Eric Williams addresses one of the Missouri Grand Jury members who was sent to prison in 1999 for activities similar to those of the New York Grand Jury

Eric Williams shares that one of the Missouri Grand Jury members who was sent to prison in 1999 for activities similar to those of the New York Grand Jury has been in direct contact with him and he informs us . . .

The information the Missouri GJ members were originally charged on was filed for “Tampering with a Judicial Officer”, but the defendants were convicted and sentenced for “Aiding and Abetting or Encouraging”. 

There were two trials over the course of three long years.  After the second trial Judge Norton again sentenced Dennis Logan to seven (7) years, which was the maximum, but Judge Norton said that he would have given Mr. Logan much more time if he could have.  The rest of the seven defendants had their sentences increased from the original two (2) years in the first trial to four (4) in this second trial. 

This is the manner of prosecution that John Darash is exposing all the members of the New York Grand Jury to, and also those 150 callers who voted for indictment of the Federal Judge on the June 10th Conference call that John Darash moderated, all because John refuses to advise all those sitting on Grand Juries that they need to create a Declaration of their political standing establishing that they are politically qualified to sit on a Grand Jury.

None of those convicted in Missouri had created such a declaration and none of them challenged the jurisdiction of the court, which John Darash refuses to discuss on his Monday conference calls.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *

Eric responds below to this member of the convicted Missouri Grand Jury:

I have read every word of your very long and detailed Trail Of Tears.

All the way through I had several burning questions; the most significant prompted because no where did I read where any of the Wrongly Accused had challenged the State to present its proof that the Wrongly Accused had willingly, knowingly and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit themselves to the political jurisdiction of the State of Missouri, as would be required in order for the State to avoid a violation of the prohibition of involuntary servitude provision of the Federal Thirteenth Amendment. 

The Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude prevents any and all states from declaring anyone to be subject to its political dominion.  Until a person volunteers himself into servitude thereto, the state has no jurisdiction over the person.  However, there are ways the state can presume persons have volunteered, based on commonly known information.

A Siamese twin to the challenge to the State to present the proof mentioned above, is the Wrongly Accused having designated themselves as “defendants” in all of their filings.  When the Wrongly Accused accepted the State’s designation of themselves as being “defendants”, such acceptance and self designation can be construed by the Court as an acknowledgement by the Wrongly Accused (“WA”) that they are properly charged of committing the violations, and it is then up to the WAs to prove otherwise, but the WAs do NOT then have standing to invoke any manner of Constitutional protection because those protections are reserved to the People of the United States and THEIR Posterity, as established in the Preamble to the Federal Constitution, which the WAs have abandoned through their failure to properly challenge the State to present its proof that the WAs volunteered into servitude to the State, as mentioned herein above.  Therefore, voluntary subservience of the WAs is presumed by the State.

A third error, equally, and perhaps even more devastating to the WAs as the two above, was (and I am presuming here that the WAs did this as this is standard court procedure) the stating by the WAs of their “True Legal Names” at the time they were brought before the Court for arraignment. 

I presume that all of the WAs have claimed to be citizens of the United States and have applied for and were issued driver licenses when they were sixteen years of age, and that in their DL application they presented “their” birth certificates as required by the State, else the DLs would not be issued.

I have found and determined through “Admit or Deny” documents officially served on the Governor of Arkansas (and other state officials, that they all failed to respond to, thereby establishing the validity thereof in accordance to the Arkansas Rules Of Civil Procedure),  that the “voluntary” presentation of a BC to the State, is actually a preliminary “official” ceremony, where the person is “voluntarily” applying to the State for the State to issue a franchise license to the person to enable the person to thereafter use the name on the BC as the person’s “true legal name”  (“TLN”).  This causes the applicant to then enter into a subservient contractual relationship to the state. 

Although, as mentioned above, the person has previously claimed to be a citizen, thereby establishing a political subservience to the government, this TLN ceremony is actually a totally separate subservient relationship: this is a contractual relationship, totally outside of any political connection or citizenship involvement.

(The state becomes the owner of all names on all birth certificates under the state’s abandoned property law).

The TLN ceremony has nothing to do with citizenship but the TLN ceremony does cause the presenter of the BC to have volunteered himself into a contractual condition of servitude to the state and everything the person does while proceeding under that name, requires the person to conform to the will of the state, under contract law, NOT under any manner of Constitutional protections.

What then exists is a two-fold subservient relationship to the state; one (citizenship) being political, and the other (TLN) being contractual.  Together they both cause the person to have totally “voluntarily” surrendered any and every manner of independence that they were born with, including any Constitutional or Bill of Rights protections.

Due to these claims of citizenship and contractual submission to subservience to the state, the person has waived all Constitutional rights.  Your continual reiteration of your Constitutional rights could not be heard by the court, because you had not properly established your standing to be heard on that issue!  And neither could any level of court hear your complaints of the many violations of the prosecutors and courts.  The one time the appellate court reversed and remanded was just window dressing, to further conceal their fraud – but the fraud(s) I am referring to here are the birth certificate true legal name fraud AND the citizen by birth fraud.  You have contributed to the establishment of two hurdles that you must address and overcome — before your complaints can be heard by any level of court.  This is NOT difficult to do but it must be done in order for you to establish standing so be heard by the system.

Until you properly establish your standing, as being of the People of the Preamble, nothing you complain about can be heard by any level of court, unless the court decides to occasionally waive your lack of standing, just to confuse you.

In order to accomplish this you do NOT present a statement of your political status, you simply challenge the prosecutor to present proof from the sate’s files, that you volunteered.  You do NOT deny that you volunteered!  The burden of proof is on the state – KEEP IT THERE!!!

Due to the fact that the citizenship and contractual subservience were both fraudulently induced by the state, with no manner of disclosure, the subservience is void, but will still be recognized as valid unless and until the person properly challenges it and properly establishes his standing to be heard by the court.  (The way to do this is as stated in the paragraph above).

I first learned this in 1970 in Federal District Court in Los Angeles, California, where I was criminally charged by the IRS with willful failure to file or pay income tax.  I was there without an attorney.  The IRS prosecutor started his case saying, “Citizens of the United States have an obligation to ….”, whereupon I stood and objected.  The judge said, “Why are you objecting, he hasn’t said anything yet?”

I said, “Well, he said citizens of the United States have obligations to do things which he was listing, and that may be true, but I contend he doesn’t have anything in his file to put me in that class.”

The Judge, “Are you renouncing your citizenship?”

Me, “How can I renounce that which I never applied for?”

Judge, “Where were you born?”

Me, “At the time of my birth I had just gone through a terrible ordeal, I was gasping for breath, I could neither read or write, I did not know where I was, who I was or even what I was.”

Judge, “What did your mother tell you?”

Me, “At the time of my birth I did not then understand child mother relationship, I could not pick my mother from a lineup of one.”

Judge, “What was on your birth certificate?”

Me, “At the time of my birth I did not then understand the importance of such a document.  I don’t know if one was created at the time of my birth or not, and I deny that one was, and (pointing at the prosecutor), I said, and he can’t prove it.”

Judge, “I am taking this matter under advisement and you will be notified.”

That was 44 years ago and I am still waiting.  I have never filed or paid income tax, and the IRS has never bothered me again.  I have provided many letters presenting this to the IRS for many people over the years, many last year, and I have never been informed by anyone that they were ever again bothered by the IRS.

This letter has also worked against state income tax collectors and traffic citations.

My question here is if all of you had challenged the State of Missouri to present its proof from its files, that you had willingly, knowingly and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit yourselves to the political jurisdiction of the State of Missouri, as is required by the prohibition of involuntary servitude established in the Federal Thirteenth Amendment, the court would not have been able to proceed.

There are at lease 20 Federal Appellate and Supreme Court cases that establish that once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proved on the record, not merely claimed by the court.  I think you had a couple of additional cases in your long presentation.

One of those cases even establishes that jurisdiction can be challenged after conviction.

You write that the authorities shut you down because of concerns of the Common Law Grand Jury.  I am confident that you could not be more wrong.  The government has no reason to fear the People’s Grand Juries or the GJ’s purported implementation of the common law; such juries are toothless!  They have no significant power.  At most, their “power” is limited to conducting investigations, into whatever they please and can fund out of their own pockets, and to issuing of indictments.  They have absolutely no enforcement authority or power.  They are totally at the mercy of the courts and legislatures, and executive branch.

If a Grand Jury issues an indictment against some judge, and presents that indictment to a prosecutor or sheriff, and such indictment is ignored, the GJ is powerless to enforce it, other than to then issue an indictment against the prosecutor or sheriff or court, any and all of which can be ignored. 

In order for the GJ to be effective it must work with the system, not against it.

As I wrote herein above, the Missouri courts that screwed you all around were acting as appropriate based on your failure to properly establish your political standing by challenging the prosecutor (NOT the court) to present its proof from its existing files, that any or all of you volunteered yourselves into some manner of subservience to the government. 

You are correct that your conviction was determined before you were arrested but not because of what you think.  The reason was because the “system” knew you would not properly present a standing that would require the court to hear you, that you were all citizens who had applied for driver licenses and were so into the patriot nonsense that you would complain about gold fringe on the flag (meaningless) and your names being in all caps (meaningless) and continually spout the Constitution and Bill of Rights (all meaningless because of failure to properly establish standing as being of the People of the United States rather than being citizens or under subservient TLN contracts).

I think the reason they went after you was because you were stirring everyone up, pointing out that everyone was being enslaved by the government rather than you telling people how thy were being enslaved by the government.  The fact that the enslavement was due to the ignorance and failure of the general population to properly think through to determine the source of the government’s authority, makes no difference to an angry mob.  The government had to do something to quiet down the angry mob. 

This was the same concern the IRS had in regard to its prosecution of me back in 1970.  At that time I was a very effective leader in the income tax rebellion in Southern California.  The IRS prosecuted me because I was convincing people that they did not have to file or pay income tax.  By charging me they were able to discourage the tax rebellion. They never proved me wrong, but they did stop the rebellion.

I think you could file an action against all those individuals who prosecuted you for criminal conspiracy based on the fraud that is ongoing in all the public schools of Missouri, where they are every day lying to the children, teaching them that they were born into United States citizenship and that they must have a driver license to drive their own automobile, all of which can easily be proven to be fraudulent.

It comes here to my mind that in your lengthy writing you used the term united States, and mentioned your complaint of the gold fringe flag and the writing of your names in all capital letters.  None of this had any legal effect in enabling your conviction – you were convicted because you failed to challenge the government (prosecutor) to present its proof that it was in full compliance with the Thirteenth Amendment!  To present its proof that you had willingly, knowingly and intentionally, having been fully informed of the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, that you had voluntarily agreed to submit yourselves to the political jurisdiction of the State of Missouri, as would be required in order for the State to avoid a violation of the prohibition of involuntary servitude provision of the Federal Thirteenth Amendment.  It is totally impossible for the state to present any such proof.

What do you think?

Jean’s Blog:  https://jhaines6.wordpress.com – then click on the Common Law Issues link at the lower left of the picture of the clouds, at the top of the page.

My Yahoo Group:  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whoru

I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone

 

This entry was posted in Financial/economic information, Illuminati/Terrorism/Corruption, Political, Spiritual and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Eric Williams addresses one of the Missouri Grand Jury members who was sent to prison in 1999 for activities similar to those of the New York Grand Jury

  1. Pingback: A Tool of the Fraudulent Pretender Government: “Usufruct”. – ALL DEBTS ARE PREPAID!!! – by Arnierosner | Streets of Love - unconventional

  2. Pingback: !!! UPDATE: PRESS RELEASE – Exposed: The fraudulent character of the “pretend” United States Government | Scanned Retina Resource

  3. Ken Harris says:

    Whew…….that was a hell of a read, and to think I actually learned a thing or two.

    • Jean says:

      Yes, it’s tough, Ken, but when I read it, I learned, too. Why can’t John, the so-called leader of this movement either agree or disagree with Eric in a respectful way so that we can all understand what is going on? After five weeks of discussion, John has refused to publicly respond to us here. I have a huge readership, but they do not seem important to him. . . That’s why I’ve decided to figure things out for myself. . . . Hugs, ~Jean

  4. tvfmontana says:

    If you don’t understand the basis of this entire post, the Common Law Grand Jury, you may want to start with learning about the Grand Jury. MT Constitution(Art II sec 20 (2) has a reference to a Grand Jury but only that it can be called “at the discretion and order of the district judge”. As a result, I can’t remember or know of the last time MT had a Grand Jury called. Big process trying to amend it to read “also if petitioned by the people”. However, one mussel we all have and one we can all flex is the power of Jury Nullification, http://fija.org/. Learn this, pass it on and that’s how we take our freedom back. BTW MT is NOT one of the fully constituted states as shown on the NLA web site, as having all 56 counties constituted. Saying there is even a stretch.

    • Jean says:

      Thanks for sharing 🙂 Hugs, ~Jean

    • chris says:

      I like Jury Nullification as an option which is realistic and feasible. The Tenth Amendment Center has good info on that. However, if you have a bunch of sheople sitting on petit or grand jury, and have no clue what they have the authority to do or not do, well, we then have the same issue of the court and prosecutor controlling the process as you mentioned with GJ. Wouldn’t you agree? Regardless of what lawful process The People proceed with, referring back to Eric Williams point, understanding first and foremost, STANDING & CAPACITY, is crucial. Which w/o, makes everything else a moot point. IMO FYI, your opening statement was a little harsh. Sometime folks only need a point of reference and some guidance. After all, we all started the same way.

  5. Rip says:

    Knowledge is not power. Knowledge is potential power.

    • Jean says:

      Could you be more specific about your comment? Hugs, ~Jean

    • procomptor says:

      I agree Rip. If you look at it like an electric circuit plugged into a 120vac source it is easy to see what you are saying here. Ok you have a couple of resistors (could be us on Jeans site but here I am talking about electronic components) which constitute a load. You also have a voltage potential of 120vac. If you look at all this and throw in a couple of coils, a few IC’s for logic diodes for filtering this could represent many diferent complex circuits or KNOWLEDGE!

      Even though a great deal of KNOWLEDGE AND EFFORT went into this design it isn’t worth the $22.79 spent on the components unless someone throws the power switch and it performs some useful task. You could have 1 million volts and $2500 bucks worth of hot rod parts and it would be wasted money or in this case knowledge if again it does not get the power switch moved to the on position thereby causing a current to flow and power to be dissipated thereby performing a useful function!

      Knowledge is only as good as its usefulness to the individual and others. Well said Rip (the crowd goes wild with applause and clapping)! Love and blessings…..mike

  6. Pingback: PRESS RELEASE . . . SPREAD FAR AND WIDE . . | ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑ

  7. procomptor says:

    After reviewing the comments after the fact of commenting I saw John’s comment and felt compelled to comment again. I would like to thank JOHN DARISH for commenting and voicing his side of the ongoing debate happening here on this site.

    I believe John and Eric to both be of good intent and fervor! I hear people accusing this as being overly argumentative and emotional. To them I say “go ahead on back to sleep. We will wake you when the boogie man is gone”! DEBATING is not only peoples right but has been part of our teachings as I remember clear back in High School. Some people can’t handle any form of aggression as is often times the result of passionate debates. I feel sorry for these folks as they are going to be hiding from reality even worse with the events just ahead of us.

    I for one appreciate both of these knowledgeable gentleman’s time to share with us and Jeans wisdom and time in seeing its importance and value to the awakened movement we all represent by being here! Yes guys we are in fact part of a minority movement. If this scares you then you have to ask yourself if you really belong here. we are all here SEEKING THE REAL TRUTH WE HAVE BEEN DENIED AS FREE PEOPLE from around the globe. We are quickly moving from a minority to a majority and can thank people like Jean, John and Eric for not only their time but the risks they take every day just HERE HELPING US!

    In my humble opinion neither John nor Eric represent the cabal, illuminati or jesuit families. They both seem to be working for people here in the US to gain knowledge and thereby success in dealing with our corrupt court system. I personally think that they would make a great team if they could work together. However much like a marriage in order to work and grow partners have to AGREE TO DISAGREE. That is the only way people with such GREAT PASSION can work with others and not blow them over! Trust me I say this because I am very much that way with computer engineering and have learned to agree to disagree after my 32 year marriage fell apart from mine and my exes different passions we have towards things in life.

    These are but my opinions from my 58 years worth of experiences living and working with folks in many different areas of life. Again I would like to add my voice with that of many others in THANKING JEAN for her courageous open minded way of HELPING the just awakened and those of us fully awake opinionated Free souls:):):):):) Love and smiles for everyone bartender! Oh and make mine a grape soda!

    mike

  8. John West says:

    Jean, Eric, Michael, Chris, Fabulous stuff here folks. There were a couple other points I tried to bring up to John Darash which bothered me greatly because they were totally dissed. My teachings brought me to the conclusion that it would be unlawful to convene a CLGJ without having a lawful government in place from both a jurisdictional and enforcement standpoint. I consider attempts to assemble these GJ’s to possibly being a trespass on the public side even if the GJ members and GJ foreman understand their political standing and have not consented to being a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen because they do not have this lawful government of the private side to operate from.

    I could get more into what I deem to be a lawful government upon request because I don’t want to dilute the topic at hand however, the Union States Assembly was where I learned about the process of a assembling lawful government which has actually been put into place as of November 2013 and we tried to get John D. on board in order to have the lawful means to move forward with the CLGJ system but the minds just didn’t jive. 😉

    I am far, far from a private side of law scholar however, from what I have been taught and from what I have researched, Eric is right on the money and his explaining how to put the burden onto the prosecutor as opposed to the court itself to show evidence that the WA consented/volunteered to their jurisdiction and doing so without having to enter such a claim beforehand may be brilliant and I will be vetting this with a very capable colleague of mine.

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if somehow we could assemble some sort of round table think tank consisting of the likes of people such as: Eric Williams, John Darash, Tom Murphy, Michael Badnarick, Jim Wright, Dr. Ed Rivera, Alfred Adask, Bill Thornton, Rod Class, Corey Eib just to name a few to assist in the operation of the lawful government I specified above? I know, I’m only dreaming but heck, I could actually see such an event happening if there is the will to do so.

    • Jean says:

      Thanks, John, for sharing here. We need to get past this point first, and I’m waiting with excitement to hear what John Darash will share – now that he seems to have decided to participate. This is what I have been hoping for all along 🙂 After we begin to understand John’s views – and when people finally have the facts and can begin to make up their own minds, then we might be able to move on to your great round-table idea 🙂 Hugs, ~Jeab

      • chris says:

        I didn’t quite know where to post this reply? I have just read all the comments of yesterday. My pulse rate is that of having run a mile. I am angry.
        With the exception of a couple of great, dignified, respectful, and reasonable comments, the others were like watching the bombs flying back and forth between the Israelis and Palestinians. And to what end? Loss of innocent lives, destruction, and perpetuated hatred. If we were looking at this through the eyes of parenting, I would say this behavior is childish. If only it were that simple.
        Stop it! There were a couple of comments asking for assistance, which have gone completely unanswered. Instead, we get posturing, and ego. Enough. Some of you need a “time-out”. I think we all need a lesson from the Bonobo Chimps. (leave out the sexual connotation, and they are and extraordinary example of peaceful co-existence)
        I don’t care how many cases you win/won, how much case law you cite, how many famous quotes you use, how many times you can recite Constitutional anything.
        I do not discount anything offering a solution to the ever increasing encroachment on my freedom. It is my responsibility to determine, through my own research, due diligence and vetting, what works for me. All to often, people are unwilling to take responsibility and will follow blindly wanting someone or something to be responsible for their “pursuit of happiness”. Look, I am not suggesting everyone has the capacity of leadership, but For Pete’s Sake, everyone does have the capacity for COMMON SENSE. Use it!
        I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I have free will, and do my best to sort through this quagmire of information, misinformation, disinformation, and outright falsities.
        I continue to do so and have made some mistakes along the way. Thankfully, they were minor, and only landed me in jail once…and that was retaliatory, more than the offense itself.
        Now to the solutions. I am working on a county level (this is extremely relevant. I am sure you have all heard the saying, clean up your own house first), to empanel GJ. Someone made a comment about “lawful Government” before you could exercise jurisdiction. I disagree and believe you can’t have a “lawful Government” until we have a legitimate 4th Branch. The lawful government would naturally fall into place thereafter. Our County Sheriffs are crucial in this endeavor and we need them as much as they need us. So, get with them and start the conversation. They are not the enemy, (not yet anyway). Even if we were to empanel a qualified GJ, issuing presentments and indictments is futile if there is no enforcement.
        I am going to leave at that. I have so much more to say, but I have to get other work done. May I suggest, for those in this conversation asking for clarification and direction, a regular conference call be initiated? Guest speakers, commentary, and Q&A. I would be happy to set up and moderate. I have done this in the past and pretty good at it. ( No ego, just a fact.) Any feedback for this prop.?
        Peace,
        Christine

  9. Bob Thorton says:

    Dear Eric Williams,

    I agree (in a perfect world) with your above logical approach, however…

    If the Wrongly Accused (WA) refuses to provide his legal name to the court, or refuses to answer the Judge (Yes or No) when asked- whether he (the WA) goes by the name of “such-and-such” then the WA is considered by the judge to be held in “Contempt of Court.”

    The WA is then held in jail (via Contempt of Court) until the WA finally decides to either:
    1. Give the court his legal name (if he has one)
    2. Answer the judge’s “Yes or No” question (ex. Yes, I go by the name of Robert Thorton)
    3. Come up with any name to give the court just to get out of jail.

    I don’t think that there is any limitation of time.

    In other words, you’ll sit there in jail until you decide to do one of the above.

     
    You seem to think that tyrants “play by the rules” but they don’t:

    Part 1:
    [audio src="http://216.240.133.177/archives32/Harris/2012/01/Harris_1_012412_080000.mp3" /]

    Part 2:
    [audio src="http://216.240.133.177/archives32/Harris/2012/01/Harris_2_012412_090000.mp3" /]

     
    Your reply on how to handle such a judge/court would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks,

    Bob Thorton

  10. Ian MacLeod says:

    If “Beauty is in simplicity,” then I am by God GORGEOUS” because I just don’t get it! *sigh* I HATE having to admit that something has gone over my head, but this is too important to keep silent from misplaced (clearly!) pride. I get this gist of this, but that won’t help in a court of Law. Jean – or anybody – is there a URL somewhere that starts at the equivalent of “1+1” and “A, B, C..?

    Ian

    • Jean says:

      Ian, I’m so proud of you for admitting you don’t get it . . . there is no better way to begin than with humility . . . I’m hoping someone will step in here and take you under their wing, because I just can’t do that right now 🙂 Hugs, ~Jean

    • Ani says:

      Me too! I think we need to come up with a few bullet point questions, maybe if we can verbalize what we are not getting there is hope for us! That means homework..oh no!

  11. tvfmontana says:

    In the beginning (don’t worry, I’m not quoting the Bible) Darash was a guest on The View From Montana Blog Talk Radio show. I guess it didn’t go the way he would have liked cause he never mentions it. I was also one of the original two he banned several months ago. Reason? Apparently he didn’t like my questions. Thought I was a Troll. However, I do believe the Grand Jury called by the people, not just a selected few like a district judge, is needed more today than ever before. Especially when it comes down to corrupt public servants. I also think that the NLA will ruin any chance for a credible Grand Jury movement to get popular recognition and support.

    • Jean says:

      I can agree with what you are saying. . . and I do think we are going to need a successful, accepted Grand Jury movement sooner rather than later. I hope people will wake up enough to understand that Eric is trying to help this situation. Learning the hard way in this instance could be very painful . . . not just to those who go to jail, but to the entire population of the country . . Thanks for speaking out and hugs, ~Jean

      • John Darash says:

        Only the People can save America, Eric Williams through his bashing is destructive to the only movement capable of peacefully saving our nation. Eric’s IRS case back in the 70’s was won in all likelihood because the IRS did not want to get publicity concerning the fraud that Eric was exposing and the judges and lawyers probably did not develop a strategy yet. Back in those days they wouldn’t dare expunge portions of the record so the only thing they could do is dismiss the case against Eric and hope to bury the case. Today they own the media and expunging portions of testimony and even entire files from a court cases is their modus operandi.

        I am not a BAR attorney but I have fought scores of cases and my success did not come until I left the position of claiming I was sovereign and not a citizen; I too had also did a declaration, filed it with the county clerk as a “Notice to all men”, inserted said notice in my court cases, that’s right Eric “been there and done that“. Until I learned to fight them on their own turf, exposing them without spending time arguing who I am. I know who I am and I know who they are; I know they are frauds and I expose their fraud in the court room.

        I too had a case, in 2013, where the IRS was trying to extort $256,000.00 from me. I wrote my “common law” papers and went to one hearing in Federal Court. Two weeks later I received an apology from the IRS claiming they were in error and I received a “release of lien” I heard nothing back from the court for six months and then finally received notice that the case was dismissed. Show me anyone who ever had a win like that, I haven’t seen it.

        Just two weeks ago I filed a “common law” Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States Southern District of New York as a “next friend” which means I am speaking on behalf of the person incarcerated, and the man was released from jail. Again I am not aware of any “non-attorney” being successful in state or federal court with a Writ of Habeas Corpus. I think I can conclude I might know what I am doing.

        Eric is stubborn and does not want to listen, he is not willing to agree to disagree, instead it is his way or the highway and disagreeing with Eric, as we can see, gets you bashed, whereas he is saying all manner of evil against me everywhere he can. As for his claim we did not allow him to speak is simply not true. All our calls are recorded and posted at http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/mondaycall.

        As for the reason Eric was removed “twice” from our site was because he persistently deceived us by joining us with the intention to destroy. Eric, under two aliases signed up as an “organizer” and then proceeded to disorganize by telling people who joined that they were going to jail and that NLA had it all wrong. How can NLA expect to succeed while allowing people like that to remain, the same is true with tvfmontana who I am not going to continue in wasting my time defending myself on this, or any other, venue against these dishonorable people. If People are so naive as to come to conclusions about a persons honor by only listening to one side why should I bother. For those who would like to hear the rest of the story listen to the recordings at http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/mondaycall.

        Finally as for the case Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four. STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Andrew CELLA, et al., Appellants. No. 72054. Decided: July 7, 1998; that Eric brings up all the time making a number of claims, well here’s the real facts.
        Eric claims that what NLA is doing will end people in jail and the aforesaid case proves it. Nothing could be further from the truth Logan and Hobes were trying to beat a traffic ticket. “A. Lenk appeared before Judge Flynn and requested that he disqualify himself. Hobbs, attempting to act as Lenk’s representative, also requested that Judge Flynn disqualify himself. Both requests were denied. Lenk also requested a jury trial, which was granted related to the charge of failure to maintain a single lane and scheduled for April 29th. Judge Flynn found A. Lenk guilty of the speeding and seat belt infractions and imposed a $26.00 fine and $43.00 in court costs.”

        About the same time Logan and Hobes attended a seminar on Grand Juries and decided to create their own Grand Jury and put the judge on trial in their own court. The following is from the courts transcript.

        “On or about March 25, Judge Flynn received documents entitled “Order to Appear,” ordering Judge Flynn to appear before “Our One Supreme Court” at the Knights of Columbus Hall in St. Clement, Missouri at 7:00 p.m., March 13th․ If you do not appear at the time, date and place so ordered[,] a default will be entered on your behalf and judgment entered against you in the sum of ten million eight hundred and four thousand dollars of United States of America currency.

        Judge Flynn received two of these “orders,” one on behalf of A. Lenk and the other on behalf of Hobbs, each of which had affidavits attached from M. Lenk and Hobbs and a list of “jurors” who entered the order. Judge Flynn did not appear before “Our One Supreme Court.” On March 30, 1996, defendants met at the Knights of Columbus Hall and issued an “order” signed by twenty-four grand jurors including Gant, Cella, R.Peek, Ransdell, Haslag, Schaefer, Shaffer, Young, Heubner, M.Peek, and Rees, which provided, in pertinent part:

        Logan and Hobes ORDER:
        “Finding of Facts, Patrick S. Flynn failed to appear at the time, date, and place that he was ordered to appear, therefore a default and judgment is hereby ordered to be entered against Patrick S. Flynn. An Attested and Affirmed Affidavit was filed by Clifford Keith Hobbs stating that Patrick S. Flynn had violated his Constitutional Oath of Office by violating Clifford Keith Hobbs’ Constitutional Rights. Since Patrick S. Flynn failed to appear, or to make any attempt to rebut the Affidavit, the Affidavit shall stand as the truth. Our One Supreme Court hereby orders that an Affidavit of Information, Criminal Complaint For Public Notice Filing and an Affidavit in Support of Claim of Lien, Affidavit of Obligation, be filed with the Recorder’s Office of Lincoln County[,] Missouri. It is also Ordered that this jury finds there is enough evidence against Patrick S. Flynn for violation of his Constitutional Oath of Office and that Criminal charges may be filed against him.
        The above finding of facts by the Grand Jury is not reviewable by any other court of the United States as set forth under the 7th Amendment, nor subject to trespass upon the case, by the Judicial Power of the United States, per 11th Amendment, our national Constitution.

        On April 1, 1996, M. Lenk and Castle filed liens in the Lincoln County Recorder’s Office against the property of Judge Flynn, Lincoln County prosecutor G. John Richards (Richards) and trooper Flannigan. The liens, which Recorder Melba Houston recorded and filed, consisted of two documents: an “Affidavit of Information, Criminal Complaint” and an “Affidavit in support of Claim of Lien” and provided Judge Flynn with the option of paying the $10.8 million or dismissing the case against A. Lenk. Seeking to finance certain property, Judge Flynn discovered the liens. Subsequently, the Attorney General’s Office filed a proceeding to expunge the liens. Circuit Court Judge Fred Rush presided over a hearing to Expunge the liens and ordered the liens expunged.

        The jury found them each guilty of Tampering with a Judicial Officer pursuant to Section 565.084 RSMo 1994 (all further references shall be to RSMo 1994 unless indicated otherwise) for which all defendants except Logan and Hobbs were sentenced to two years imprisonment and a fine of $5,000. Logan and Hobbs were sentenced to seven years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.”

        NLA is not doing or supporting anything like that case on the contrary we teach we need to be operating from within the courts under judicial auspices and we separate ourselves from people who do things like Logan and Hobbs. NLA recently removed a member for doing things similar to Logan and Hobbs and you can read about it at http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/ on the left side of our page by clicking the link HYBRID PAPERS DISCLAIMER.

        Furthermore we are not building juries we are building administrations for the grand and trial juries. If the above case came before a Common Law Grand Jury we would have likely convicted Logan and Hobbs for extortion. To better understand what we are doing read our front page and watch the 40 minute video at http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/.
        Lastly Eric claims if these people filed a declaration they would have won when in fact and I quote the case “Lenk stated that she represented herself and moved that the charges against her be dismissed because she had chosen not to live under the laws of the United States through a Declaration to Quiet Title.” So in conclusion even with the declaration Lenk was found guilty of the traffic infraction and she also went to jail for two years for tampering.

        I rest my case and I end with:
        I am John Darash, The Realist In The Reality Zone

        • Watcher says:

          “On or about March 25, Judge Flynn received documents entitled “Order to Appear,” ordering Judge Flynn to appear before “Our One Supreme Court” at the Knights of Columbus Hall in St. Clement, Missouri at 7:00 p.m., March 13th․ If you do not appear at the time, date and place so ordered[,] a default will be entered on your behalf and judgment entered against you in the sum of ten million eight hundred and four thousand dollars of United States of America currency.

          Judge Flynn received two of these “orders,” one on behalf of A. Lenk and the other on behalf of Hobbs, each of which had affidavits attached from M. Lenk and Hobbs and a list of “jurors” who entered the order. Judge Flynn did not appear before “Our One Supreme Court.” On March 30, 1996, defendants met at the Knights of Columbus Hall and issued an “order” signed by twenty-four grand jurors including Gant, Cella, R.Peek, Ransdell, Haslag, Schaefer, Shaffer, Young, Heubner, M.Peek, and Rees, which provided, in pertinent part: etc. etc. etc.

          The bottom line (which is ALL that ever counts), is that Judge Flynn is still doing the same job that Judge Flynn was doing when all this hullaballoo was initiated….

          So?…. what is the conclusion?….. or, “where is the beef”???

  12. I’ve read Eric’s piece and the replies.

    Arthur, I read your piece above, and frankly outside the quoted areas, it’s full of flowery bullshit with zero meaning. Speak plainly and articulately and you’ll gather folks who understand what you’re trying to say. I speak daily on many issues, and having the ability to articulate complex concepts and sift them down for the layman to understand is crucial to making your point.

    Arthur, yours was lost in the flowery language of self-indulgence for the sake of self-aggrandizement. You posted, read your own words and so impressed yourself with your clever turn of the word, you forgot to imagine what your reader would get from it.

    I read it twice and got nothing.

    One aspect of the ‘sovereignty movement’ I constantly run into is people who use language, words and phrases they cannot define. Nor can they explain the context in which them use them. I personally find it confusing and frustrating. I believe it is simply because people ‘parrot’ what they’ve heard without understanding the true meaning or core concepts which they espouse.

    I’ve never heard a single person explain the complexity of all the jurisdictional issues, the dichotomy of ‘standing’, or get to the core of the issues. All the talk of man’s rights is so much drivel if the men reading the argument don’t understand the concept. Eric in his article above came as close as I’ve ever heard.

    Unless you make it simple for folks to understand. Unless you explain the basics of the core issues that make folks sign away their sovereignty without knowledge, place themselves under the false jurisdiction of courts who don’t follow the Constitution as written and allow themselves to be tricked into a ‘shadow law’ that handcuffs their ability to defend themselves, the sovereignty movement will always be thought of as quacks, dreamers and nutcases.

    Most people have little understanding of the law, the way it is defined, how words can be used more surely than a scalpel to shape an idea. For the sake of all the people who try so hard to understand, please folks, simplify it by articulation.

    I don’t mean to be harsh but I’ve been listening and learning for years with little true knowledge grasped. I’m not unintelligent and have a pretty fair understanding of the law. But unless someone makes it laymen-easy, it will always be a shadowy concept barely perceived by the masses who cannot accept a concept they cannot see.

    • Jean says:

      Michael, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your statement here . . . maybe because I agree that flowery words don’t cut it. A simple explanation serves everyone – and is more comprehensible as either the truth, or not, as the case may be . . . It’s time to speak the ‘real’ truth, because I believe we are not far out from needing Common Law Juries, and if they are to function they must be based in reality . . . Hugs, ~Jean

    • Bob Thorton says:

      Dear Michael Evans,

      Speaking of clarity and simplicity… 😀

      I tried to leave a comment to one of your articles over at:
      http://americasvoicenow.org/why-the-courts-are-not-the-final-arbiters-of-our-god-given-rights/

      The site would not allow the comment to post- it kept asking for a captcha image that was not there- who knows, anyway…

      In your article over there you quoted Thomas Jefferson:

      The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.” –Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

      What does “ME” in the citation (at the end) mean?

      Also, what does “14:303” mean?

      Thanks

  13. chris says:

    Thank you! That is a straight forward, cut thru the BS, simple, factual, explanation. And the reason why I have extracted myself from CLGJ movement. I am not abandoning the prospect of a de jure grand jury, but knowing “who” you are, as outlined in the writing, is imperative in successful execution of indictments. And if done so properly, we will have the “enforcement”, of which is non-existent, in the NY CLGJ movement. I have just started developing relationship with the county sheriffs. As to John D. I cannot and will not try and “convince” him otherwise. We can only be responsible for our own action or inaction. And if the people following CLGJ movement, well intentioned and sincere, as they may be, follow blindly, without doing their due diligence, so be it.

    • Jean says:

      Chris, I do so appreciate your words here. Sometimes it gets a bit hard, trying to get people’s attention. I agree with all that you have said . . . Yesterday was a BIG day, as I began to understand the POWER of the people on my blog to affect change . . . Again, thank you for your clear expression of your thoughts here . . . hugs, ~Jean

      • chris says:

        Thank you Jean. Who would have thought (once discovering the fraud and betrayal), declaring who we “really” are, and always meant to be, would be so challenging and frankly, downright dangerous?! So, we march on and hope for the best and expect the worse.

        • Jean says:

          No, you don’t need to expect the worse, and you shouldn’t, either, because that will just create it . . . the quantum field ‘reads’ your thoughts and feelings as energy, and it will bring to you what you are thinking/feeling 🙂 Hugs, ~Jean

    • I agree with Chris that Eric’s explanation and reply to John/David is the clearest I have ever seen any of this information presented. I will expend more time reviewing Eric’s materials because I’ve yet to find a more clarifying explanation.

  14. Soraya Seifts says:

    HI ERIC AND JEN, IS MY FIRST TIME ON THIS BLOG PAGE AND I AM SO GLAD I FIND YOU GUYS, YOU ARE AWESOME! THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, FOR THIS INFORMATION, THIS KNOWLEDGE IS SO VALUABLE, I WILL SPRED IT FAR AND WIDE!

  15. David says:

    This infamous writer, Eric Williams, seems to be blaming the NLA for the fraud perpetrated by the B.A.R. attorneys from Missouri in the black robes who were masquerading as judicial officers in some form of government as if they ever had any real jurisdiction over those victims. The prosecutors and the Administrators pretending to be Judges conspired to commit treason against those who injured no one, and while pretending they weren’t holding a mock military tribunal under executive, not judicial, acts of war. The B.A.R. is a continuing criminal enterprise under CITY OF LONDON for the VATICAN. Eric Williams feigns knowledge while he seems to be blaming the wrong parties. If he were to be totally honest, he’d know that people are routinely processed in violation of FRCP 17a and FRE 601 because of 93-12. He’s not clever enough to fool all the people, all the time. John Darash did not perpetrate any fraud and he certainly is not misleading people. My question is who is Eric Williams? It seems as if he’s attempting to destroy the hope of the people who wish to stop these war crimes.

    • chris says:

      And how’s this argument working out for you in a court of law David? Have you ever brought this into the court? Have you ever argued in court at all?

      I have no idea who this Eric Williams is either. However, he is not “blaming” anyone or thing. He is merely pointing out why you have to declare “who you are” (and fully understand it) in order to redress your grievances based on common law and the constitution.

      It is not a court issue, it is a state issue, and our relationship to the state. Once you declare your standing, the courts have no choice but to relent. That does not mean they will, and that is when you can hold them to account, through various other lawful channels.

      Your loyalty to NLA and John D is not uncommon among it’s membership, at one point myself included. And loyalty is a admirable character trait. John D is a good guy and he believes in his cause. Can’t blame the guy for his conviction.

      But it is not going to work if continued down their current path.

      And Eric Williams has very clearly outlined, in plain language, why it will not. I know this to be a fact, because of first hand knowledge.

      I have done my due diligence, vetting and research. There are theories and hypothesis’ from everyone and his/her brother. But when and until these are put into practical application, you can never claim to know the solution. And believe me, lot’s of trial, error, fear, retaliation and ridicule involved in that application.

      I am still working up to the point of being unofficially recognized as a “free” people. (“they” will never admit in open court or other official forums, but “they” will just leave you alone.) Perhaps, one day, when more of us challenge in this way, it will be “officially” recognized. I think we are closer to that day than not!

      • Jean says:

        Thanks, Chris, again, for speaking so simply and clearly. It is truly a simple situation, and there is no need to complicate it 🙂 You’ve done a great job of stating where you stand 🙂 Thanks and hugs, ~Jena

        • Susanna says:

          I guess Eric is doing a great job in helping ppl but i do think it matters how his attitude is towards others Jean , you defend him no matter what , why ?because he helps others ?I can understand that but i do feel his attitude is lacking respect and that is ego , ok he is frustrated , so are most of us , and i do think there is more then one road to Rome ! I think that should be respected , Eric should try respect that , as one comment i read said and as i tried to say aswell , if you don’t agree fine but forgodsakes stop arguing about it and get you point across by showing others the way , SHOWING , not arguing !
          This was a peacefull blog when i found it and it is turning in to something i do not like because of the constant replying of Eric on others which he does not agree with.I thought long and hard befor i put this out there but i think i should be saying after all i learned what i really feel.

          I wonder if ppl are reading the oracle report at all because it is saying it al

          • Jean says:

            Susanna, I am not Eric’s mother or father! How Eric conducts himself is not my business. He has good solid information that I believe is totally accurate. Throw the baby out with the bathwater, if you must 🙂 Hugs, ~Jean

          • Susanna says:

            Your the owner of this blog arn’t you ? the Moderator ? I do believe your a spiritual person and there for you can discide what you place on your blog that is fitting , i just wonder if arguing is fitting and helpful , Eric is is a great help to others but he is over shadowing the help with his arguing , that is my opinion .

          • Jean says:

            This is your judgment, Susanna, and I don’t agree with you . . . sorry. . . Eric has bwen most generous and has explained, and explained, and explained over and over and over again. . . What you may hear is frustration on the part of an 80=year-old man, who has given his life to the study of this topic. . . and I suggest if you find it offensive, you don’t need to read the material. . . .Hugs, ~Jean

          • Susanna says:

            Yes , i think your right , i do not need to read this anymore 🙂

        • Ian MacLeod says:

          WHAT “…so simply and so clearly…”?? Jean, I’ve been trying to follow this for a couple of years now – in between caring for a dying wife, getting my damaged spine taken care of [7 operations, 5 by the V.A.], a new wife with 6 kids and THEIR/OUR problems, and other distractions. Jean, I’ve always loved the art and poetry of words – to the occasional annoyance of some of my friends. I’m far from stupid, but law has ALWAYS confused me, and I’m afraid that includes Common Law. It was a while back so the score is lower now, but at last testing my IQ was 163 (IQ being a measure of potential, the less time we have left the more of that potential we have either used or failed to use, so the less potential we have left, so that score is lower now). Where can I learn what I need to learn in order to be able to function like this IN COURT? Do I need to roundfile (throw away) all of my state and Federal I.D.? I’m a disabled Vietnam Era veteran, I’ve worked in facilities that required fairly high-level clearances, I was a paramedic and worked regular and neonate ambulance for years, and I’ve also been a Senior Electronics and Mechanical Design Drafter, also a position that required clearances just to get into the areas for work, and then higher clearances depending on the project I was working on. In other words, I’ve left a loooooong trail of paperwork and acknowledgement of being a part of “the System” that depends on citizenship, lack of any criminal record and all that sort of stuff. Is that a hindrance? If so, how do I unhinder myself?

          Seriously, that “clear and simple explanation” soared over my head like a high-orbit satellite! In short:

          “help.”

          Please?

          Ian

          • Jean says:

            I didn’t hear the world ‘help’ in their Ian. I apologize. I’m not sure I can help you right now; we are heading into the worst of it. Very, very soon, things will change, and I ask you to get back to me . . . and I do mean that . . . but you may have to help me remember our ‘conversation.’ Hugs, ~Jean

    • #1 Eric Williams says:

      No David, if you actually read what I have written in regard to the NLA and its destroyer, John Darash, and also actually read what I wrote about the Missouri convictions, and read here on Jean’s Blog, my many presentations of my personal experiences in court, where I was able to prevail against the IRS in Federal Court in less than five minutes and prevail over traffic citations, by requiring the moving party (prosecutor) to present proof that it had jurisdiction over me, as is required under the Thirteenth Amendment, for the purpose of your actually understanding what my purpose here is, then you would know that I was not in any way blaming the NLA for what happened in Missouri several years before John Darash created the NLA.

      If you were actually who you purport to be, then you would know my concerns were the opposite of what you intentionally misconstrued. I write “intentionally”, because no reasonably intelligent man could possibly twist my intent upside down and inside out as you have, due to simple inadvertence.

      If you were on the up and up, you would know that my concerns are that the members of the New York Grand Jury and others who have participated in the misdirection John Darash has and is leading them, will cause them to be prosecuted as were the Missouri GJ members, for the same reason, failure to properly establish and declare their political status as being of the People of New York.

      If you had read any of what I mentioned in my first paragraph herein above, and were as familiar with how the Wrongly Accused in Missouri failed to understand why they were being railroaded by Missouri, you would know that the only reason their prosecution went forward as it did was because they had been indoctrinated with Paytri-Idiot nonsense that they attempted to use as their defense against prosecution, such as complaining to the Missouri Court about the gold fringe on the court room flag and of their names being written on the charging paperwork using all capital letters, and their referring to themselves as “defendants” in their filings with the Missouri Courts, and God only knows what other Paytri-Idiocy they unknowingly employed, because they didn’t and still don’t understand that none of that stuff has anything to do with anything in any court. (Other than to convince the Court that they don’t know how to properly present their political status).

      From my own personal experience both in California and in Arkansas, it is fairly well established that the courts do recognize a properly presented challenge to the standing of the prosecution to go forward.

      Any Wrongly Accused (“WA”), such as those in Missouri, who refers to themselves as “defendants” thereby reveals to the Court that such WAs do not understand how they became subject to the jurisdiction of the state. Additionally, any WAs who allow themselves to be referred to as citizens, or who claimed to be citizens (of any variety), or who, in their written pleadings writes united States with a lower case “u”, has likewise indicated to the court that they do not understand how they became subject to the jurisdiction of the state. And, David, from the tone and nature of your totally erroneous comment posted here, it is indicated that neither do you.

      One of the reasons for this failure to properly challenge the jurisdiction of the state, is that every time the 13th Amendment is mentioned these misinformed sincere advocates of Freedom, allow their minds to be diverted to what they contend is the real 13th Amendment, thereby blocking themselves from understanding, that no matter whether there was another 13th that was somehow displaced, the 13th currently recognized, if properly invocated by a WA, will force the prosecutor to present that which it is impossible to do, which is to present proof from the government’s existing files, that the WA willingly, knowingly and intentionally, having been fully informed of all the negative consequences thereof prior thereto, voluntarily agreed to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the state of Missouri or New York or take your pick of the other 48 states, or the Federal Government.

      The state prosecutor (not the court) is required under the existing 13th Amendment, to establish that the WAs volunteered themselves to be subservient to what ever level of government is attempting to prosecute. It is a serious mistake for the WAs to make any manner of assertion in regard to their political status. The party who makes the claim assumes the burden of proof. It is unnecessary for any WA to prove he is not subject to the jurisdiction. The 13th Amendment puts the burden on the prosecutor, on the state. All the WA needs to do is keep it there by not making any claims.

      What neither you or the unfortunate victims of Missouri, or the uninformed members of the current Grand Jury movement in this country seem to understand, is that no level of government of this country has any manner of authority over any person born in this country unless and until such person individually volunteers himself into some manner of servitude to the state. That is, no level of government in this country has any authority to declare anyone born here to be subject to its jurisdiction, in any manner what-so-ever.

      There are two ways the free born person can inadvertently and unintentionally volunteer himself into subservience. (1), By the person simply claiming to be a citizen, thereby volunteering himself into political subservience as defined in the 14th Amendment or; (2) The person unknowingly entering himself into a subservient contractual relationship to the state, by applying to the state for the state to issue him a franchise license to enable him to proceed in his day to day activities, under a name entered on a birth certificate, as his “True Legal Name”, where the original ownership of such name had been abandoned, enabling the state to become the owner of such name under the state’s abandoned property statute. And, neither is there any such thing as an “adhesion contract” that will cause the person to become subservient. Pay attention to the intent and meaning of the Preamble to the Federal CONstitution!

      Now, David, I expect, due to Paytri-Idiot indoctrination, you will have an opinion different from what I wrote above, however, what I wrote is NOT my mere opinion, it is substantiated on the official records of Arkansas, due to the failure of the Arkansas Governor and three other Arkansas State officials to deny Admissions items they were served with during a criminal prosecution of me in Arkansas, in which the charges were all dismissed, due to the inability of the state to prove it had jurisdiction over me.

      I expect, due to Paytri-Idiot indoctrination you will contend that the birth certificate is the property of the person from which has been wrongfully stolen, and misused by the state, and/or bundled and sold, causing the person whose birth was recorded thereon to become chattel to guarantee some imagined obligation to the Throne of England or the Pope, none of which can be in any meaningful way, substantiated.

      No matter how you or anyone characterizes the courts of Missouri or other states, as being totally corrupt, it is actually impossible to determine the level of corruption, if any, due to the lack of opportunity to observe such courts conduct where the Wrongly Accused presents his challenge of jurisdiction in accordance with following reasonable procedures, as I have done, successfully, every time since I took the time to consider that it might just be possible that the way I had been led to believe by the then leaders of the Freedom Movement, had not been properly thought out.

      How, David (or is it John?), does a person born free and politically independent, become subject to the jurisdiction of any level of government here in the United States?

      None of the FRCP or statutes you mentioned, or of any Nature, apply to any challenge of political jurisdiction. For you to invoke such references clearly reveals you have no understanding of political jurisdiction or what it is that constitutes Sovereignty, individual Sovereignty or otherwise.

      John, when a person is Sovereign over himself, as is established in the Preamble to the CONstitution, there is ZERO possibility that any manner of rule of conformance to court proceedure can be required or applied, on either side.

      The one and only issue is, where is the moving party’s proof that the WA volunteered into subservience. That is all there is, nothing more! NOTHING!

      However, if the WA fails to properly make that challenge, as was the case in Missouri, and as will be the case when the GJ members here, who have participated in the attacks on the New York judges, are similarly charged, under your leadership John, then it will be your fault because you knowingly and willingly led them down the wrong path after I had admonished you to correct, many times, and here, again John, in this instant writing!

      I am Eric Williams, The Radical In The Twilight Zone

      • Jean says:

        Chirs, I have shared your message with Eric. . . Hugs, ~Jean

        • chris says:

          Thank you Jean for your prompt reply. I am listening him now and find him so refreshingly simple!
          Thanks again.

          • Jean says:

            Yes, Chris, great ideas do NOT have to be impossibly complex . . . that seems to be a trick of the matrix . . . beauty is in simplicity 🙂 Hugs, ~Jean

      • Ani says:

        I for one am enjoying the debate and find it incredibly informative. I must admit that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed and it has taken me much time to even grasp what is going on here. I think Eric’s delivery, fiery if not sometimes angry was like a big slap upside the head. Mostly my left brain side. Like in the movies when there is a crisis and some unfortunate soul cant cope and so the person who is coping for everybody slaps them uspide the head and says “get ahold of yourself”!!! Thank you Eric for caring enough to put the energy there. I think I am on the verge of really getting it but might just take one more on the right side for retention purposes. I think sometimes when we don’t grasp things intellectually we tend to emotionalize them and take sides, losing sight of the true debate that is going on by making it personal. Maybe this deserves its own blog page too, like the meditation one…it takes time to learn and absorb. Have patience with us Mr. Williams – I know most of us appreciate the learning experience.xoxoxoxox

      • Applicant says:

        Eric (or anyone as knowledgeable as him),

        I was helping a someone fill out a driver’s license renewal form the other day and came across these two very interesting questions on the form:

        1.
        Are you a resident of (the name of applicant’s state unabbreviated)?
        Yes/No

        2.
        Are you a citizen of the United States?
        Yes/No

        I wish there was an “I Don’t Know” box to check (in addition to the Yes/No boxes).

         
        If the applicant was born on the same soil as the American colonies- How does the applicant know if he’s a resident of (the name of applicant’s state unabbreviated)? Where would the applicant find the definition of resident?

        Would the definition of resident be in a state code of laws or a federal code of laws?

        If applicant does not answer Yes/No but writes instead “I Don’t Know” (off to the side somewhere) their license probably will not get renewed. Who knows- they don’t tell you.

        If applicant answers “No” but writes off to the side that he is the Posterity of The People of the Preamble the applicant’s license probably will not get renewed. Who knows- they don’t tell you.

        If the applicant simply answers “No” will their license get renewed- even though the last time the applicant renewed their license they answered yes?

        Again, If applicant was born on the same soil as the American colonies, and is the Posterity of The People of the Preamble, is applicant still a “citizen of the United States?”

        Where can applicant find the definition of the United States as it is being used by the driver’s license renewal form? The state does not provide the applicant with the definition of either resident, the name of applicant’s state, or United States, nor does it tell the applicant where they may find it.

        Doesn’t the “reasonable person standard” or something kick in here? I would assume that the average Joe-Six-Pack applicant would rightly answer:

        1.
        Are you a resident of (the name of applicant’s state unabbreviated)?
        Yes

        2.
        Are you a citizen of the United States?
        Yes

        Am I wrong?
        If so, prove it.

         
        They have a note, a Disclosure Statement, as they call it- that says that your “social security number is required for the purpose of identifying you and preparing jury lists pursuant to (Name of State in its abbreviated form, with periods behind each of the two capitalized letters) Code of Laws Section ##-#-###…” ad nausea

         

        Here’s where you’re starting to make me wonder if something fishy is-in-fact perhaps going on…

        On the same DL renewal form, there is a boxed section that says the following:

         
        – – –
        Insurance Information:
        (Check and complete the statement that applies to you.)

        [ ] Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I am insured with the following insurance company and will maintain liability insurance throughout the issuance period:

        Company Name ___________________________

        [ ] No motor vehicle required to be registered in (Name of Applicant’s State unabbreviated) is owned by me or any relative residing in my household.
        – – –
         

        That last check box looked fishy.

        The average Joe says “OK, they just want to know if I’ve got a car- if I do, then they want me to have insurance, if I don’t have a car- then I’m saying that I don’t have a car by checking the second box…so that’s why I don’t have to write an Insurance company’s name down.”

        But what is the definition of motor vehicle as used in this form and where could one look it up?

        What motor vehicles are required to be registered?

        What is the definition of registered as it is being used in this form and where could one look it up?

        What is the definition of residing as it is being used in this form and where could one look it up?

        What is the definition of household as it is being used in this form and where could one look it up?

        Things get even weirder…

        Another box says:

         
        – – –
        I CERTIFY under penalty of perjury that all information and statements made in this application are true and correct as of the date of this application. I also CERTIFY that if my privilege to drive is subject to or is suspended, cancelled, or revoked in any state, this driver’s license will be cancelled and I will be responsible for obtaining all letters of clearance.

        I understand that I am receiving a (Name of State in its abbreviated form with periods behind each of the two letters) credential based on the information provided in this application, and that (Name of State in its abbreviated form without periods this time behind each of the two letters w/DMV appended ex. XXDMV) will verify all information. I also understand that if my privilege to drive is ever suspended, cancelled or revoked in (name of state unabbreviated) or any other state, my (Name of State in its abbreviated form with periods behind each of the two letters) license will be revoked until I have met all reinstatement requirements in (name of state unabbreviated) and any other states.

        Signature of Applicant _____________________ Date________
        – – –
         

        Wow, that seemed weird.

        Note how they CAPITALIZED the word CERTIFY both times. What was with that?

        Note the words privilege to drive.

        Somebody once mentioned to me that that’s where they get you- always make sure that you are traveling– never driving. But where on the form are those words ever defined? If true- isn’t that deceitful?

        “all letters of clearance“? What is that?

         
        Then we have the name of the state inconsistently/confusingly referred to in these three various forms:

        1.
        Name of State in its abbreviated form, with periods behind each of the two capitalized letters

        2.
        Name of State in its abbreviated form without periods behind each of the two capitalized lettersDMV ex. XXDMV

        3.
        Name of State written normally- unabbreviated

         

        What is a credential?

        How will they verify the information that the applicant is providing upon the form- what are they- unAmerican spies or something? They sound so seedy and sneaky.

        Nowhere do they mention what will happen if you answer a certain way- you just lose the “fee” each time I guess. What dark little weirdos.

        So what do I do when my DL renewal ever comes around?

        Basically, how should the applicant fill out the renewal form (if at all) if he wishes to be free- and still be able to “travel about whilst holding on to the steering wheel of a pleasure automobile”? 🙂

        Still trying to see if this stuff is all true or just conspiracy nonsense.

        What does Gerry Spence say about all of this?

        Thanks

  16. Secretariat says:

    Greetings Breathren & Good Neighbors,

    For years I’ve exhorted all walks of life onward (I still do) toward Creation’s pasture’s verdantly strewn in honorable dignity of your natural sovereignty, un-profited most graciously in your regards.

    Whether Man or Men after Man’s own-kind, choose to recall their natural inherent unalienable absolute rights each are equally endowed, matters little to those honorable who choose otherwise! But never forget, the nefarious seek to plunder constantly were they themselves labor nor enter not!

    This always holds true in any social agora lost amongst selfish Mankind, exercising military power to compelled subjugation via schemes proven unworthy of the sovereign character of all walks of life equally speaking.

    But that’s another love story…lol and irrespective of any claims of any nature to live honorably by choices only you may justly weigh in these regards, our desires are and shall remain to exhort you honorably eternally via the auspices espoused out from that alliance of sovereignty resting upon the Crowning Nativity of all walks of life seeking good will of good neighbors similarly situated!

    Our love story is more ancient in devotion breathren and eternally suited for greater treasures.
    Not from any less treasures available to all walks of life equally, but, infinitely arising from their natural credit, inherent in all walks of life equally endowed from their first moments of each Crowning Nativity. For in their unanimity naturally in the exercise of life, liberty and pursuit of Happiness, will be found that grand promontory of eternal peace that we each honorable pursue.

    For greater clarity, concerning our point of view and claims to natural rights, not by limitation hereto, but in support thereof, rests solidly upon the fact that the U. S. Supreme Court has addressed the issues of taxation and natural rights. One prominent case which has been respected since its delivery in 1819 by then Chief Justice John Marshall (M’Culloch v. State), he expressed several facts about taxation. First, the power of taxation is “an incident of sovereignty” (p. 429), or ‘because of ‘ sovereignty.` Consequently, the people of a single state cannot confer a sovereignty which will extend over them singularly. Sadly, what has been taught in these respects, fails to properly address life’s true political State sovereignty that exists from each Crowning Nativity.

    Link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=17&invol=316.

    Since then the very being a Man is a State, it behooves us to exhort one another to recall their unalienable natural absolute rights to which each are equally entitled and from the equality of political standing naturally speaking, may seek life, liberty and pursuit of Happiness instituted among Mankind, deriving their just powers from their consent via variation by agreement of the governed” — in securing those reasonable rights & duties, that each shall honorably pledge their lives, wealth and sacred Honor with one another seeking good will as good neighbors similarly situated.

    It is an error in the thinking of most (YOU?) of the population that the government occupies the position of sovereign, sovereign being one that has no superior, e.g., a king. The definition (see: Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 423) that Chief Justice gives to sovereignty explains (defines) why in some instances governments can be considered a “sovereign”. “All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.” (naturally speaking)

    “The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission; but does it extend to those means which are employed by congress to carry into execution powers conferred on that body by the people of the United States? We think it demonstrable, that it does not.” (p. 429)

    Now when you put the jurisprudence aforementioned, next to baron Von Pufendorf’s treatise ‘Of the Laws of Nature & Nations’ (1703), wherein, writes, “[s]ince then the very being a Man is a State, you are this State (sovereign) which obliging to certain Duties, and giving a Title to certain Rights, it cannot be out of the way to consider the precise point of Time at which particular Persons (Correspondence of Title: my emphasis) may be said to enter on such a sovereign State. And this we conceive ought to be fix’d on the very first Moment when any one may be truly call’d a Man, etc.”

    Breathren, Comprehending the nature of sovereignty long withheld from all walks of life equally, has only proven an irrational means to an end evincing total subjugation of all walks of life or worse, oblivion for so much more!

    But as you know we have proven the federal government is operating a Constructive Fraud via documents of title (birth certificates), revenue schemes (income tax) and linguistic legislation (http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2048696/The-Seven-Deadly-Nyms) via capitonym’s evinces our total subjugation by misrepresentation and illicit social engineering.

    The investigation found that, except for the very few who Are engaged in specific activities, the Citizens of the 50 States Of the United States of America have never been required to file Or to pay “income taxes.” The Federal government is engaged in Constructive fraud on a massive scale for more than a hundred years. Americans who have been Frightened into filing and paying “income taxes” have been robbed Of both their credit and money. Millions of lives have been ruined. Hundreds of Thousands of innocent people have been imprisoned on the pretense They violated laws that do not exist.

    Some have been driven to Suicide. Marriages have been destroyed. Property has been Confiscated to pay taxes that were never owed.

    Since being a Man is a State, what permissions have you unknowingly granted? Being One untrained in the artifices of statecraft…? Is this something you’re looking to correct or avoid for yourselves, your children and as many neighborly good neighbors who wish to be equally similarly situated as good neighbors?

    Let our position be absolutely clear, An attempt by any outside force to gain control of our natural absolute rights of freedom (defined as free dominion [free-law], as in free will to choose self-determination peacefully) will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the alliance, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

    But whether the U. S. Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have been compelled to suffer, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

    In conclusion, please accept our most cherished regards toward your continual effort to help all walks of life espouse in unanimity what our ancestors of happy memory have handed down via eons of time and circumstances, as a constant reminder that “All men are born free and independent (States. My emphasis), and with certain natural rights, essential, and unalienable, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness (John Adams).” May we remain just as honorably dedicated.

    Your friend in law!

    Most graciously….’In Honor We Trust’
    Arthur
    Link: http://www.seagov.net/
    Notice: U.P.C. Applicable.
    P.S.: Please forgive any syntax or grammatical error.

  17. Angela Chi says:

    this may be the info needed by those who sit on THE GRAND JURIES. The dept of justice is a corporation and has no legal authority – just because the corporation of the united states of am makes a law does not mmean it is a legal and moral law. note that it was legal in germany to arrest, hold, torture, and murder gypsies, homosexuals, people with birth defects, and jews. THUS the Nuremberg Trials in Germany and the ITCCS trials in Belgium.

  18. Marilyn says:

    They say that “knowledge” is power……I’m all ears…keep it coming ! I loved the description of the actual conversation between judge and defendant, it gives a good idea of what to say, if one finds themselves in that situation. Thanks Eric and Jean.

  19. procomptor says:

    Thanks Eric, I believe what you are saying is the absolute truth as to how to deal with managers of a corporation. Seeing now as the court system sees “We the People” as “We the Citizens” it becomes obvious to me that there are 2 sets of rules in place. One set for people and one set for citizens.

    Also thanks to David Robinson for the above comment that reflects the same feeling that I had in my soul upon reading this latest offering of Eric’s. With all of this I have digested in the last month or so and knowing very little of the law I simply don’t understand why John is avoiding the issue of “Standing”. Is it because he is jackass stubborn or is it because he is a fraud?

    Thanks again and I pray the Lords love and blessings find all of us safe over the holiday…..mike

  20. Tom Widlar says:

    Very good explanation. I will read this to the NLA CLGJ I joined.

  21. This article is an excellent explanation of dealing with the courts prior to the news just released, and I commend Eric for his understanding and experience in this regard.

    Now all “foreign officials” include members of the American and British Bar Associations who were licensed to act as privateers against the interests of the American States and the American State Citizens from 1845 to 2013 in flagrant Breach of Trust. All such licenses are now extinguished.

    Members of the Bar Associations are required to cease and desist assaults against the American States and American State Citizens and shall be subject to arrest, confiscation, and deportation otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s