on the spot - sent to Denver.
Anyway since the search was illegal and he was never charged with eluding or littering, the "warrants" discovered off the ID were fruit of the poison tree. These "warrants" were for several previous R4C summonses in the adjacent county and none had attached "Failure to Appear" - further indicating the validity of Refusing for Cause voluntary contract presentments. So I advised he set a probable cause hearing to make the whole thing go away. But the county court clerk refused saying his matter was "trivial". He paid an attorney for consultation and was informed he could only get a probable cause hearing in county court for felony charges. Thus no FTA or Eluding. Ergo my excitement about locating the 'courts of record' in the Colorado constitution. [I have gotten a probable cause hearing in county court under nearly identical conditions but made the mistake of letting them think me arraigned prior to the hearing. That flops.]
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_William_Thornton.wmv
clip about private attorney
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Order_and_Decree.rtf
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 26 Mar 2005 13:37:29 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2005 : 07:08:52
|
David Merrill: “The courts of heaven are synonymous to courts of record.”
HEAVEN, n. hev'n.
1. The region or expanse which surrounds the earth, and which appears above and around us, like an immense arch or vault, in which are seen the sun, moon and stars.
2. Among christians, the part of space in which the omnipresent Jehovah is supposed to afford more sensible manifestations of his glory. Hence this is called the habitation of God, and is represented as the residence of angels and blessed spirits. Deu 26.
The sanctified heart loves heaven for its purity, and God for his goodness.
3. Among pagans, the residence of the celestial gods.
4. The sky or air; the region of the atmosphere; or an elevated place; in a very indefinite sense. Thus we speak of a mountain reaching to heaven; the fowls of heaven; the clouds of heaven; hail or rain from heaven. Jer 9. Job 35.
Their cities are walled to heaven. Deu 1.
5. The Hebrews acknowledged three heavens; the air or aerial heavens; the firmament in which the stars are supposed to be placed; and the heaven of heavens, or third heaven, the residence of Jehovah.
6. Modern philosophers divide the expanse above and around the earth into two parts,the atmosphere or aerial heaven, and the etherial heaven beyond the region of the air, in which there is supposed to be a thin, unresisting medium called ether.
7. The Supreme Power; the Sovereign of heaven; god; as prophets sent by heaven.
I have sinned against heaven. Luke 15.
Shun the impious profaneness which scoffs at the institution of heaven. Dwight.
8. The pagan deities; celestials.
And show the heavens more just.
9. Elevation; sublimity.
O! for a muse of fire, that would ascend
The brightest heaven of invention.
10. Supreme felicity; great happiness.– Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Which heaven do you reference in your above statement?
We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed…
Yahuwâh [is] on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me? Yahuwâh taketh my part with them that help me: therefore shall I see my desire upon them that hate me. It is better to trust in Yahuwâh than to put confidence in man.
Seems, from our readings of the Set Apart Writings, that Shaul [Paul] and Dawid [pronounced dã-oo-eed] may have been "paranoid" as well.
He wasn't paranoid, they really were after him.
Author: Epitaph
Topic: last words - Worldofquotes.com
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 19 Mar 2005 07:21:34 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2005 : 07:32:57
|
Not that we consider expatriation to be the answer...
EXPAT'RIATE, v.t. [L. ex and patria, country.] The right to expatriate one's self is…much controverted in the U. States. [Emphasis added]
CONTROVERT, v.t. [L., to turn. Literally, to turn against.] To dispute; to oppose by reasoning; to contend against in words or writings; to deny and attempt to disprove or confute; to agitate contrary opinions; as, to controvert opinions, or principles; to controvert the justness of a conclusion. [Emphasis added]
...but we need to ask ourselves a question here, why in the world would THEY turn against US if we wished to expatriate? Or is this merely paranoia on the part of Noah Webster?
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 19 Mar 2005 07:38:32 |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2005 : 22:17:27
|
I think a lot of the controversy arises from the Congress approving the "Expatriation Act" on the eve of "ratifying" the Fourteenth Amendment. And maybe that the Southern States had just been refused their right to expatriate (succeed) from the Union.
Here is a page from the Congressional Records. It may shed some light on the act of expatriation. Also, please clarify which Noah's dictionary you got that from. Might it be 1827? That also explains a lot.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_14th_Am_sham.jpg
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
|
|
|
charles8854
Regular Member
USA
40 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2005 : 00:36:07
|
David;
It was good talking on the phone to you today.
Now we know most of our commonalities & differences.
One of your above web pages comes up ok for me,
but the following one produces only a 404 error:
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_William_Thornton.wmf
In your above post you stated the following:
> ... I advised he set a probable cause hearing to make the whole thing go away. But the county court clerk refused saying his matter was "trivial". He paid an attorney for consultation and was informed he could only get a probable cause hearing in county court for felony charges. Thus no FTA or Eluding. Ergo my excitement about locating the 'courts of record' in the Colorado constitution. [I have gotten a probable cause hearing in county court under nearly identical conditions but made the mistake of letting them think me arraigned prior to the hearing. That flops.]
I would respectfully suggest that “the complaining party sets the forum”. And it seems in your above case (as in most similar) that the defactos are the “complaining party”, so they have “set the forum”. If you look at the us supreme court case of “Beacon Theaters vs Westover” you will see this is true. http://usa.christiancommonlaw-gov.org/clerk/citations/BeaconTvWestover.htm
As you surely realize, most traffic complaints such as the one you mention are “misdemeanor complaints”; prosecuted under admiralty/administrative/military/summary process; & where-under “due process of law” has no place.
The above “Beacon Theaters” case clearly shows that the Complaining Parties have the authority to “Set the Forum”. This is first year law student material; I got it from a first year law college text-book.
Here-under; the only way to break that summary/admiralty forum, is to “Counter-Complain” with an “action at law”. It also shows that through a “Counter-Complaint”, an Accused party can Take Control over a Complaint first brought against him through such summary/equity/admiralty process; as the defacto prosecutors routinely advance.
Here-under; the Accused can force the summary/equity complaint against him into an “Action at Law”. This is precisely where we patriots need to be, if we are to survive; imho.
With all due respect your commerce-based “refusal for cause”, does not take control of the case. This is true because you have left intact the “discretion” of the judge to proceed in summary/equity/admiralty process. Again; the only lawful way to break the evil/summary process which the defacto prosecutors have set in place, is to Counter-Complain in an “Action at Law”.
Again, your “refusal for cause” leaves the summary/equity process in place.
Respectfully;
charles bruce, stewart
charles@christiancommonlaw-gov.org
http://usa.christiancommonloaw-gov.org |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2005 : 06:30:15
|
quote:
I would respectfully suggest that “the complaining party sets the forum”. And it seems in your above case (as in most similar) that the defactos are the “complaining party”, so they have “set the forum”. If you look at the us supreme court case of “Beacon Theaters vs Westover” you will see this is true. http://usa.christiancommonlaw-gov.org/clerk/citations/BeaconTvWestover.htm
That would be my friend's biggest problem. They feel they can set the forum. However, he Refused for Cause the initial presentment. Therefore they never set the forum - they have no contract. That is why the police officer went to write out a new one.
quote:
The above “Beacon Theaters” case clearly shows that the Complaining Parties have the authority to “Set the Forum”. This is first year law student material; I got it from a first year law college text-book.
Here-under; the only way to break that summary/admiralty forum, is to “Counter-Complain” with an “action at law”. It also shows that through a “Counter-Complaint”, an Accused party can Take Control over a Complaint first brought against him through such summary/equity/admiralty process; as the defacto prosecutors routinely advance.
If the forum the complaining party wishes to set is not a competent forum; a court of record, then that explains why on two occasions so far my friend has been compelled to contract.
quote:
Again, your “refusal for cause” leaves the summary/equity process in place.
Untrue.
If you are right, then I have been terribly incorrect. But I do not agree that you are right. Refusal means refusal. "for Cause" means Order to Show Cause. That is why the policeman was directed to write a new ticket. That is why when the old R4Cs surfaced there is never, never a failure to appear charge attached. These cases go away until the artificial entity resurfaces. But now my friend demands in common law (county clerk/ public notice to peers in the county) his right to a court of competent jurisdiction, he can acquire oaths of office and then get his court of record right there in the courthouse.
Refusal for cause is the simplest statement of counterclaim. But it is only stated after one becomes a court of competent jurisdiction through a formal counterclaim (Libel in Review) in the "exclusive original cognizance" of the United States.
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_AreYouLostAtSea.pdf
http://friends-n-family-research.info/FFR/Merrill_Diagram1.jpg
Admiralty process
The Refusal for Cause is an order to show cause. Maybe so brief that is not clear. But here is how my friend should have handled is counterclaim against the officer. He should have written Refusal for Cause on it after the policeman left, sent it Registered to the Sheriff (the deputy's principal) and a copy with clerk instruction Registered to the US Courthouse where he already has his general counterclaim and true judgment in place - an evidence repository for his R4Cs (exclusive original cognizance of the US through its district courts). A copy of the clerk instruction would inform the presenter, the Sheriff that the Refusal and Order to Show Cause had been placed in the cognizance of the US.
So the Sheriff would laugh, the first time he saw it and hand it to the county attorney and expect the attorney would laugh too. But the attorney instead says, "No judge (attorney) over at the courthouse will entertain this." Sheriff, "What?! Don't show the Refusal for Cause!"
Well you see? My friend if pulled in for Failure to Appear, which he was not. Can simply get certified copies of the refusal for cause from the clerk in Denver. The judge will likely tell the prosecutor never, ever to try tricking the courts into entertaining dead causes.
Regards,
David Merrill.
|
Edited by - David Merrill on 20 Mar 2005 07:35:26 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2005 : 14:25:44
|
Greetings Fellow Believers,
After 10 months of Federal detention, I am again a free man. I have learned much, and need to share it with the members here. It is going to take some time to bring it all forth. I am presently without a home, and so am dependant on internet access at the library. Please be patient with me. I can't get on every day.
I had all the power I needed right in my hands to prevent "them" from holding me, but didn't have the knowledge needed to execute on it. That is what I hope to share with all of you. Because of what I have learned, when the feds picked up an acquaintance of mine and hauled him into court on federal charges, when he faced the judge and told him who he is, the judge didn't want anything to do with him and ordered his release, even with much protestation from the prosecuting attorney.
The Declaration of Citizenship is extremely powerful, but you have to have a goodly amount of knowledge on how to use it in "their" courts. You need to know how to "tell" them what they can accept into their fiction world.
So, let me shate a little here, and more later.
First, to those who asked, my server is down because of the federal raid. I had a 31 hour stand-off with 50 FBI agents, 12 sheriff's deputies, 1 Sheriff, and 6 city police officers on Aug 24 & 25 and was charged and supposedly (important word that) convicted of violating Title 18 USC 111(a), which is the forceful interference with federal officers in the official performance of their duties. Documented in the Seattle Times and the Everett Herald newspapers.
However, "they" had no authority to be on my land. They never proved that they had jurisdiction in the State of Washington. The problem is, I went in, short on knowledge and went into dishonor by arguing.
Because of what I have learned, and others have supplemented, when the feds picked up my acquaintence, when he went before the administrator in the black dress, he knew the words to say to keep them from gaining jurisdiction over him.
What we know now, that we didn't know a year ago is: the court must first get "statutory jurisdiction" before it can proceed. Until it gets this, it is still an administrative tribunal and has no authority to hold you or to render a judgment against you.
I won't get into the "strawman" issue at this time. It is a moot argument and a waste of time generally. The all caps name is a commercial entity (a trust) that you are tied to, whether you like it or not. It is a waste of time arguing that it isn't you. As soon as you bring in this argument, you just granted them statutory jurisdiction and they can then move on to gaining legislative subject matter jurisdiction. Which they will immediately do.
Another trick they use is not allowing anthing "in-camera". You must open the record, before you say anything else, or you are talking to a blank wall. They will hear you. You open the record by saying: "For the Record......"
If the judge ever cuts you off and won't let you say your piece, simply repeat "For the Record....."
Now, if he still refuses to let you say your piece, or threatens contempt, you simply ask him if he is going to deny you "due process of law" by refusing to let you enter your evidence. He will accede. Again, something I didn't know, and so the judge cut me off and I never got to state who I am and what my standing is.
A good opening statement, for the first time you say anything in court, and this assumes you have managed to keep your mouth shut before getting there, and haven't signed your rights away, is something like this:
"For the Record, I Refuse for Fraud all claims of Statutory Jurisdiction by this court. I Refuse for Fraud all persons appearing who are members of the BAR, including but not limited to the prosecuting attorney, the court officers, and any appointed counsel. I Refuse for Fraud any indictment or charges in this instant matter. I State for the Record that I am an American citizen and not a United States citizen, as evidenced by my Declaration and Affidavit of Citizenship recorded in the public record and witnessed by both state and foreign consular officers. I am a sovereign citizen of the sovereign organic 1878 state of Washington, a living man standing on the land in the County of Snohomish. I am not a commercial entity, nor do I have any liabilities to any commercial entities no matter how created. Further, I Refuse for Fraud any form of contract with this court."
With this, you have denied them any avenue of attaching their debt to you, and you have established that you are not a commercial entity subject to U.S. Codes, rules or regulations.
You may want to expand on the statement, by adding something about the fact you declaration is consistant with Title 8 USC Sec. 1481 and that Title 8 clearly shows that a U.S. citizen and an American citizen are not one and the same.
More later,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2005 : 18:10:14
|
Greetings,
A few more words from an American National.
It was interesting that on my first appearance in the "court" (or whatever it was at that point) that the administrator in the black dress had a copy of my Declaration of Citizenship and asked my about it 3 separate times. (How many times have we heard about 3 this, that, or the other?). If only I had know what to do when asked, I could have been free.
Oh, well! Much has been learned.
Once we stop being U.S. citizens, then we break the presumption that we are commercial entities. Now, we simply need to sever the fiduciary liability to the commercial entity that was charged in the Administrative action. Remember, they can only see fiction entities, so they are not charging the living man, but are charging the commercial entity with the same name. I will avoid using the term "Strawman" as I think what has been said and taught about it has mis-lead too many people, including myself.
Yes, there is something that could be called a "Strawman". However, if you succeed in breaking the connection to it, it ceases to exist. When you were born and registered into the Department of Commerce, a public trust was created in your name. You were made the fiduciary, trustee, manager, and interpleader for that trust. If you cancel your relationship to the trust, without appointing a new fiduciary, trustee and interpleader for said trust, the trust ceases to be functional, and you can no longer operate in commerce in any form and not be in violation of many codes and regulations. To do so would be to commit a fraud, for which you can be held liable as a living man. You cannot go where you have no right to go.
So, we either have to learn how to remove the liability of the trust (strawman) without damaging the trust, or we have to cease all operations in commerce. No more phone, lights, water, etc. Not an acceptable choice in my book.
There are processes in place, granted to us by Congress, which will allow us to remove the presumptions of liability anytime they try to hold us liable to one of their charges. It terminates in a 902 hearing and a summary judgment against them. We (the people who are helping me with research and trials) have done a number of these already, and got the desired results in every case.
BTW - 902 refers to the Federal Rules of Evidence rule 902. You request an Evidenciary Hearing and serve them with notice. They have 60 days to answer. If you have done you homework, you have asked for evidence that they cannot ever produce. Therefore, they cannot answer. Therefore, the court has no choice but to grant you summary judgment in your cause.
A good example of this is: Whenever an action is brought against you in Federal Court, the plaintiff is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the action is brought by the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY for that district. You do a FOIA with a Sarbannes-Oxley rider on the agency of the UNITED STATES ATTORNEY (remember this is an administrative agency, Title 42 U.S.Code) demanding that the provide proof of their delegation of authority to bring an action on behalf of the United States of America and provide a "Certificat of Authenticity" (I will have to give you the form number for that later) or give you a "Certificate of No Available Information" (form number later) that no such information or authority exists. They have 30 days to provide this. When they don't (and they won't), they you call for your 902 hearing and demand they answer. By the way - their first failure to answer is punishable by fine or imprisionment or both and is a felony.
I am finding it fascinating how the "court" acts when you follow the guidelines set out in the U.S.Code. It appears that they have no discretion but to act according the Code. And they do, even if it is not in "their" best interest. If the code says you are entitled to $10,000 in restitution for some improper action by an administrative agent, then if you do the steps as set out in the code, that is what the court will award. No hesitation in the least.
Feedback is welcome. This is still a learing experience. All input is welcome, even contrary opinions. Let's work together to get this evil system stopped and every man of God free from it.
In Service of the Lord,
Lewis |
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 02 Jul 2005 : 18:24:49
|
Dear Lewish;
It is truly wonderful to have you back, and with your new-found experience.
Reading above, I wonder if you could edit out the typos? I heard you were in jail for a stint. So I know you would like your experience to count for the most value (whether the rumor is true or not).
I believe you when you say the attorney has no discretionary authority to act outside the US Code. Please be careful to detail this meticulously and accurately.
Regards,
David Merrill. |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2005 : 06:01:14
|
Greetings Lewis and welcome back, brother.
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
Yes, there is something that could be called a "Strawman". However, if you succeed in breaking the connection to it, it ceases to exist.
Yirm'yahu [Jeremiah] 10:5 They...speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 03 Jul 2005 06:04:18 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2005 : 07:15:39
|
Greetings and salutations in the name of the King, brother Lewis:
Peace be unto the house.
Our question to you is why do you claim you are an American National? Wouldn’t that make you an American?
American. Of or pertaining to the United States. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, page 53
Ephesians 2:12 (HNV) that you were at that time separate from Messiah, alienated from the commonwealth of Yisra'el, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God (Yahuwâh) in the world. …19 So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones (naziyr ones), and of the household of God (Yahuwâh)
Sacred
SA'CRED, a. [L. sacer, sacred, holy, cursed, damnable. We here see the connection between sacredness and secrecy. The sense is removed or separated from that which is…public
H5139
naziyr nazir
naw-zeer', naw-zeer'
From H5144; separate, that is, consecrated (as prince, a Nazirite); hence (figuratively from the latter) an unpruned vine (like an unshorn Nazirite).
Unpruned or unshorned are, as Dr Strong suggests here, figurative. Basically, the Hebrew word naziyr has the sense of, uncorrupted (unpruned) and peculiar (set apart).
Savage, n. The savages of America, when uncorrupted by the vices of civilized men, are remarkable for their hospitality to strangers, and for their truth, fidelity and gratitude to their friends, but implacably cruel and revengeful towards their enemies. From this last trait of the savage character, the word came to signify. – Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
Peculiar, a. [L. peculiaris, from peculium, one's own property, from pecus, cattle.] 1. Appropriate; belonging to a person and to him only. …4. Belonging to a nation, system or other thing, and not to others. (Ibid.)
H5144
nazar
naw-zar'
A primitive root ...specifically to set apart
Again, welcome back, brother and thank you for sharing with us all.
Sincerely,
brother Robert: & sister Kathleen:
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 03 Jul 2005 08:06:55 |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 03 Jul 2005 : 16:42:59
|
Greetings brother Robert ans sister Kathleen and others,
You have caught on to one of their tricks. An American is not an American national. Look carefully at the wording in Title 8 of the U.S.Code. These are word games that they play.
One of the tricks they tried on me when challenging my citizenship was to ask: "Are you a citizen of this state?" Now, I suspect that most of you would answer yes because you have included state Citizenship in your declaration. But, if you did, you would have answered incorrectly. In Title 28 of the U.S.Code "this state" is defined to be "the United States".
So, bottom line, you must always be on guard and watch carefully how they word their questions. By the way, I answered "No", and the examiner got quite perturbed. They thought that I would easily fall for that trick. Surprised them.
Peace be to you all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Declaration of Citizenship
