In Court: Who’s Who and What to Say

I had to really spend some time thinking after my responce. I knew what I was thinking of but could not remember the source. One I was guided to it once again it was mind blowing. Many pieces of the puzzle came together. The information below not only speaks of the issue at hand but also how love is very much a key to all of this. I truely hope that this information is as helpful to you and your readers as it was/is for me. Also, thank you for ALL of what you have and continue to do!!!

Credited to: Mary Croft of

In Court: Who’s Who and What to Say

Published by admin under Knowing Who You Are
Thanks to Cort

My position on going to court has always been: never voluntarily go to court. Live men and women are not meant to be in any place designed solely for the business of fictional entities. When we attend court, we are deemed dead, in fact, they cannot deal with us until we admit to being dead….a legal fiction….a trust. Court is for titled persons: judge, prosecutor, defendant, bailiffs, cops, and attorneys. Live men and women are not recognized, so it makes sense to send in a dead person––an attorney––to handle our cases …. except for one thing: they do not know how the system works, due to their indoctrination. If you can find one to do as you say, then you will prevail, but most of them would rather hang onto their BAR cards than behave honourably. The only thing that dead, fictional entities want from us is our life energy, and the only way they can get it is by our agreement. Without us, they cannot function, so, they are desperate to get us into court, to have us pay the debt which they created by charging the trust.

Since common law courts no longer exist, we know that the case never has anything to do with “facts” or live men and women and so, anyone who testifies (talks about the facts of the case) is doomed. ALL courts operate in trust law, based upon ecclesiastical canon law–– ritualism, superstition, satanism, etc.––which manifests as insidious, commercial law and we are in court to take the hit, if they can get us to do so. They use every trick in the book––intimidation, fear, threat, ridicule, rage, and even recesses, in order to change the jurisdiction, when they know they are losing, in order to make us admit that we are the name of the trust. When we do so, we are deemed to be the trustee––the one liable for administering the trust. Ergo, until now, it has been a waste of our time, energy, and emotion to go to a place where it is almost certain that we will be stuck with the liability.

We all know from our indoctrination, programming, and schooling that judges are impartial and have sworn an oath to this effect. This means he must not favour either plaintiff or defendant. But, our experience reveals that he does, indeed, favour the plaintiff, indicating a glaring conflict of interest––that the prosecutor, judge, and clerk all work for the state––the owner of the CQV trust. So, as the case is NOT about “justice”, it must be about the administration of a trust. They all represent the trust owned by the state and, if we are beneficiary, the only two positions left are Trustee and Executor. So, if you detect the judge’s partiality, although I doubt the case will get this far, you might just want to let them know that you know this.

If you consider court as entertainment and if you can stand the evil emanating from its officers, the fear and angst oozing from the walls, and the treacherous atmosphere, then go, knowing that under trust law we cannot be the trustee or the executor of a trust, whilst being beneficiary, as that would be a conflict. The position of beneficiary may lack clout, but the other positions hold liability. Since state employees want to be the beneficiaries of the trust, the only way they can do so is to transfer, to us, the liability which they hold, as trustees and executors, because they also cannot be both the administrators and beneficiary of the trust. So, trusteeship and executorship, i.e.: suretyship, becomes a hot potato and everyone wants to toss it so s/he can be beneficiary of the credit from the trust.

When we were born, a trust, called a Cestui Que Vie Trust (“CQV”) was set-up, for our benefit. Evidence of this is the birth certificate. But what is the value which must be conveyed to the trust, in order to create it? It was our right to property (via Birth into this world), our body (via the Live Birth Record), and our souls (via Baptism). Since the state/province which registered the trust is the owner, it is also the trustee…. the one that administers the trust. Since they, also, wanted to be beneficiary of this trust, they had to come up with ways to get us, as beneficiary, to authorize their charging the trust, allegedly, for our benefit (via our signature on a document: citation, application, etc.), and then, temporarily transfer trusteeship, to us, during the brief time that they want to be the beneficiary of a particular “constructive” trust.

This means that a trust can be established anywhere, anytime, and the parties of the trust are quickly, albeit temporarily, put into place. But, since a beneficiary cannot charge a trust––only a trustee can do so––it is the state that charges the trust, but they do so for their benefit, not ours (albeit occasionally we do reap some benefit from that charge but nowhere near the value which they reap. Think bank loan….. we reap a minute percentage of what they gain from our authorization). So, the only way, under trust law, for them to be able to charge the trust is to get the authorization from the beneficiary––us, and the only way for them to benefit from their charge is to get us to switch roles––from beneficiary to trustee (the one responsible for the accounting), and for them to switch their role––from trustee to beneficiary because no party can be both, at the same time, i.e.: within the same constructive trust. They must somehow trick us into accepting the role of trustee. Why would we do so when the trust is for our benefit? …. and how do they manage to do this?

Well, the best way is to get us into court and trick us into unwittingly doing so. But, if we know what has transpired, prior to our being there, it is easy to know what to say so that this doesn’t happen. The court clerk is the hot shot, even though it appears as if the judge is. The clerk is the trustee for the CQV owned by the state/province and it is s/he who is responsible for appointing the trustee and the executor for a constructive trust––that particular court case.

So s/he appoints the judge as trustee (the one to administer the trust) and appoints the prosecutor as executor of the trust. The executor is ultimately liable for the charge because it was s/he who brought the case into court (created the constructive trust) on behalf of the state/province which charged the CQV trust. Only an executor/prosecutor can initiate/create a constructive trust and we all know the maxim of law: Whoever creates the controversy holds the liability and whoever holds the liability must provide the remedy. This is why all attorneys are mandated to bring their cheque-books to court because if it all goes wrong for them…. meaning either they fail to transfer their liability onto the alleged defendant, or the alleged defendant does not accept their offer of liability, then someone has to credit the trust account in order to off-set the debt.

Since the prosecutor is the one who issues bogus paper and charges the trust, it is the Prosecutor/Executor (“PE”) who is in the hot-seat.
When the Name (of the trust), e.g.: JOHN DOE, is called by the Judge aka Administrator aka Trustee (“JAT”), we can stand and ask, “Are you saying that the trust which you are now administrating is the JOHN DOE trust?” This establishes that we know that the Name is a trust, not a live man.

What’s the JAT’s first question? “What’s your name?” or “State your name for the record”. We must be very careful not to identify with the name of the trust because doing so makes us the trustee. What does this tell you about the judge? If we know that the judge is the trustee, then we also know that the judge is the Name, but only for this particular, constructive trust. Now, think about all the times that JATs have become so frustrated by our refusal to admit to being the Name that they issue a warrant and then, as soon as the man leaves, he is arrested. How idiotic is that? They must feel foolish for saying, “John Doe is not in court so I’m issuing a warrant for his arrest” and then, the man whom they just admitted is NOT there is arrested because he IS there. Their desperation makes them insane. They must get us to admit to being the name, or they pay, and we must not accept their coercion, or we pay. Because the JAT is the trustee––a precarious position, the best thing to say, in that case, is “JOHN DOE is, indeed, in the court!” Point to the JAT. “It is YOU! As trustee, YOU are JOHN DOE, today, aren’t you?!”

During their frustration over our not admitting to being a trust name––the trustee and/or executor of the trust, we ought to ask who they are. “Before we go any further, I need to know who YOU are.” Address the clerk of the court––the trustee for the CQV trust owned by the state/province, “Are you the CQV’s trustee who has appointed this judge as administrator and trustee of the constructive trust case #12345? Did you also appoint the prosecutor as executor of this constructive trust?”

Then point to the JAT: “So you are the trustee”, then point to the prosecutor, “and you are the executor? And I’m the beneficiary, so, now we know who’s who and, as beneficiary, I authorize you to handle the accounting and dissolve this constructive trust. I now claim my body so I am collapsing the CQV trust which you have charged, as there is no value in it. You have committed fraud against all laws!” Likely, we will not get that far before the JAT will order “Case dismissed” or, even more likely, the PE, as he clings tightly to his cheque-book, will call, “We withdraw the charges”.

We have exposed their fraud of the CQV trust which exists only on presumptions. The CQV has no corpus, no property, ergo, no value. Trusts are created only upon the conveyance of property and can exist only as long as there is value in the trust. But, there is no value in the CQV trust, yet, they continue to charge the trust. That is fraud! The alleged property is we men and women whom they have deemed to be incompetent, dead, abandoned, lost, bankrupts, or minors, but that is an illusion so, if we claim our body, then we collapse the presumption that the trust has value. They are operating in fraud––something we’ve always known, but now we know how they do it. Our having exposed their fraud gives them only three options:
1. They can dissolve the CQV trust––the one for which the clerk of the court is trustee and from which s/he created a constructive trust––the case––for which s/he appointed the judge and prosecutor titles which hold temporary liability––trustee and executor, respectively. But they cannot dissolve the CQV or the entire global system will collapse because they cannot exist without our energy which they obtain via that CQV trust.

2. They can enforce the existing rules of trust law which means, as trustee, they can set-off their debt and leave us alone. Now they know that we are onto their fraud and every time they go into court to administer a trust account, they will not know if we are the one who will send them to jail. The trustee (judge) is the liable party who will go to jail, and the executor (prosecutor) is the one who enforces this. This is why they want us to take on both titles, because then, not only do we go to jail but also, by signing their paper, we become executor and enforce our own sentence. They cannot afford to violate the ecclesiastical canon laws, out of fear of ending their careers, so they are, again, trapped with no place to run.

3. They can dismiss the cases before they even take the risk of our exposing their fraud …. which also makes no sense because then their careers, again, come to a screeching halt.
What’s a court clerk to do!? Pretty soon, none of these thugs will take any cases because the risk is too great. This will be the end of the court system. ‘Bout bloody time, eh?

Knowledge––not procedure––is power.

The means by which we have attempted to assuage our problems, inflicted upon us by the PTW (powers that were) have all been superficial, compared to the origins of all the black magic, superstition, satanic ritualism, trickery, mind-control, and clandestine practices. Under commercial law, dating back to the Code of Ur-Nammu––around 2100 BCE––the use of another’s property without permission puts one into dishonor and makes him liable for any debts. So, our using UCC forms, bills of exchange, AFV, or bonds, and altering documents of the Roman System can create penalties, as this is trading and/or using the property of a corporation we do not own …. the birth certificate proves that the “name” is, in fact, the property of the corporation which issued it. We can do all the paper perfectly but, in the end, they say, “Sorry; you’re not one of us.” But, now, we get to inflict fear onto them. When we are forced to court, knowing that the Judge acts as the Trustee and the prosecutor acts as Executor of the CQV Trusts is empowering. It gives us two choices:

1. If we wish to expose the fraud of presumptions, by which the CQV trusts still exist, then the court is the perfect opportunity to have them dissolved or to prove the fraud because the Trustee is sitting on the bench. Dissolving the first CQV, dissolves them all; or,

2. If we are not inclined to use something like the Ecclesiastical Deed Poll to expose the fraud of the CQV Trusts, then, at least, we ought to know that everything the judge says––even if it sounds like a command, order, or sentence––is actually an offer which we can choose to decline (“I do not consent; I do not accept your offer”). This is a fundamental principle of testamentary trusts…… the beneficiary can accept or decline what the trustee offers.

For 15 years, I have watched the alleged solutions in commerce come and go and nothing has worked for enough people on enough occasions to call anything a consistent win. Paying for information is insanity because those who sell information clearly have not prevailed or they wouldn’t need to sell anything, would they? Buying express, private-contract trusts, e.g.: NACRS, is a huge waste of time and money because the entire process is too complicated for anyone with an IQ below 400 and …. “no refunds”. I have found no solution in commerce because those who claim to have solutions still insist upon treating symptoms rather than curing the cause––the fraudulent CQV trust.

This entry was posted in Illuminati/Terrorism/Corruption. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to In Court: Who’s Who and What to Say

  1. Shelly P says:

    Jean are you ok???? We are worried about you. Your site has not updated since the 25th.
    Sending you blessings and well wishes,
    Shelly P

    • Jean says:

      Shelly, I sentt you an email when I couldn’t access my comments. . . now they’ve also blocked my blog . . . Hugs, ~Jean

  2. Kevin says:

    Thank you so much for this information. I have heard of the straw man but didn’t understand how it worked. You have explained it very clearly.
    I wish you the best and thanks for sharing.
    Have a great day.
    From a real person!!

  3. Sorry this is so long but court stuff is. Jean hope this get’s you up and running. H.

    Noel answered 4 months ago
    After a recent protest in BARTON MOSS in U.K. about Fracking and a subsequent court hearing of Steve Spy, here is the court transcript…Transcript of court case yesterday: Usher – “can you stand at the end”
    Freeman – “I claim common law jurisdiction, I do not consent and I wave the
    Magistrate – “Can you repeat that”
    Freeman – “I claim common law jurisdiction, I do not consent and I wave the
    Magistrate (to other two magistrates) – “I don’t think we have had that before”
    Clerk – “Are you Steven Spy?”
    Freeman – “I am Steven of the family Spy”
    Clerk – ” Are you Steven Spy?”
    Freeman – “I am Steven of the family Spy”
    Clerk – “Where do you live?”
    Freeman – “I live on the land”
    Clerk – “Can you confirm your date of birth”
    Freeman – “I believe that would be hearsay evidence, your honour”
    Clerk – “If you honour is satisfied we have identified the defendant, we can
    Prosecution – “The prosecution is not satisfied that there is sufficient
    evidence to substantiate the charge, therefore we withdraw the case”
    Clerk – ” Do you understand that the prosecution is withdrawing its case”
    Freeman – “No I do not understand, but I do comprehend”
    Magistrate – “Whether you understand or comprehend, the prosecution is
    withdrawing its case, so the case is dismissed and you are free to go”
    Freeman – “Thank you, your honour”.

    Chapter 17: Courts & Proceedings

    Before going any further it is necessary to explain the Courts. There are two kinds, known as a ‘Court de jure’ and a ‘Court de facto’. ‘De jure’ means ‘of Justice’, thus a Court de jure is a Court of Justice. ‘De facto’ means ‘of fact’. It is. It just ‘is’ (established). But that’s it. It is a private concern providing an arbitration service. (Supposedly independent, but with the overall desire – as do all private concerns – to simply make a profit).

    A Court of Justice will be operating under Common Law (i.e. will have Common Law jurisdiction). Trials will take place. In front of a Jury, whose verdict is sacrosanct. The Judge is not allowed to sway the verdict of a Jury. If he or she tries, then you would need to intercede. The Jury may return a verdict of: “Not guilty” if they consider they would have done the same thing in your shoes at the time, irrespective of what ‘the Law’ might demand. The Jury would need to be told this by you. These days, it is unlikely that the Judge will explain this to the Jury (it is all part of the Grand Deception, designed to suppress justice in the form of Jury Trials). A Judge will generally explain the law (as he or she sees it!) to the Jury, and not point out that the true job of the Jury is actually to make the Law, in the specific circumstances of the case in hand. Courts de jure are very rare these days. Only the Highest Courts function ‘de jure’ and, as I said, they are rarely directed properly.

    Generally speaking you will receive Summonses for Courts de facto. You will get very little ‘justice’ in a Court de facto. Its entire grounding is based on the illusion of money. Hence the possibilities for corruption are in-built and endless. What is a Court de facto? Nothing more than a private Company, publicly trading. You will be able to obtain a Credit Report on it, via Dun & Bradstreet.

    Back in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries these Courts evolved as private businesses, offering the service of supposed-impartial adjudication. For a fee. The idea was to reduce controversies settled at sword-point. It was, however, due to some very strange adjudications (presumably based on backhanders … always the possibility when ‘fees’ are involved, of course!) that sparked off the ultimate confrontation, in 1215, at Runnymede. There comes a point (does there not?) where ‘enough is enough’. I believe we are, yet again, at such a point in the 21st century.

    In a Court de facto there will be three (generally) ‘adjudicators’ sitting as a ‘panel’, or ‘bench’. They will either call themselves Magistrates or Judges (Judges in the Higher Courts).

    A Court de facto does not have Common Law jurisdiction. It is only allowed to adjudicate on the basis of Statutes (which are actually Maritime Law).

    It is, therefore, an Admiralty Court, in fact. In such a Court there will be a Hearing, not a Trial.

    If, after having had correspondence with the Organic Robots, they still persist in Court action, you have a number of options. The Court will almost certainly be a Court de facto. You will be able to tell by looking at what you have been accused of breaching. If it is a Speeding or Parking offence, then that will come from a Statute, and not from Common Law.

    If you harmed another Human Being, or caused them a loss, or breached the peace, or are accused of defrauding them, then the charge will probably be a Common Law charge, and the best thing you could do would be to fight it normally (plead guilty or not guilty, and place your case in front of a Jury).

    Anything else, including when accused of defrauding (say) the State, or any of its Agencies, would be a charge under Statute, and you can fight it by means of the Example Templates given in the Appendices. And – where necessary – ultimately claiming Common Law jurisdiction (as explained below).

    The steps to take are firstly to rebut the Summons. This is discussed in the Chapter on Notices, Invitations & Summonses – the methodology being to initially send your own Notice back to the Court. They are unlikely to respond in substance, which then places the Court themselves in dishonour. And this is something you can point out since, in Law: “He who dishonours, loses”.

    If it looks like they have ignored your Notice, then you will need to fight.

    The next step is then to send the Court copies of all correspondence, pointing out that you have offered Conditional Agreement, and thus you see no Controversy. You also demand that all your correspondence should be placed into the Magistrate’s or Judge’s evidence, if the Hearing actually goes ahead.

    You may get back a reply saying: “Case withdrawn”. This will happen only if whoever you are dealing with has a grain of sense, and does not have a brain the size of a pea.

    Consequently you will not get that reply if they are all being a stupid as each other. (Organic Robots can be like that, especially in these Common Purpose days).

    So it may, ultimately, be necessary to actually attend the Hearing. Primarily to ensure that, if the Hearing goes ahead, and your Common Law claim fails, then your correspondence is read out.

    You cannot afford to trust anyone other than yourself.

    However, it still may not get to that. If you arrive a half-hour before the time stated, then there will be an Usher or Clerk outside the Court.

    Explaining that you are only present in order to make a Special Appearance, in order to establish jurisdiction, because you will not be crossing the Bar, into their ship(*), and will be: “Claiming Common Law jurisdiction and will not be accepting any offers of services, and will be waiving all the benefits” is likely to send said person into a tizzy. Especially if you draw attention to the correspondence that you would use as your evidence.

    (* It’s an Admiralty Court!).

    You are likely to be told that all of this: “Is baseless”, or: “Has no legal basis or standing”. The response is that: “I absolutely agree that it is legally baseless, however it has ABSOLUTE LAWFUL standing” and is not, therefore, in any way ‘LAWFULLY baseless’. And that is the important aspect. And the only important aspect.

    If told the Magistrates & the Court have ‘statutory obligation’ of any kind, the response is: “It may very well be the case that your Company has some statutory obligation as a part of its business practices. However, as a Sovereign Human Being, I am under no obligation whatsoever to accept any services any Company may have on offer, and that includes the Adjudication Service provided by your Company”.

    Obviously: “What do you mean, we are not a Company!”, is countered with: “Oh yes you are. A private Company actively trading. Do you not even know who, or what, you actually work for?”

    You must always remain reasonably polite, but firm, not be intimidated by anyone, or anything, and be prepared to ‘say it like it is’. (You may have to insist. They. Don’t. Like. It. Up ’em!)

    The likelihood of this going any further is very small. One likely possibility is that, after consultation with ‘a Superior’, it has been decided to adjourn the Hearing. (Note: This is before you have stepped into the Courtroom). You could then ask for Travel Expenses, if that’s the case.

    You are likely to get a letter, within a day or so, saying the case has been withdrawn (they won’t tell you why).

    If you don’t, then you may have to go through the whole rigmarole again, on the Adjournment Date. If the amount on the case is not large, then they have a large incentive to just give up on you, as in: “What the hell? We can’t win every single one! And this one isn’t going to be very profitable”.

    Yes, there is a ‘wearing down’ factor that is on your side.

    Finally, however, you may actually end up in Court. In the actual Hearing itself. When you hear your name, you approach the outer reaches of the Court and say: “I am here making a SPECIAL APPEARANCE in order to ESTABLISH JURISDICTION. I claim my Inalienable Human Right to Common Law jurisdiction, and DO NOT CONSENT TO CONTRACT for any SERVICES you may have on OFFER, and I WAIVE ALL THE BENEFITS”.

    Do not say anything else. If any question is put to you, repeat the exact same mantra.

    If you are told that you will be in Contempt of Court if you repeat that mantra once more, then ask: “Would that be CIVIL CONTEMPT, or CRIMINAL CONTEMPT?”

    Then do not say any more, except to repeat that second mantra if any question is put to you.

    If they respond: “Civil”, (the most likely) then ask: “Where is the Contract? I have made no Contract with you. I specifically stated that I refused all your Contractual Offers”.

    They might then change it to: “Criminal”, in which case the response is: “What is the CRIME, who makes the CLAIM, and who is the INJURED PARTY?”

    They might just have a final go: “The Court (or Crown Prosecution Service, or Ministry of Justice, or whatever) makes the Claim”, to which the response is: “You know that only a Human Being can devise a Claim”.

    At this point the Court has completely run out of possibilities, because there is no Injured Party, anyway.

    If, on the other hand, the proceedings still continue, make sure your correspondence is read into evidence.

    If you eventually lose, then it was a total Kangaroo Court, and they were ‘totally out to get you, by hook or by crook’. Whatever you would have done would have had the same result. In this case you would need to appeal via a Judicial Review or present a Case Stated, in order to get the Kangaroo Decision quashed. The very last thing to do is to give up. A Higher Court would almost certainly quash it on a technicality.

    A Freedom of Information Request was made to a Magistrates Court in the High Peaks area. The question was posed: “Are you a Court de jure, or a Court de facto?” The answer received was: “We do not understand the question”.

    So, in essence we have the fact that the Courts don’t even know what they are, and live in the Legalese world of illusion.

    Based on experience, and what has been said above, one possibility might be a conversation with the Clerk or Usher outside the Courtroom (please do not dismiss the likelihood of this, it is more than likely and – anyway – what is there to lose?):

    “Excuse me, is this a Court de jure or a Court de facto?”

    “I beg your pardon?”

    “I asked if this was a Court de jure or a Court de facto?”

    “I’m, sorry, I don’t know what you mean”

    “A Court of Justice, or a Court of Adjudication”

    “Well, errr … I suppose a Court of Justice”

    “So will there be a Jury, then?”

    “A Jury? No … there won’t be a Jury”

    “How can it be a Court of Justice, then?”

    “Errr … well I suppose it must the other kind you mentioned”

    “A Court de facto? With Hearings instead of Trials?”

    “Oh! Yes … there will be a Hearing!”

    “So it’s a Court de facto, then?”

    “Yes, that’s the case”

    “Well why did you tell me it was a Court of Justice, then? Oh, well, never mind, in that case I refuse its offer of the service of arbitration, and I waive all the benefits”

    “I beg your pardon?”

    “I don’t consent to any Arbitration Service. I remain in Common Law jurisdiction. I’m only subject to Courts de jure. Like we all are if we realise it”

    “What do you mean … you are only subject to Courts de jure?”

    “What I said. So would you be so kind as to pay my expenses for coming, since I’m here under false pretences, £10 will suffice, and I’ll be on my way”

    “On your … what do you mean ‘false pretences’?”

    “Well, what Common Law have I broken?”

    “I don’t understand … I’ll have to speak with my Superior …”

    “Yes, that’s a good idea. Maybe he knows what kind of a court it is. I have to say that I find it a little alarming that you sit there – doing what you do – and you didn’t even know what kind of court it was. I certainly hope your Superior knows …”

    (Comes back)

    “We don’t need your consent to this Hearing …”

    “I beg your pardon … did I hear you say you don’t need my consent?”

    “Yes, we don’t need your consent”

    “How can that be?”

    “Well, I don’t really know … that’s what I’ve been told …”

    “Then please be so kind as to go back to whoever told you that and point out we are all equal under the Law-of-the-Land, and if you don’t need my consent, then I don’t need you to provide any Arbitration Service”

    (Goes away to re-confer … comes back)

    “There seems to be a little problem. Your Hearing has been adjourned for a month”

    “Now I beg your pardon!”

    “They’ve adjourned it for a month”

    “To give themselves time to turn this into a Court de jure? They can do that in just one month?”

    “I don’t know about that”

    “Well, with all due respect, would you please be so kind as to find out about that? After all, I’m here, the court is here, you are here, your Superior is here, why do we need an adjournment?”

    “I’ll go and find out”

    “Yes, thank you”

    (Goes away to re-confer … yet again … comes back)

    You could very easily be looking at: “Case withdrawn”.

    There is nothing to stop you having this conversation well before the date of the Hearing. Just go down to the Court and ask the same questions, adjusting what you say accordingly.

    Solicitors, Lawyers and Notaries live entirely in the world of illusory Legalese, and almost every sentence they write can, under careful scrutiny, be shown that they are double-thinking, and attempting to compute fiction with fact, totally unsuccessfully. An example I heard of was: “When you were born your parents gave you a name. They registered your birth, and you are, therefore, Mr. Blah Blah”.

    First of all the parents do not register the birth. The Government Agency, known as The Registrar of Birth & Deaths, registers the birth. The parents merely provide the requisite information. The parents merely inform. So strike that one out.

    Secondly the Solicitor admits, in the first sentence, that the subject was ‘given’ a Name, by the parents. That indicates the Flesh & Blood, and the Name, are obviously two totally different things that became attached, following the birth. (There is more about this in the Chapter on Names). So here the Solicitor is using Common Sense, without realising it, and desperately trying to draw the fictional conclusion in the second sentence. He is thus completely contradicting himself. Strike two out.

    Furthermore, whenever asked to give or confirm your Name and Date of Birth you are expressing hearsay in Court. You only have your parent’s and Birth Certificate’s word for those two things. You only ‘know’ these things by hearsay. And hearsay evidence is not allowed in a Court.

    So, in essence we have the fact that Judges, Solicitors, Lawyers and Notaries, etc., do not know what they doing, and what they are talking about.

    And we have a force of Policymen who do not comprehend the immense difference between Common Law (lawful) and Company Policy (legal).

    Is it really any wonder there is so much trouble all round?

    Hot off the press, August 2009.

    At the time of publication it seems the word has gone round to say there are some people who – when faced with a Court Hearing – claim Common Law jurisdiction, and will not enter the Court proper.

    A number of incidents have given rise to this assumption. For example, Defendants who remain in the Public Gallery, saying: “I am here to make a Special Appearance, in order to establish jurisdiction. I claim Common Law jurisdiction and do not accept your offers of adjudication services. And I waive all the benefits” … are told: “You must come forward, and stand here, and identify yourself correctly”.

    Why would this be? Why does one need to stand in a ‘designated place’ and ‘identify themselves correctly’?

    The answers are, of course, that the ‘designated place’ is on board their ‘ship’. And ‘correct identification’ means ‘accepting responsibility as the Legal Fiction Person, by virtue of admitting to the Legal Fiction Name on their paperwork’.

    It can’t really mean anything else.

    If one chooses not to obey these instructions, it appears that the Courts have been instructed to proceed anyway, in absentia of the Legal Fiction Person being present. After a short retirement (usually) the Magistrates and the Clerk return and say: “Liable person not present”.

    This is really good, isn’t it? So much for ‘justice’, then! Before the Hearing starts, the ‘person’ is already condemned as ‘liable’!

    However this is a bit of a double-whammy – back on the Clerk of the Court. Because, if one is sitting in the Public Gallery, then one is certainly ‘present in the room’. Not present on the ‘ship’, of course, but present in the room to hear what has been said.

    Consequently it would be possible to respond: “In that case, since I’m present to hear it, you have declared that I, the Human Being, am not liable – any more than any of you are liable. Thus, if anything untoward should happen to me, for example any Common Law trespass upon me, or my property, I can hold you all personally responsible, can’t I? You can sit in your fictional ship, but I can hear you. The truth is that no liable person will board your fictional ship, and will not accept your fictional adjudication. Which is precisely what I have already said by claiming Common Law jurisdiction. You have no jurisdiction over me as a Human Being, and you might as well admit it”.

    At the time of writing, we await their response to that. To date no-one, who has been placed in that position, has responded in that manner. This is due, in total, to them not thinking about it on the spur of the moment.

    However, it is nothing more than Common Sense.

    After all, they are up against a serious problem, which is that it is impossible adjudicate between Fictions (Persons/Corporations) and Reality (Humans). It is only possible to adjudicate between Fictions OR between Humans. (Of course, in the former case, the adjudication is: “Is this fiction more fictional than that fiction?”).

    One reaction we have seen is to ‘call the police’. The rebuttal to this is: “If you need to involve the police, then you’ve lost the argument, haven’t you? You are, in effect, saying that ‘might is right’. Is that not so? What other reason could you possibly have? I’m not causing any violence nor breaching any peace. The fact is you are simply reaching for ‘muscle’, when the honest thing would be to admit that you’ve lost the argument. You are acting thoroughly dishonourably and disreputably, and that is demonstrated by your own actions”.

    Hot off the press, September 2009.

    While, on the one hand, the content of this book is true, the ‘powers that be’ do not give up without a fight. In the front line are the Organic Robots who simply ‘operate by the book’. So here are some examples of how to stop Kangaroo Courts.

    Letters written to Organic Robots, based on the Templates included in the Appendix, are ‘outside the realm of their Operation Manuals’. Therefore they simply do not know what to do with your letters. So they ignore them. In fact you’ll discover, as you try Lawful Rebellion, you will either be ignored, or responded to by repetition of your so-called ‘Statutory obligations’.

    The point is here that by operating on the Freeman Principles, as described in this book, you will have built up all the evidence you actually need … IN LAW.

    The trouble is that, when (eventually) ‘invited to their place of business in order to be made the offer of their adjudication services’ (i.e. Summonsed), you will be railroaded into submission – if you do not know how to guard against this happening.

    Most Summonses will be to Hearings (Note: Not Trials) that will take place in a Magistrate’s Court. The Magistrates are not trained in either ‘legal’ or ‘lawful’. The Clerk of the Court will have extensive ‘LEGAL training’, and is often referred to as “The Magistrate’s Legal Advisor”. However he or she will most probably have long forgotten any ‘LAWFUL training’ (if s/he ever had any) – in the desperate struggle to ‘slap down as many miscreants as possible’ via the Conveyor Belt of the Magistrates Court. So it would be possible to ask: “Yes, I can see you have a Legal Advisor, but who is your LAWFUL Advisor?”

    A real example is that, of 178 Summonses issued for one day, only 3 people turned up for their Hearing. And this is what ‘they’ expect. And ‘they’ expect to deal with the 175 (who were hoping that it would ‘all go away if they didn’t turn up’) by simply rubber-stamping the claims made by the Plaintiffs (e.g. the Council, for Council Tax).

    (There is an argument that, if the mechanisms were fair and above board, and everyone knew their Rights, then more Defendants would turn up to challenge the claims made against them. This is one of the reasons why ‘they’ cannot afford for you to know your Rights. Because you would destroy the Conveyor Belt).

    So, what can you do to break the Conveyor Belt? Well, the answer to that is to know how it operates, and to throw spanners into the works, and uncover sufficient grounds for an Appeal. There will be plenty of material to choose from because, fundamentally, the Conveyor Belt only works by cutting corners. So don’t allow these corners to be cut, and/or note whenever they are.

    Here are some (real, I assure you) examples (as witnessed by me, personally):

    1. They will insist that you ‘identify yourself correctly’. This will take the form of you accepting your Legal Fiction Name, Date of Birth, and your Address.

    Even though you may state that you are: “XXX: of the YYY family, as commonly called”, they will normally insist that they will refer to you by your Legal Fiction Name. They will claim this is a ‘courtesy’ but, of course, it immediately places you under their jurisdiction if not constantly challenged. The way around this is to ask: “How would you wish to be addressed?” They will say: “You call me ‘Your Worship’”. So you can say: “If that is your wish, then I will address you as ‘Your Worship’, as a common courtesy to you. Now, I expect you to reciprocate by addressing me the way I wish, which is by calling me XXX … and not ‘Mr. YYY’ … since I have already told you I consider the latter to be discourteous”.

    Oh boy … are they in trouble now … because you have brought them back to the bedrock of Common Law – addressing you as a Human Being! And, not only that, with all this argy-bargy going on, they could easily forget to insist on confirmation of your Date of Birth and Address!

    When asked for your Date of Birth, you can say: “Is hearsay allowed then?” They will say: “No”. You can then say: “I am only aware of my Date of Birth because I was told by my parents, so consequently the answer to that question is hearsay from me. You would need to ask my parents, specifically my mother, to confirm my Date of Birth”.

    They will be spitting blood.

    But note … they will still continue. However you now have grounds for an Appeal, because they continued without properly identifying who they were proceeding against.

    2. Another major stumbling block, for them, is to insist that you take an Oath. This is generally a waste of time because they won’t let you say very much. HOWEVER THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT IN YOUR FAVOUR!

    They will be very careful to choose your Oath in accordance with your ‘religion’. (One thing to try … which has not been tried … is to say: “My religion is very personal to me, and it is my business, not yours”. This would tend to give them a problem).

    However, the ‘biggie’ is that – whatever Oath you take … you will need to swear to: “… tell the truth, the WHOLE truth … etc”.

    You can argue: “I cannot swear to tell the WHOLE truth, because I do not know everything there is to know. There is a Bible over there. If I knew the WHOLE truth my name would be in it”. (This has been done. It confuses!)

    They will overcome this by agreeing that ‘the WHOLE’ truth is only that which concerns the matter at hand. However this kind of filibustering makes them annoyed, and therefore they make mistakes.

    And, anyway, they will stop you from saying very much because – as soon as you open your mouth to defend yourself – they cannot let that happen! The objective is to ‘process you via the Conveyor Belt’ … not to let you defend yourself.

    So you need to point this out, either in the Court, or via an Appeal (if they still take no notice): “You have insisted that I swear an Oath to tell the truth, and then you stop me, running rough-shod over me, when ever I try to do that in order to provide my defence. Not allowing me the FULL opportunity to defend myself, as I see fit, is grounds for an Appeal – irrespective of any decision you may come to”.

    3. They may refuse to let you ask questions (cross-examine) the claims made against you. I have seen this happen. Uh-uh! Grounds for Appeal! It is your Right, in Law, to cross-examine all claims made against you.

    All in all you will certainly end up with grounds for an Appeal – on the basis that you were not allowed the chance to defend yourself. (It was called a Hearing, but no-one was ‘listening’!) An Appeal costs £75 in the UK, and is a pretty simple form to fill in.

    It is, however, quite essential that your Appeal is supported by as many Witness Statements as possible. Have a couple of friends, taking notes, in the Public Gallery.

    An Appeal can get the judgment set aside, and the case thrown back to the Magistrates Court. But the second time they’ll think twice about ignoring you.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.