1. Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
    Dismiss Notice
  2. There are no markets
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 6/24/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1256.40 Silver $16.64 Oil $43.01 USD $96.94
  4. "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"
    Dismiss Notice

Motions vs. Affidavits

Discussion in 'Beginner's Forum' started by Goldhedge, Oct 12, 2014.



  1. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    28,645
    Likes Received:
    32,682
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    For your educational learning pleasure...


    Motions vs. Affidavits
    .
    It is ultra important to understand that you must head everything you submit in writing with "Affidavit of Fact", because they can, and they do deny a "Motion", as motions are discretionary and applicable to colorable courts, ordinances, statutes and codes, but not to LAW. Further it applies to corporate, or colorable people (negroes, coloreds, blacks, whites, etc.) because it is a discretionary action that can be and usually is denied! denied! denied!
    .
    Note: As in a meeting, a motion requires a second and can be denied without even being looked at, as these lower courts often do. An Affidavit of fact cannot lawfully be denied, and must be visited and either answered or rebutted, otherwise it stands as Truth, or, if it requires an answer by the court, it creates an injunction, and the court cannot lawfully move forward until answered. If not answered the matter must be dismissed due to lack of due process of law, lack of prosecution.
    .
    The utilization of "Affidavit" MUST BE THE ONLY FORM OF COMMUNICATION with the Court by a Sovereign or any person acting in a Lawful manner.
    .
    NOTE: NOTE: NOTE: Although a Motion is the proper form in a proper Court, as opposed to Colorable Courts, most people are in fact dealing with and challenging the Jurisdiction of the Inferior Courts, or COLORABLE Courts, who are NOT acting Lawfully or properly, and because a Motion ADMITS to the Jurisdiction of the Court, and a Motion is DISCRETIONARY, the Court chooses not to honor the Motion, or not to Second it, thus it is DENIED.
    .
    One must become sufficient enough in Law, and can, and does, come into the Court with their flags, and fully know that while they could be Amicus Curae (a friend of the Court) they can't be amicus curae if the Court is an unlawful court. How can they be a friend of an unlawful court? They must be partial when it comes to colorable law. They can enter the Court as Consul which is secured in the Constitution as your 'Right to Consul'. (Article III, Section 2 and in Vienna Convention, Article 36). In that position they are able to set the Court and the proceedings in order within the bounds of Law, by their knowledge and their very being there in Special Appearance (not general appearance). Special Appearance means they are NOT there in submission to the jurisdiction of the Court. General appearance means they are submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. How can you submit to a court that has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in the first place? Being present in 'Special Appearance' means you are not there to be adjudicated upon, but only to clear up a matter(s). Once we get this innerstanding, we may have possibly reached the goal for all Nationals, as they ARE THE LAW! They are truly Law Abiding. The point, and the current challenge, is to know "What Law Is and What Law Is Not".

    Special Appearance vs. General Appearance

    1. If a defendant by his appearance insists only upon objection that he is not in court for want of jurisdiction over his person and confines his appearance for that purpose only, he has made a “special appearance,” but if he raises any other question, or asks any relief which can only be granted upon hypothesis that court had jurisdiction of his person, he has made a “general appearance.” Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. Harrah, 248 P.2d 814, 815

    2. While a special appearance may be made to attack court’s jurisdiction over defendant’s person, joining therewith of attack on plaintiff’s affidavit renders appearance a “general appearance” waiving all objections to such jurisdiction. Sowl v. Union Pac. R.Co., 72 F.Supp. 542, 543

    3. A defendant, who files an answer to the merits or in any manner attacks plaintiff’s case, thereby, makes a “general appearance,” and gives the court full jurisdiction over the person of such defendant. Jefferson Park Realty Corp. v. Kelley Glover & Vale, 12 N.E.2d 977, 979

    4. A voluntary appearance whereby a defendant obtains an extension of time in which to plead is a “general appearance.” Youngblood v. Bright, 91 S.E.2d 559, 561

    5. A special appearance by defendant for purpose of filing a motion to dismiss restraining order and bill to enjoin collection of judgment did not constitute a “general appearance.” McFarlane v. McFarlane, 293 N.W. 895, 897

    6. If an appearance be for purpose of objecting to jurisdiction of court and is confined solely to such question, appearance is “special,” but any action of defendant, except to object to jurisdiction which recognizes the action as in court, will amount to a “general appearance.” Guthrie v. Threlkeld Co., 192 P.2d 307, 308

    7. A “general appearance” may be entered by making a motion, by filing an answer, and in other ways. Welter v. Bowman Dairy Co., 47 N.E.2d 739, 744

    8. Where defendant filed an answer, it made a “general appearance,” and thus conferred jurisdiction of the court over itself from the date of the appearance. Hart v. Rigler, 295 N.W. 308, 310

    9. A general demurrer, filed without protestation is a “general appearance.” Pacific Selling Co. v. Albright-Prior Co., 59 S.E. 468, 469

    10. An appearance made only for the purpose of moving to dismiss an action on one of the grounds specified in section of Code of Civil Procedures is made only on the hypothesis that the party is not properly before the court and is a “special appearance.” Frohman v. Bonelli, 204 P.2d 890, 893

    11. A party who appears for the purpose of applying to have proceedings set aside for want of jurisdiction waives nothing by such appearance. McCaslin v. Camp, 26 Mich. 390, 391

    12. A party’s appearance with a statement that he appeared “specially” is a “special appearance,” though no objection to the jurisdiction was specified. Marr v. Cook, 111 N.W. 116, 117

    13. A “special appearance” is an appearance for the purpose of objecting to the jurisdiction, to the proof, or to some other specific matter, without submitting to the jurisdiction of the court as to any other matter. National Furnace Co. v. Moline Malleable Iron Works, 18 F. 863, 864

    14. A “special appearance” must be made for purpose of urging jurisdictional objections only and must be confined to a denial of jurisdiction. Blake v. Union Ins. Exchange, 46 N.E.2d 141, 142

    15. An appearance for any purpose other than questioning the jurisdiction of the court is “general” and not “special” notwithstanding that the appearance is accompanied by the claim that the appearance is only special. The Ucayali, 47 F.Supp. 203, 206

    16. A demand for a copy of the complaint constitutes neither a “general appearance” nor a “special appearance.” Lisle v. Palmer, 29 N.Y.S.2d 975, 976

    17. Party desiring to challenge jurisdiction over his person waives “special appearance” and enters “general appearance,” by calling into action powers of court over subject-matter of controversy. Application of Goorich, 68 P.2d 597

    18. The appearance of an attorney for the sole purpose of moving to dismiss the action for irregularities in the proceedings is a “special appearance,” and the right to dismiss may be insisted on. Woodard v. Tri-State Milling Co., 55 S.E. 70, 71

    19. An appearance is “special” when its sole purpose is to question court’s jurisdiction. Behr v. Duling, 260 N.W. 281

    20. Appearance for sole purpose of challenging jurisdiction over person is “special appearance.” Robinson v. Glover, 244 N.W. 322, 323


    Screen Shot 2014-10-12 at 11.33.08 AM.jpg
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2014
    Bigjon likes this.
  2. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    28,645
    Likes Received:
    32,682
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    The Core of Sui Juris Method for Obtaining Remedy
    March 25, 2014 at 12:23pm

    The credit for the following information and document examples goes to my most honorable friend and very well versed Sovereign Brother, Jamie Barker. His vast knowledge of the law and willingness to freely share that knowledge has been a key inspiration to myself and many others on this path of learning to live as Sui Jurist.

    As always we highly recommend that people do a thorough study of Sui Juris method before attempting to apply and enforce remedy against criminals exceeding the authority vested them by We the People. One must be learned enough with this very powerful and effective process of administrative law to be able stand your ground and defend your position in honor with your spoken word. And what you should be endeavoring to learn is not just about the remedy, Sui Juris is a way of living. It's about knowing who you really are, not what an evil, fraudulent, and corrupted to the core world commercial system has blinded and deceived the masses into believing about themselves. It's about learning what real freedom is, and the level of individual responsibility that it requires. And it's about the only real unimmutable law of the universe among men and women who endeavor to live in peace and harmony with all, known by many as the golden rule, it's simple really, Do No Harm. Other than this there is no law, only statutes, codes, and ordinances that we have all been told are law, yet in reality they are nothing more than public policies, (Color of Law) that are given the force of law only by those who consent to being governed. As Sovereign men and woman who recognize who we are and the power we posses, we have chosen to withdraw and deny our consent to be governed by those who have proven that they only seek to do us harm. We have chosen the path of self governance and to claim, exercise, and defend the natural unalienable rights inherent to all. I think it's well established that freedom has never been free, it takes some time and effort to obtain it, and much more to retain it. But we believe it's worth it. If you are considering this way of life, we welcome you with open arms and open hearts. We all started somewhere at some point in time. We are all at our own place on this path of learning. And there are many of us who want to help you on your journey if you decide to join us.


    Notice Of Understanding, Intent, Claim of Right, and Notice of Permanent Estoppel by Acquiescence

    Notice of Understanding, Intent, and Claim of Right, is a bill of exchange. The Notary holds for collection the original bill of exchange and serves a certified true copy upon the party it is addressed to (THE COUNTY SHERIFF, DEPT OF HEALTH, TSA, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, THE AIRPORT ETC.) This bill of exchange doesn't require any form of payment, but does require specific performance. It requires acceptance of it, and a response registered under oath. If the addressed party comes to the Notary, they can pick up the Bill of exchange, by registering a response to the notice, under the same oath you take when having the original bill notarized. That means under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability. They can discharge your bill of exchange with a response, or, if they do not they have dishonored your bill of exchange. At this point the notary will notarize your next notice, a Notice of Dishonor, another bill of exchange offering 10 more days to respond to the original bill of exchange, advising the addressed party that they have dishonored a bill of exchange. The Notary keeps the original Notice Of Dishonor, and sends the certified true copy. The addressed party can come to the Notary, they can pick up both of the Bills of exchange, by registering a response to the original notice, under the same oath I took when I had the original bills notarized. If they do not register a response the Notary will Notarize a Notice of Protest for Non Acceptance, this notice is not crafted by you as a bill of exchange and held for collection. It is A formal statement in writing by a notary public, under seal, that a certain bill of exchange or promissory note was on a certain day presented for payment, or acceptance, and that such payment or acceptance was refused.

    (You print this up, have it notarized, and the Notary Public opens a file and holds this original Bill of exchange for collection. The Notary sends a certified true copy, in my case to the Sheriff. If the Sheriff registers a response he may pick up the original bill of exchange and all is done. If there is no response you go to the next notice Notice of Dishonor.)


    Notice Of Understanding, Intent, Claim of Right, and Notice of Permanent Estoppel by Acquiescence

    Dear

    Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent. Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within FIFTEEN (15) days of service of notice of this action.

    I am serving herewith, My Notice Of Understanding and Intent and my Claim of Right, as well as Notice of Estoppel through acquiescence. You will find the enclosed intact and complete.

    I ____________ of the ______________ family , a flesh and blood living soul do hereby make oath and state the following is my truth and my law.

    Whereas : it is my understanding that America and all her people enjoy the protection of common-law and it is my understanding that all living beings (flesh and blood) are created equally under one creator and it is my understanding that we are sharing this existence on Earth together under our creator and it is my understanding that we have been given a conscience to deliberate and make decisions for ourselves and it is my understanding that equality before the law is paramount and mandatory and it is my understanding that a statute is defined as a legislative rule of society which has been given the force of law, and it is my understanding that a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal and it is my understanding that the government of America is a Representative Body and Representation can only come from consent and

    Whereas I am a peaceful and responsible human being and it is my understanding that peace officers have a duty to distinguish between statute and law and Whereas I have the power to refuse intercourse or interaction with peace officers who have not observed me breach the peace Whereas permanent estoppel by acquiescence barring any peace officer or prosecutor from bringing charges against a Freeman-of-the-Land under any act is created if this claim is not responded to in the stated fashion and time.

    Therefore be it now known to any and all concerned and effected parties, that I, (____________ of the ______________ family ) a Sovereign Freeman-on-the-Land do hereby state clearly and specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations restrictions and maintain all rights at law and trade, exchange and barter.

    Furthermore: I claim the right not to apply for licenses, permits or to seek permission to do any action, that are already lawful,

    I claim the right to exercise my "common law right to travel", unhindered, unencumbered, at my discretion in my private conveyance of the day, to wit, my private, unregistered, unlicensed mechanically propelled automobile,

    I claim the right to possess, cultivate or use medicinally any plant or other medicine. Also to exercise omnipotent control over all of my own medical affairs with or without a Doctor's oversight.

    I claim the right to possess unregistered firearms and ammunition and to use the same for target practice at a range or for hunting for food and further swear under oath never to open fire on another human being unless I am in fear of my life and as a last resort to protect any other human life. I Also swear to come to the aide of any peace officer should they request my assistance. That is my personal oath.

    Furthermore, I claim that the intentional blurring of the lines and the failure to define between that which is legal, and that which is lawful in order to extract capital from the masses by legislating freedom and then putting a price tag on it is a crime on Man, and the failure to define between the Natural man and the State created Fiction is nothing short of fraud, theft, breach of trust and forced slavery, a heinous criminal activity of the most odious form.

    I claim that the courts in the United States of America are de-facto and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I furthermore claim that they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.

    I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this claim and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or color of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure.

    Furthermore, I claim all transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties and I do hereby deny consent to any transaction of a security interest issuing under any Act for as herein stated as a Freeman-on-the-Land I am not subject to any Act.

    Furthermore, I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is (1oz of gold ) ONE OUNCE OF GOLD ($1,366.00) per hour or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed, searched or otherwise regulated and (5oz of gold) FIVE OUNCES OF GOLD ($6,830.00) per hour or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and Notarized consent.]

    Furthermore, I state that it is my duty to Claim such rights, to protect them and ensure they exist for future generations.Furthermore, I claim that the law of agent and principal does apply and that service upon one is equal to both.Furthermore, I claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on video tape said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose I see fit.

    Responses must be under Oath attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the Notary Office herein provided no later than ten days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certification of service.

    Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment and permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act against My Self

    Signed: .

    Witness: .

    Notary: .


    (You print this up, have it notarized, and the Notary Public puts this original in the file and holds this original Bill of exchange for collection along with the first one. The Notary sends a certified true copy, in my case to the Sheriff. If the Sheriff registers a response he may pick up both of the original bills of exchange and all is done. If there is no response the next notice is crafted by the Notary, and placed into your file, sending another certified copy of that Notice to the Sheriff.)



    Notice Of Dishonor

    Dear

    I am writing to inform you that you have dishonored my Notice of Understanding, Intent, Claim of Right, and Permanent Estoppel by acquiescence, by failing to accept and respond. Through your silence you have confirmed that we share an understanding regarding all points in the original notice received by you on October 7th 2010. This notice is to both inform you of the fact that you have dishonored my notice, and to give you another opportunity to respond and to clarify anything you do not understand. You have another ten (10) days to respond to this original notice that I have properly served upon you. I look forward to your response and an opportunity to discuss this matter. Responses must be under oath, bond, and full commercial liability, and received within ten (10) days from the date this notice is received. Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.


    Sincerely,


    Signature


    Witness


    Notary


    (If there is no response to the Notice of dishonor, the Notary Public crafts the NOTICE OF PROTEST FOR NON ACCEPTANCE. Protest A formal statement in writing by a notary public, under seal, that a certain bill of exchange or promissory note was on a certain day presented for payment, or acceptance, and that such payment or acceptance was refused. The Sheriff gets another 10 days to come in and pick up these original bills by registering a response. The example below is as if it were coming from you, but the Notary can use this and your other notices to craft their own notice of protest. That is really supposed to be crafted and sent by the Notary Public.)



    Notice Of Protest For Non Acceptance

    Dear As Notary Public I am writing this notice of Protest for Non Acceptance, under seal, in a formal statement, to advise you that a bill of exchange was on 10/06/2010, presented for acceptance, and that such acceptance was refused. The notice sent on 10/06/2010 was verified received by your signature via certified mail return receipt on 10/07/2010, and fifteen (15) days were given for acceptance.

    On 11/16/2010, well after the time frame given, Notice of Dishonor was presented and held for collection also, and that notice was served by this office to advise you that you had dishonored a bill of exchange. This FINAL NOTICE, Notice of Protest For Non Acceptance, sought by the party presenting the bill of exchange, is to advise you again that this office is holding for collection a bill of exchange presented for acceptance, and that acceptance has been refused.

    Per instruction of the party presenting said bill of exchange, you now have another fifteen (15) days to accept the bill of exchange and all original notices related, and they can be accepted in this office, either in person, or by certified mail, by registering a notarized response in this office, per the presenting party, in the fashion stated within the first notice given. The party presenting the bill of exchange has requested that this Notary Public fullfill their duty under New York Executive Law Section 138, to protest for non acceptance of the bills of exchange currently being held for collection under the same section. Protest service requested by signature of party below on this _______ day of ________________ in the year of _____________


    (Please note that the Notary Public is simply holding these bills of exchange, attested to under oath by the presenting part, for collection, and protest relates only to the non acceptance of them, not the matters involved.)

    Sincerely,


    Signature


    Witness


    Notary .



    Administrative Default Judgement of Permanent Estoppel by Acquiescence

    After this if there is no response you win by default, all points not refuted in the Notice of Understanding and intent constitute a shaerd understanding by acquiescence. As a public officer constituted by law to assist the public in non contentious matters, the Notary Public, being that POWERS AND DUTIES EXECUTIVE LAW Section 138 ranks the Notary above and before justice of the supreme court, a judge, clerk, deputy clerk, or special deputy clerk of a court, an official examiner of title, or the mayor or recorder of a city, a justice of the peace, surrogate, special surrogate, special county judge, or commissioner of deeds, who is a stockholder, director, officer or employee of a corporation. A NOTARY PUBLIC MAY PERFORM ANY DUTY ANY OF THESE OTHER PUBLIC OFFICERS CAN PERFORM IN ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY, PROVIDED THE MATTER IS NON CONTENTIOUS, OR WITHOUT DISPUTE AS A DEFAULT MATTER IS. A justice of the Peace can grant the judgement as well.

    POWERS AND DUTIES EXECUTIVE LAW 138. Powers of notaries public or other officers who are stockholders, directors, officers or employees of a corporation.

    A notary public, justice of the supreme court, a judge, clerk, deputy clerk, or special deputy clerk of a court, an official examiner of title, or the mayor or recorder of a city, a justice of the peace, surrogate, special surrogate, special county judge, or commissioner of deeds, who is a stockholder, director, officer or employee of a corporation may take the acknowledgment or proof of any party to a written instrument executed to or by such corporation, or administer an oath of any other stockholder, director, officer, employee or agent of such corporation, and such notary public may protest for non- acceptance or non-payment, bills of exchange, drafts, checks, notes and other negotiable instruments owned or held for collection by such corporation; but none of the officers above named shall take the acknowledgment or proof of a written instrument by or to a corporation of which he is a stockholder, director, officer or employee, if such officer taking such acknowledgment or proof to be a party executing such instrument, either individually or as representative of such corporation, nor shall a notary public protest any negotiable instruments owned or held for collection by such corporation, if such notary public be individually a party to such instrument, or have a financial interest in the subject of same. All such acknowledgments or proofs of deeds, mortgages or other written instruments, relating to real property heretofore taken before any of the officers aforesaid are confirmed. This act shall not affect any action or legal proceeding now pending.

    NOTICES AFFIDAVITS WRITS AND ALLODIAL TITLE (The same process above can be used to declare allodial title to ANY piece of PROPERTY, or any THING you have received a CERTIFICATE in exchange for registering.)



    NOTICES

    The Sovereign affects their affairs at law through notices, affidavits, and writs. The simple truth is that most of the time when people end up in court, it is for some violation ticket of some type. The first thing we must realize is that all of these tickets that will be left on your car or given when you are pulled over, including stop work notices or any other notice, are just notices. There are 4 ways to deal with these tickets, payment, dispute, ignore them, and conditional acceptance.

    When most people go to court for a traffic violation for example, they are not in trouble for what they did to get the ticket, but for what they did not do in the 30 day period before going to court. If you got a notice for a ticket, and did not send any notices of your own to attempt discussion, you are in court in conflict in dishonor. If you dispute the ticket without offering discussion, you are in court in conflict in dishonor. If you ignore the ticket you end up in court in conflict in dishonor. So the only real option is the one they never tell you about. You have the ability to accept the notice, conditional acceptance is the key to remaining in honor, which is much more important than arguing with a cop about the ticket.

    If you are pulled over and get a ticket what the cop wants you to do is sign and take the copy, but doing this is dishonoring a bill of exchange. A ticket is like a bill at a restaurant, it is just a bill of exchange, and you have a right to demand the original. When a cop tries to give you a ticket just say " I recognize that as a bill of exchange, I am willing to accept your presentment". He might play the "what you mean you do not want to sign it" game. Just say "why would I dishonor your bill of exchange, I am open to you presenting the original". At this point he has to give you an original signed bill, if he does not and imposes a copy sign the copy under protest and duress and march it right to your notary pubic. Draft a NOTICE OF PROTEST FOR NON PRESENTMENT, have that notice notarized and send it to the issuing police dept. They now have 3 days to represent the original or the cop who endorsed that ticket ends up liable to pay it just like a waitress when she forgets to give a customer their bill Notices are really quite simple documents. In the situation above you need only one notice. When that goes unanswered and you go to court and are asked how you plea, your answers are as follows:1. I am competent to speak on my own behalf and administrate my own affairs.2. I do not stand under the charges.3. I do not consent to adjudication services as there has been no discussion in this matter. Hand your notarized notice to the judge and you win automatically. Not only do you win but the cop that wrote you the ticket ends up paying it, because no one can claim you owe them money without presenting you a bill. Liability cannot be generated without remedy.

    The 4 notices you will be using most often are:1. NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING, INTENT, AND CLAIM OF RIGHT.2. NOTICE OF DISHONOR3. NOTICE OF PROTEST FOR NON ACCEPTANCE4. NOTICE OF PROTEST FOR NON PRESENTMENT.

    You should be able to craft notices by yourself but these will do the trick until you steady your own hand through experience. You should be able to use these notices attached as a template to form your own. I started by sending notice of understanding, intent, and claim of right upon my county Sheriff. The county Sheriff is the highest common law officer, responsible for all cops in the county. This notice includes a fee schedule for harassment by police that you can activate any time AND COLLECT ON. If you use these 3 notices you can then obtain an administrative default judgement. I am currently seeking in this process an administrative default judgement of permanent estoppel to bar all statutory charges. This notice process is the same process that cops use with tickets to get you into court in conflict in dishonor. Flip the script and use it yourself, and you will secure a level of freedom you may never have imagined. These judgements do not get overturned because they are not based on law, or on fact, they are based on the lawful process of discussion required before you can get to an appropriate place of adjudication. It doesn't matter what the issue is, if you use this process, by the time you get to court you will be the only one there, and you will have a signed judgment in your favor.



    AFFIDAVITS

    Your notices, are essentially affidavits, affidavits are a little more forceful than notices. Anything you attest to under penalty of perjury is an affidavit. A deposition of true testimony. We are going to use affidavits and our county recorder's office to declare allodial title to our property. Homes, cars, boats, motorcycles, children, marriage, anything you can register, and receive a "certificate" in exchange for registration. It sounds sick but our system is set up that allows the registration of children in exchange for birth certificates. If you never register your children, you never give consent to CPS to take away your kids. Your registration of your child in exchange for a certificate is evidence of consent as you had no obligation of law to do it. If there is no lawful mandate, it is voluntary consent. If you have registered your kids you can cancel it and declare allodial title much in the same way as a piece of property. I agree that looking at children as property is sickening, but if you do not register them in the first place you wouldn't be in this position.



    Writs

    Your writ, like a writ of Habeus Corpus should be a last resort, and are intended here in NY where I live, for all matters where you are in any manner under any color or pretense constrained in your liberty. You can use a writ of Habeus Corpus to get out of jail, rescue your car from impound and many other things. You are going to want to use affidavits to declare allodial title to property that was registered by mistake.


    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wear...-Juris-Law-Archives-open-page/402744979763075
     
    dollars likes this.
  3. Ra.El

    Ra.El New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I'm in a court case and I've been doing a bunch of research which has lead me to this website. I originally planned on making a Motion to Suppress Evidence but now I see that would cause more harm than good.

    I was pulled over for 15 over the speed limit, I asked the officer if there was any injured party, and tried explaining that I was not driving. He asked for my drivers license 3 times then ripped open my door and told me that I was under arrest for "Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree". There's case law that states you cannot make a right into a crime which from my understand is what he did. This then lead to my car getting searched, I did not consent, they found illegal substances, and I had a suspended driver's license. After the night in jail when I went to the judge I attempted to challenge jurisdiction, and asked if this was an admiralty court or if it was a common law court. She said it was a criminal court. I said the yellow banner flags signify that this is an admiralty court and I do not agree to enter into a plea. She made it seem like she didn't enter me into a plea but gave me a court date to come back and told me to get a lawyer. When I went back I attempted to challenge jurisdiction with a bunch more case law and she told me that she entered me into a plea on my behalf.

    I was going to make a motion to suppress because it was an unlawful stop and seizure and you cannot convert a right into a crime, but I want to be able to make a special appearance when I go to court. Do you have any guidance you can give me?
     
  4. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    28,645
    Likes Received:
    32,682
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Welcome to the board!

    We don't provide legal advice here, just educational concepts to peruse.


    There's a few things to know and understand before you get to court.


    I would check out www.ticketslayer.com

    They use a common law default that is 80% successful. The 20% that fail either do it wrong, or else the court doesn't follow the law.

    Read about the common law there.


    There's also On Point ; Title 42 Litigation on Facebook.

    Another site is https://www.1215.org there's a wealth of educational information there as well.
     
  5. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    2,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Welcome to the club. Might I ask if when you first went in was it an article three court?

    Well.....anything that I might add could be construed as bullshit unless you understand what a fiction is and how it operates. Look bud I won't blow smoke. You only win on appeal. Most traffic bs, well to challenge you have to pay the filing fee to appeal. Here is the bare bones of it....

    If and when you first showed yourself was there any piece of scrap offering testimony ....And by what you have wrote I see you went to a hearing.....it is all administrative as of this point.

    You do well to understand the trial of William Penn. Yes the guy who somehow founded Pennsylvania the state. That guy was like forever getting his gonads roasted, beat and flayied by a church/church people. Yeah they were putting the boots to the guy. So they have Billy boy Penn in the housecow and damened if his friends din't get him a jury trial. And I do think this is the first time that a jury was picked and stacked. So anywoooo, the gist of it is the jury found that a fiction not being alive could not be hurt. No harm no foul.

    That trial is "case" law. You cannot site it as such, you can only emulate it. This means you take control. You most likely are wondering how to do this when you see that thief sitting up there in his robe. First of all there needs to be a charging document. If there is not one the you are in an article one court. This means the f'n thief is just taking testimony. So every time the cop opens his mouth you object for the record, your objection is "hearsay." You object to EVERY THING!

    You can and you do inter testimony, your hearsay objection keeps out the fiction from entering testimony. You see unless you have caused damages there will not be a prosecutor, this means you are at a hearing or article one court.

    Stay sovereign and do not...DO NOT..... use the symbolism of the word "I" you use; me, this human, the man known as xxx. There is a reason I is always capitalized. Remembering capitalised words or symbols always denoted PERSON. person is corporate, corporate is controlled by fiction.

    And, and remember when in not an article three court and there being no prosecutor that the thing in the black robe is what is called an ...administrative law judge..... Administrative Law Judges can only take testimony, assess facts for the next step. They cannot find fact as in give out judgements. In other words it is a glorified judicial office pogie or judicial cleric.

    Remember cite law often, explain nothing, object to hearsay, and sign through your name "with prejudice".....but most of all have fun. I say have fun because they brought you in to bear witness to their ignorance.

    Oh and there is a thread....I'll go find it but you should read it, in its entirety.
    Darn.....I think it is called the right to travel....er something like that. But Goldhedge has a good one......http://www.goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?81166-Driver-Licensing-vs-Right-to-Travel. But that is not the one I am thinking of....

    Just remember where you are at and what you are looking at and converse with.
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  6. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    28,645
    Likes Received:
    32,682
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Also NEVER argue - you ALWAYS ask questions...

    Here is another site on questions to ask ... From the Wayback machine



    Citizens of the American Constitution

    Constitutional Challenges To Courts, Government and Opponents


    By Notices, Motions and Pleadings

    Citizens of the American Constitution challenge unconstitutional, unlawful and unauthorized government, court and opponents’ actions by using the following Constitutional based procedures, more specifically outlined in the case Metris v. Edwards. Challenges are done in three different successive methods, as listed below

    Government, the courts and corporate America, by their own proven, established and demonstrated actions do not serve the interests of the People or Constitutional requirements, but only themselves, and for their own best interests, done at the vast expense of the People. Oaths mean little, if anything to public officers, who perjure those oaths at will. Our enemies will not abide by Constitutional and lawful requirements until We, The People, so require.

    As Constitutionalists, we do not consider Constitutional oaths taken by public servants to be formalities, but a sacred bond given in exchange for the Public Trust. We fully expect and require that all oaths taken by public servants to the federal and state Constitutions be abided by those public servants in their performances of their official duties. The challenges are intended for this purpose, and for the Rights of the American People to be upheld by those governments and those courts sworn and bound to serve the People. The methods follow:

    Challenges to Opponents, such as corporate America

    1. Presumptive Letters –

    2. Affidavit of Truth –

    3. Pleadings, Notices and Motions -

    4. Requests For Admissions –

    Challenges to governments and courts

    A. Established Motions:

    1. Motion For Trial By Jury –

    2. Challenge of Jurisdiction –

    3. Motion To Dismiss –

    4. Motion For Summary Judgment –

    5. Judicial Notice –

    B. Motions for judge:

    1. Motion To Claim and Exercise Constitutional Rights –

    2. Motion To Require Judge To Read All Pleadings

    Direct Challenges in court

    As stated in the previous section, we are Constitutionalists and require all public servants, including judges, to abide by their oaths in the performance of their official duties, including those before the court. This protects the American Citizens from government and court abuse, if enforced. The previous challenges are intended to stop any action before it gets to court. Those listed below are intended to be stated or asked by the defendant in court prior to the start of proceedings. They require “yes” or “no” responses; and you must hold the judge, only, to these answers. If you allow him to evade and avoid answering as such, then you, yourself, allow the judge to damage you, your lawful positions and the Powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution to you. As you can see, either a “yes” or “no” answer serves your interests, if you understand the implications.

    For the sake of convenience, we shall assume the position as defendant. Please remember that all public servants serve under limited, delegated authority from the Constitution, by and through the People, for the best interests of the People. The American People must gain courage, en masse, and stand up to and challenge all forms of government, especially the courts, which are supposed to be the last bastion of justice. Since the Constitution cannot conflict with itself, the limited powers delegated to government by the Constitution can never supercede the powers of and Rights guaranteed in the Constitution to The American People. “Authority” is an extremely important word and concept. Nothing lawful can be conducted by government and the courts without Constitutional authority, and government has no authority to disparage your Rights. Keep “authority” in mind as you review the following statements and questions.


    CHALLENGES IN COURT BEFORE PROCEEDINGS START

    These statements and questions can be directed to the judge, for himself, the prosecuting attorney and state witnesses, such as police, etc., and to each one, individually. Not all of these need be made, so state those with which you are most comfortable. If both you and your opposition, including the judge, fully understand the very serious, lawful positions and Constitutional implications of the statements and questions, usually, only the first one is needed for Constitutional justice to be served.

    When the judge asks if the parties are ready to proceed, we say, “No, not just yet, sir (or madam), I have a few matters I need to clarify before we begin.” Then we make the statements we think most appropriate.

    1. A. You and the prosecutor have taken oaths of office to support and uphold the Constitution of the united States of America and that of this state. Is that correct?

    B. Pursuant to your oaths, you are required to abide by those oaths, in the performance of your official duties, including those before this Honorable Court. Is that correct?

    Note: If the judge, or the prosecuting attorney or other state witnesses say “no”, then, obviously, they must be disqualified and/or removed from the bench, position or impeached as witnesses, along with their testimonies, for obvious reasons. This answer is evidence that the one who answered “no” will not abide by his oath in the performance of his official duties, therefore, by his own answer, his oath is meaningless to him. He is a traitor and a danger to the American People, and must be removed from power.

    All those who have taken oaths are required to answer “yes”. This answer is consistent with the requirements under the oath, the bond which binds the oath and requirements of the Constitutions. A “yes” answer means that ALL actions taken by the public servant, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE must be consistent with Constitutional requirements, specific to the Bill of Rights. If the public servant’s past actions failed this, and if those actions are used in an action or as evidence against the defendant, then those actions were not taken pursuant to his oath and were done in opposition to Constitutional requirements. Therefore, the public servant perjured his oath, invoked the self-executing sections 3 and 4 of the 14th amendment, vacated his office, and forfeited all benefits of that former office, including salary and pensions. All charges must be dismissed, with prejudice.

    He must be disqualified from his position, and if a witness, he and his testimony must be impeached and all his unconstitutional, unlawful actions and evidence against the defendant must be denied, and the charges dismissed. All present and future actions by the judge and court must be conducted pursuant to the Constitutions, federal and state. In this situation, if you are fully aware of your Rights and the full extent of the “yes” answer, you will prevail. However, if the judge were to then after violate his answer by his actions, you must inform him of his answer and his Constitutional requirements thereto, and his liability if he were to fail in his duty.

    2. I appear before this Honorable Court as a living, breathing natural-born American Citizen, with, and claiming, all Rights guaranteed to me in the federal and state Constitutions, and with my name properly spelled in upper and lower case letters.

    After this is stated, wait a few seconds to look at the prosecutors and the judge, then say:

    Is there any objection to what I just stated?

    Obviously, pursuant to oaths taken by the judge, prosecutors or opposing attorneys, there can be no lawful objection to what you just stated, because all that you just stated, includes, but is not limited to, truth and fact. If what you just stated is true, namely, that you are a natural born American Citizen, it would be lawfully foolish and absurd for the judge, the prosecutor or your opposing attorneys to object. If they were to object, then, they would be forced to support their objections with fact and law, or their objections are reduced to opinions, only, and opinions are not valid bases in any court of Constitutional competence upon which to state objections or claim lawful positions. In such an event, you must specify this.

    When no objection is made, then, you appear before the Court as you stated. If there are any assumptions or presumptions made by any of your opposition regarding any alleged contracts or requirements with the fictitious entity, those assumptions, contracts, etc., were just removed with your statement and no objections made. If the case against you is based upon those contracts and assumptions, the entire basis for the case has been removed by your own direct and simple statement.

    3. This court abides by all the powers of and Rights guaranteed to American Citizens in the federal and state Constitutions, including due process of law. Is that correct?

    Note: A “no” answer carries the same conditions as above. A “yes” answer is in compliance with Constitutional requirements for American Citizens and is consistent with the “yes” answer to #1 above. Again, if you are fully aware of your Rights and the conditions underlying the affirmative answer, you will prevail. Remember, bind the judge by his answer.

    4. I am entitled to and guaranteed a fair and impartial trial presided over by a fair, unbiased and impartial judge, in a court of record, before and decided by a well-informed jury of my peers. Is that correct?

    Note: A “no” answer is consistent with conditions stated above. A “yes” answer confirms the conditions of the statement, including: (1) Right to a fair and impartial trial; (2) unbiased and impartial judge; (3) a jury of my peers; (4) which jury decides guilt or innocence.

    5. I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the alleged charges, presumptions and assumptions in, by and of this court, unless proven guilty by a well-informed jury of my peers, beyond a reasonable doubt, based solely on verified evidence and proof. Is that correct?

    Note: Either answer is consistent with conditions as stated above. However, in this statement, with a “yes” answer, you are confirming several vital positions: (1) presumed innocent of all ASPECTS of the alleged charges; (2) presumed innocent of ALL PRESUMPTIONS and ASSUMPTIONS of this court; (3) unless PROVEN guilty by a JURY OF MY PEERS; (4) proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (5) based SOLELY ON VERIFIED EVIDENCE AND PROOF.

    6. A. “Proof” consists of verified and demonstrated evidence, and not opinion, especially opinion unsupported by fact, law and evidence. Is that correct?

    Note: In this statement, by the judge’s answer, you are confirming the nature and status of “proof”. It is highly unlikely that any judge will, on the public record, answer “no” to this statement, since his answer will defy the very loudly proclaimed concept of American justice, will defy due process of law, deny Constitutional Rights and allow ‘opinion”, unsupported or otherwise, to be used as “proof”.

    When the judge answers “yes”, that will be consistent with the judge’s oath, Constitutional requirements and his other “yes” answers. He will confirm the statement, and the fact that opinion, verified or otherwise, is not proof. This is a major position, a major lawful gain and benefit. Many “testimonies” by witnesses are simply opinions, usually unsupported and unverified. The defendant can now be assured that only verified and documented proof, and not opinion, from anyone, can be used against him.

    B. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” consists solely of decisions and verdicts from a well-informed jury of my peers based entirely on proof that absolutely and conclusively confirms guilt, without any reservations or questions, whatsoever, from the jury. Is that correct?

    Note: A “no” answer is consistent with conditions above stated. A “yes” answer confirms ALL the conditions of the statement, due process of law, Constitutional requirements, the judge’s oath, and assures that a jury of your peers will make its verdict based solely on PROOF, not opinion, that absolutely confirms guilt, without any questions, whatsoever.

    7. Opinion from any witness or prosecuting attorney unsupported and unverified by fact, law and proven evidence is simply opinion, and opinion, as previously established, is not proof. Is that correct?

    Note: A “no” answer is consistent with conditions stated above. A “yes” answer again confirms the status of ”proof” as different from opinion. Thus, any plaintiff, (or opponent), prosecutor or witness MUST have verified proof, as described, and not opinion to support his statements. This is of vital importance to American Citizens. Therefore, “proof” by the prosecutor and testimony of witnesses is only opinion, unless supported as above stated, and if not, it is meaningless, frivolous, null and void and not accepted by the court as proof of anything, including guilt.

    8. A. Since I am guaranteed a fair and impartial trial, how is that possible when you, the presiding judge, the prosecuting attorney and all the witnesses against me work for and are paid by the state that is the plaintiff in this case, and my opponent? In this situation, it is impossible for me to have a fair trial. Is that correct?

    B. Further, any data used against me is obtained from sources who, are also paid by the state, the same plaintiff against me. At minimum, conflict of interest takes place.

    Note: A “no” answer is consistent with above conditions. If the judge were to answer ”no”, he is essentially saying, on the public record, that it is possible for a defendant to have a fair trial, even though he, the judge, the prosecutor and the state witnesses all work for and are paid by your opponent, and that all the so-called “evidence” against the defendant was obtained from sources paid by the state, again, the opponent. Even the most avowed critic can see through this fraud.

    A “yes” answer confirms the conditions of the statement, and conclusively demonstrates that a presiding judge recognizes, on the public record, that the referenced court conditions are not fair, not partial, and, as such, unconstitutional. This is a major Constitutional and lawful victory for the people, with far reaching implications.

    9. Since I am presumed innocent of the charges and all aspects, presumptions and assumptions of those charges and this court, I have challenged the jurisdiction of this court, which this court has not proven, on the public record. Therefore, since I am presumed innocent of all aspects of the charges and presumptions of the court, and since jurisdiction has not been proven, jurisdiction is simply a presumption of this court, of which I am presumed innocent. Therefore, I move for dismissal of all charges for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to the foregoing, and to numerous federal and Supreme Court rulings, this case must be dismissed, with prejudice, and I hereby move for dismissal of all charges and this case, with prejudice.

    Note: By prior “yes” answers, it has been established that the defendant is presumed innocent of all assumptions and presumptions of the court. Jurisdiction is both an assumption and presumption of the court, of which the defendant is presumed innocent. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the court, which the court failed to prove, on the record. Therefore, since the defendant is presumed innocent of jurisdiction, has challenged jurisdiction, which the court has failed to prove, on the public record, the court lacks jurisdiction and since jurisdiction does not exist, the charges must be dismissed, with prejudice.

    If the judge were to deny this lawful position and insist that his court has jurisdiction, without his having proven it, on the public record, the following could be stated:

    Since the judge has stated that this court conforms to all Constitutional requirements, then, this court conforms to the Bill of Rights, Article III of the federal Constitution and to due process of law. Jurisdiction is directly related to the foregoing, is an aspect of the charges, and a presumption of this court, of which the defendant is presumed innocent, yet this court has failed to prove jurisdiction, on the record. Thus, this court defies Constitutional requirements, due process of law, federal and Supreme Court rulings, and therefore forfeits any “perceived jurisdiction”, has no Constitutional authority to hear this case, so this case must be dismissed, with prejudice; or the presiding judge, pursuant to his oath, perjures that oath, commits insurrection and sedition against the Constitution, on the public record, and treason against the American People.

    10. A. The jury swears an oath to the Constitution. Is that correct? In its deliberations and in its verdict, the jury is required to abide by its oath. Is that correct?

    Note: Since the jury swears an oath and is required to abide by that oath, it is obvious that a “yes” answer is required. The Constitutional and lawful position here is that the jury must abide by its oath in making its verdict. If it fails to do so, then the jury perjures its oath, its actions and verdict are unconstitutional and the jury verdict null and void, without force or effect, whatsoever. Just as a public servant is required to abide by his oath in the performance of his official duties, so is the jury. However, the People must know and demand their Rights, or they have none.

    If the judge were to answer “no”, which is highly unlikely, then as a defendant I would move for immediate dismissal of all charges, with prejudice, because any judge or court that permits an unconstitutional jury to perjure its oath and reach an unconstitutional verdict, pursuant to its oath, operates as an open fraud upon the People, denies and defies the Constitution and the powers of and Rights guaranteed therein to the American people, denies due process of law and has no jurisdiction over any American Citizen, whatsoever.

    B. If the jury, pursuant to its oath, makes its verdict in perjury of its oath or in opposition or contradiction to the Constitutions and the Rights guaranteed therein to American Citizens, or based in false information and fraud, that verdict is plainly unconstitutional, thus null and void, frivolous, and without force or effect, whatsoever. Is that correct?

    Note: Answer given in previous note. Further, pursuant to oaths taken, any jury verdict based, either in whole or in part, in fraud, deception, manipulation, lies or false information is null and void.

    If the judge were to say that this is not correct, then I, as a defendant, would inform him, pursuant to his oath and pursuant to his preceding “yes” answers, why his response is not only incorrect, but unconstitutional and unlawful. Further, I would inform him that he has no Constitutional authority to deny, on the public record, the very Constitution to which he, bound by bond, and the jury swore an oath. Further, he has no Constitutional authority to exceed his limited Constitutionally delegated authority, or to step outside that authority. It is obvious that the judge is not a higher authority than the Constitution, therefore, he cannot overrule it.

    If the judge were to insist that the jury verdict, even when based in fraud, etc., as above described, is valid, I would remind him of his first “yes” answer to statement #1, in which he is required to conduct his professional duties pursuant to his oath, as is the jury also required. I would then remind the judge of his other “yes” answers, in which he confirmed, including, but not limited to, the Constitutional duties of the court. His response is made in contradiction to his oath, as is the jury’s verdict, thus, both are unlawful, unconstitutional, without force or effect whatsoever, and not binding in a Constitutionally compliant court, which the judge stated, on the public record, is the status of this court.

    At this point, I would move for immediate dismissal of all charges and this case, with prejudice, for, including, but not limited to, lack of jurisdiction, lack of Constitutional authority, defiance of the federal and state Constitutions, denial of due process, perjury of oath, insurrection and sedition against the Constitution, and treason against the American People, in the instant case, the defendant.

    If the “judge” were to remain firm, then, as a defendant, I would inform him that I am entitled to a fair and impartial trial, by a jury of my peers, as he has previously agreed, and as is Constitutionally guaranteed, yet this jury is not a jury of my peers for many reasons, including, but not limited to: (1) jury members are not part of my ethnicity; (2) they do not work in the same profession I do; (3) they do not come from the same background and education that I do; (4) they are not Constitutionalists and supporters of the Supreme Law of the Land, as I am; (4) they are traitors to the Constitution and to the American People, which I am not.

    I would then, again, move for dismissal of all charges and the case, with prejudice, based upon previously stated grounds, and further include the fact that the judge would permit an unconstitutional verdict by a lawless, unconstitutional jury not of my peers. The Constitutions guarantee me a jury of my peers, yet this judge denies this Constitutionally guaranteed Right to me. Pursuant to his oath, he has no Constitutional authority to overrule the very same Constitution to which he swore an oath, and, further, is not a higher authority than the Constitution. If the judge were to remain firm, I would again inform him that, by his own actions and responses, he committed insurrection, sedition and treason against the American People, is a traitor to this Nation and its People, and must be removed from the bench for his treason. I will immediately file criminal and civil charges against him, personally, and in his professional capacity, and take action against him in an Article III federal court, which I will demand, by Motion.



    Questions To Ask The Jury

    1. Are you aware that the Constitution of the united States of America, to which you swore an oath when you were initiated into jury duty, is the Supreme Law of the Land – the Highest Authority in this Nation - and that, as such, no other law, statute, rule or ordinance can supersede it, and no other authority, including the Supreme Courts, federal and state, any judge, prosecutor, district attorney, attorney general or other public officer, can be a higher authority than the Constitution?

    2. Are you aware that the Constitution is the foundation of all forms of American government, including the courts, and that it LIMITS the power of government to take away any of the People’s inherent Sovereign Rights?

    3. The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, guarantees to all Americans their inherent, unlimited, inalienable Rights, including, but not limited to, all due process Rights, such as those set out in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments to the Constitution.

    (a) Are you, as jurors, fully aware of what these Amendments mean and how they apply in this proceeding?

    (b) If not, will you request the court provide you with copies of the Constitution so you can fully understand due process of law?

    (c) If you do so, will you make your verdict in this trial in strict compliance with Constitutional due process of law and uphold all Constitutionally guaranteed Rights of the Defendant?

    4. Pursuant to your oath, is there anyone on this jury who will not abide by his/her oath in the performance of his official duties, including, but not limited to, jury deliberations and reaching jury verdict?

    5. Are there any jury members who believe and will abide by the belief that the government is superior to the People and that government is Sovereign in this Nation, and that the People are required to obey the government in all situations, no matter how unlawful and unconstitutional that government or its actions may be?

    6. Are there any members on this jury who are lawyers, government officers, or work for any form of any government, in any capacity, or are employed by corporations or companies that work for government?

    7. Are there any informants, paid or otherwise, spies or provocateurs on this jury, for anyone or anything?

    8. You have been asked these questions and are expected to, and will be held to, your answers, pursuant to your oaths. Does anyone wish to change his answer?





    https://web.archive.org/web/2012032...softheamericanconstitution.net/challenges.htm
     
  7. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    2,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
  8. Goldhedge

    Goldhedge Moderator Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2010
    Messages:
    28,645
    Likes Received:
    32,682
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    Where do you stand?

    Screen Shot 2015-09-08 at 9.39.20 AM.png


    On the land.
     
  9. Bigjon

    Bigjon Silver Member Silver Miner Site Supporter ++

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,063
    Likes Received:
    1,863
    Trophy Points:
    113
  10. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    2,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    You know Goldhedge there is something that has been bothering me about this post of motion vs affidavit. And, as usual it has nothing to do.with the words or the subject but has to do with the paper work involved. As one who is abhorrence of paperwork due to the swearing involved this puts me in a conundrum. I am not referring to colorfully languages used in spits of frustration.

    It is just which fiction am I asking to uphold my honor as to what I am saying is indisputable truth? Theirs or mine, how or who can tell? By opting in to their fiction using "certified" in any instance I do at that time inter into fiction, the one thing I am trying to avoid. I know it is a little confusing hence the conundrum.

    Let me explain it the way I came to this truth, correct me as you see fit but you might look differently at this after I spin this true life happening.

    I was conversing with my Uncle and had stated that I had sent a demand for payment by "certified mail." WOW,.... Certified mail and registered mail, the question was to me "did I know the difference?" We all do it at one time or another, plop the money down, ship off the signature required correspondence; but why is their two avenues?

    Certified is upon oath.
    Registered is notification.

    Just as you used "certificate" in title or ownership, the fiction uses certified as ownership. As "law, statute....whatever" stipulates the prescribed usage of notary this should be the first clue as to what is operating this supposed remedy.

    A human cannot bounce between the two it is an either in or out thing. As person I can trade with other person. The list of this is finite though seemingly infinite. As no person or as I like to call myself human, my trade is curtailed way beyond recognition.

    In today's world I cannot enter upon a air flight, why- because I do not represent myself as fiction.
    In today's world I cannot go to person and purchase a gun, why-because I do not represent myself as fiction.
    Sure I can use fiction monies to trade for food but I have excepted fiction for the real.

    Where is the line drawn? My answer is IDFK but it is quite something to ponder on. But using certified anything involves a swear into, it is me asking God or rather proposing God as my witness, just like they do. So if it walks like a.duck, qwaks like a duck but I am told it is not a duck then what is it? Why by association it is a duck and can be non other, the argument then depends on the definition of "duck." The least amount of a paper trail should cloud an ignorant of the fact of the third in my short list. But the completion of the first two in announcing my self as person shows by definition I am person.
     
    Goldhedge likes this.
  11. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    2,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    And, and I'm still muddling through this.

    Of one thing I have noticed is my remission to protect myself. Yeah, I in my current state of affairs should have done a lot of these things already but I dint. Totally ignored these affidavits I did and it dint help matters much.

    I still have a problem with the swearing part.....big conundrum.
     
  12. Mujahideen

    Mujahideen Black Member Midas Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,383
    Likes Received:
    12,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Silver stacker
    Location:
    America!
    Join the dark side Michael...
     
  13. michael59

    michael59 heads up-butts down Site Supporter ++ Platinum Bling

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2014
    Messages:
    6,503
    Likes Received:
    2,969
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    20 years logging
    Location:
    on the low side of corporate Oregon
    Ur funny....
     

Share This Page