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