Courts = kangaroo court. 1. A self appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted or parodied. 2. A court or tribunal characterized by authorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding. Black’s 7th page 359 Common Law Courts (CLC) vs. Judge’s Chambers (JC) (commonly known as municipal, district, state, provincial, appellate, supreme, federal, courts) Law CLC 1. one law - the Golden Rule - you are free to do anything you please as long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty, property, or rights of a living soul. 2. is the truth JC 1. Equity Law - compels performance via contract. This can be only civil, not criminal, yet failure to perform as directed by a court can bring charges of contempt which is a criminal action. Admiralty/Maritime Law - civil jurisdiction of compelled performance which has criminal penalties for breach of contract. Since International contract backs codes, etc. and ‘courts’ won’t admit to this jurisdiction, they call it Statutory Jurisdiction. There are 60 million statutes, codes, rules, regulations, ordinances. Since 1938, all decisions will be based upon commercial law with criminal penalties. (This is why you can go to jail for not wearing a seatbelt.) 2. is colourable - truth can not be seen or heard * Purpose CLC - to compensate injured party JC - to obtain a contract in order to collect revenue for the Crown, to pay the interest on the Bankruptcy. Recognizes CLC - Plaintiff and Defendant JC - only ‘debtors’ and ‘creditors’; ‘fictions’ and ‘sovereigns’ Jurisdiction CLC - belongs to jury JC - Judge has none and so tricks us into granting it Judge’s role CLC - Judge is mediator JC - Judge approves motions and signs summary judgements - against living souls Summons CLC - defendant is summonsed to court via a signed, sworn, witnessed complaint by an injured party JC - living soul is tricked into chambers as ‘defendant’ via a summons, thereby granting jurisdiction. The summons needs only to be signed by the ‘judge’ thereby making it a summary judgement. Pleading CLC - defendant can plead “innocent” JC - no ‘innocent’ plea, only ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ or ‘no contest’ Procedure CLC - straight-forward and works for all involved JC - is backwards or mirror-image; works only for the ‘court’ Plaintiff CLC - accuser whom defendant can face JC - corporation represented by a prosecuting attorney who confronts defendant Burden of proof CLC - accuser must prove defendant’s guilt JC - defendant must prove innocence - yet, it is impossible to prove a negative Defendant CLC - presents himself or has a lawyer represent him; (‘defend’: ward off attack from; OED; the word itself accurately suggests we are going to court as one to be attacked) JC - Strawman, represented by an attorney Arguing and testifying CLC - will present the truth of the matter JC - will put us into ‘dishonour’, make us the ‘debtor’, - no debtor can win; no creditor can lose Verdict CLC - defendant is either “guilty” or “innocent” JC - attorneys have the defendant plea bargain since, if defendant is indeed innocent the attorney makes nothing on the deal, other than his client fees; hence, the attorney works both sides of the court. Crime CLC - infringement upon life, liberty, property, or rights of a living soul (a civil suit) JC - all crime is commercial - a breach of contract Attorney CLC - none is needed; the defendant ‘presents’ himself or hires a lawyer to work for him JC 1. tricks living soul to believe he is the ‘Defendant’, 2. is sworn to collect revenue for the Crown, 3. represents both sides of the court - the corporate strawman defendant and the Crown so he can’t lose 4. makes sure his client loses so he can get a cut of the fine (not so in civil suits) 5. works solely for the court unless he contracts to work for the living soul in which case he becomes a ‘lawyer’ Jury CLC - ‘trial by jury’; the jury judges both the facts of the case AND the law itself JC - ‘jury trial’ which means that the jury does what the ‘judge’ directs - this might include ignoring either the facts of the case and/or the law in question Charges CLC - defendant is permitted to face his accuser (the injured party) JC - defendant is charged by prosecutor who represents the Plaintiff - always a corporation, never a living soul “Do you understand?” CLC - judge asks this in order to know if defendant is clear JC - judge asks this in order to get defendant to contract Sentencing CLC - jury gives verdict; judge sentences with jury’s approval, a living soul pays a fine or serves time JC - Strawman/Defendant, not living soul, is sentenced. Unfortunately, the living soul thinks he is the Defendant. Everyone who is in jail is there because of something he said, or failed to say, prior to, or during, an administrative tribunal, not for some ‘wrong’ deed. * In an equity court, which is all there is since there are no more courts ‘of law’, when we are asked, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?”, we must respond “No” - not to be contemptuous but rather because the ‘truth’ can not be told. Courts of equity can neither see nor hear ‘truth’. They are courts of fiction and cannot have any truth within. If indeed one tells the ‘whole truth’, the cat will be let out of the bag and he will thereby be in contempt and go directly to jail. We must tell ‘our’ truth, which is that we accepted and returned their offer, (more later), yet telling ‘the’ truth will land us in jail very quickly. Remember that Martha Stewart got herself into trouble not by having anything to do with ‘insider trading’ but by lying. Since there is no law against ‘lying’, the only way she could be convicted was for her to have made it a crime to lie. The only way that she could have made ‘lying’ a crime is by contracting and agreeing not to lie. The only way she could contract and agree to that was to ‘swear to tell the truth’ - it was her swearing in that created the contract which she later breached by lying - which convicted her. Had she never agreed /contracted to ‘tell the truth’, she never would have been convicted. Her conviction had nothing to do with ‘insider trading’ OR ‘lying’; it had everything to do with contracting. A game warden caught a man with furs in the trunk of his car. Every time the warden, and ultimately the judge, asked about the furs, the man responded with, “What furs?” Even when the furs were pointed out to him he asked, “What furs?” The had to let him go because he never contracted. Contracts I am not making this up; the courts literally trick us into contracting with them in order for us to slit our own throats by breaching the terms and conditions of the contract. This is WHY we are asked if we will ‘swear’. We have an option; we are not required to tell the truth unless we swear we will - i.e.: enter into a contract with someone and agree to tell the truth. The sole purpose of that question is to get us to contract. They have NO jurisdiction until we contract. As long as we do not contract with them -and no law can compel anyone to contract - we can remain free. We have the right to contract and .... the right not to contract. All they do is go along with us. They have no commercial energy of their own - they rely on us to give it to them. “All law is commerce; all commerce is contract; no contract - no case”. The following “Toothpick Story” illustrates this concept. A fellow went to court and had managed not to contract right to the end when he said, “It seems my public business is finished here so I am now leaving”, and headed to the door. The judge yelled, “And take that toothpick out of your mouth!” and the man did. As soon as he did, the judge yelled to the Bailiff, “Arrest that man.” Why? Because by removing the toothpick from his mouth the man had contracted with the court. All Law is Contract; Every Interchange Between People is Contract; All Commerce is Contract. Contract Makes the Law Remember, anything that requires your signature, or a swearing thereto in order to give it application, is not law, but a contract. - Ron Branson (J.A.I.L. - Judicial Accountability Initiative Law)
Posted on: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 16:24:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015