It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do You UNDERSTAND the Charges Against You Today? How do You Plead?

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Your Honor, I have a question, before I can answer that or make a "Plea".

Do the terms and words used in law have different meaning than those in English language?

Judge: Well, yes they do. [That is the only answer he can give]

Well then Your Honor, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND the Charges against me.
I will need each and every word defined for me, as to it's specific meaning in law.

Judge: Oh Boy! - Case Dismissed!

Now, you may wonder why this would work and why the judge would not just run roughshed right over you. Well, he may, but it would be thrown out later upon appeal due to failure to follow administrative procedure. What is more likely to happen, is that the prosecution will be stuck and try to intimidate you or the judge will try to trap you into something or giving up a right. the important thing to remember is this:

Each step of the proceeding is another step down the ladder in a decent into hell. However, not a single step can be taken and no jurisdiction gained, until you answer the question in the affirmative. This is the chasm that you don't want to cross...the Bar. You may have walked up to the podium, but until they get this "Yes, I understand the charges against me", they cannot proceed at all.

Now, what is the next step?

What is the definition of : Each important word that is used within the laws cited that the corporation claims you violated. [Code Violations for Government Corporate Employees]

Person: I want it defined.
State" I want it defined

and every other word that could have more than one meaning. Ask for each one defined.

Then ask if the "Person" is the corporate person or the person standing in the courtroom?

Then ask if the State is the "Corporate State" or the Organic Republic lower case small "s" state.

United States has three distinct and different meanings. Get each one or the one they are applying to you.

This is dramatically alter their ability to move against you because everything they are doing is based on trickery, deceit, propaganda, lies and intimidation.

Once you have gotten everything properly defined, provided they have not pulled out all their hairs yet and kicked and screamed like babies, and they still persist, then ask them these questions:

1. Does this court have the right to compel me to contract in business? [Answer must be no]
2. Are these charges against me part of any business transactions with the court? [Answer must be no, but now they are nervous]
3. If I plea to these charges, am I not in fact, entering into a contract with this court? [Answer must be no, but now they are either sweating bullets or have fled in fear, or dropped all charges]
4. Is this court a corporation or a judicial branch of government? Which one is it, because as far as I understand, it cannot be both or the constitution is being violated through the separation of powers doctrine? [Very touchy stuff here but questions can never get you in trouble or held in contempt if you are pleasant and courteous]
5. From here you can go to a number of other areas and places if you choose to. That is if they are still standing there and have not taken you and escorted you to the front door of the courthouse and brought you outside and told you never to come back again.

I just handed you a loaded gun. It usually only takes one or two bullets to kill.


[edit on 16-10-2009 by nwodeath]




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
S&F

Judge:Mr. ***** ********* Are you ***** ********?
Defendant: I am sorry your honor are we on the record? And if we are on the record will stating who I am institute a contract between this court and I?

Oh how they hate people that have a brain!



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 

Interesting.
If you can screw the system, as corrupt as it is, with its own rules and regulations, then this needs to be brought to the attention of everybody who is awakened enough of being in danger of bogus accusation.

I think, I have to check if that applies to Switzerland too.

Thanks for bringing this up



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I have read about this approach a few times, and about declaring yourself as a "sovereign" or something like that.

It is very interesting, but I have never heard of anyone that has actually tested it. Do you know of any cases that can be used as an example?

My second question (I have asked before) is why don't public defenders use this?
I have been told that any attorney or member of the bar is sworn not to do this, but I know how crooked a lot of attorneys are, and they would certainly use it if it was effective, and if their client paid them dearly for it!

My last question is, can a defendant appoint anybody to defend them? Does it have to be a member of the bar? In other words, can you (as an expert in this subject) appear in court on my behalf?

I don't have any pending court cases, but it seems like a lucrative proposition for someone versed in this aspect of the law, and it would be a great launching ground for a political career!! (I am interested in running for an office within the coming few years, and getting a bunch of press and exposure would by using this in court would be very beneficial!)



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
"Are we on the record?"

"Yes, your Honor, I am the beneficiary of the Trust.

As the beneficiary, I now appoint you, Judge XXX as Trustee of my Trust."

As Trustee of my Trust, I hereby instruct you, Judge XXX, to expunge the record of this court of any and all documentation concerning me, and that my name be stricken from these records."

Further, Judge XXX, I instruct you, as Trustee of my Trust, to pay me, from the court fund, X amount, for my time and effort in appearing in this venue."



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
I plea, [snip] the Queen, I'm American and the Law is British...
I plea - Not Guilty - and you have no jurisdiction over Americans, were soverigns

[edit on 16-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]

 


Censor circumvention removed

[edit on 17/10/09 by masqua]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
This has always interested me. The laws can actually benefit you IF you know what they truly mean, and what they truly are. One of my best friends has been looking into becoming a sovereign for a while, and he even has a close friend that has done it to whom he goes to for advice. If someone tries to arrest him he gets deported to his house. Ha.

You really need to know your stuff in order to make that kind of jump, if not you can really be harassed, even by cops once you confuse and irritate them.

Personally I wouldn't do it, I would much rather just use my god given rights as a human being, which can be done.

Usually, the best way to not be charged for something is to write letters, but not appear in court. Once you're on their turf it is a lot harder not to be tripped up in a nervous panic and incriminate yourself immediately. By writing letters and having them define things for you that way, they cannot take action against you because you are responding to the charges.


One little thing to add that's a bit unrelated but still pertains to law:

Most states make you register your vehicle once you buy a car. Well, it turns out that you turn in the bill of sale and/or the Manufactures Statement of Origin at the DMV for the CERTIFICATE of Title.

This is where you literally surrender your ownership of the car to the state, and they give you a certificate, and CHARGE you for it. It truly is ludicrous all the way around when it comes to law.

The only reason you need to have insurance on the car by law of the state is because you need to cover the states property if you damage it(not that it's not good to be covered).

As a human being you have the right to travel freely, thus, this is beyond any law that can be applied, you just have to know your stuff.

For example, Motor Vehicle does not mean car. Just like Person does not mean human being.


Here is an interesting link that was sent to me about a man that fought back and forth with letters to the DMV stating that he was not going to register his vehicle until it was defined to him properly.

Might give a better idea how this all works. Lengthy, but hilarious. The people at the DMV do not even know what the laws really are.


Manufactures Statement of Origin


Hope you find this somewhat useful. And hey, next time you buy a car, pay cash and don't give it to the state. I know I will.



Another good one was the income tax. Income literally means 'gains made on a corporation'. Makes you understand a whole heck of a lot how they can pin it on your Person(through intimidation), because it is unconstitutional to tax your labor, because it is considered your private property.


Sorry for de-railing the topic a bit, but I just thought that was so d#mn interesting!!


Good luck with your law decoding. It is a hefty job. 'Doublespeak' has existed long before 1984.


[edit on 16-10-2009 by ohh_pleasee]



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Yes, it is hectic, and not for the lazy, or the faint of heart. The study of law is very time consuming, and a lot to learn and remember. but! once armed with magic bullets, go forth and put them in their place. Not to brag, but I have such a reputation around my area that cops don't even bother any more. And always remember this...police officers do not know law, they enforce law, and they are your servants. You cannot be charged with anything until you ID yourself as the all caps name on your license or personal ID. Do not speak unless you know what you are doing, a closed mouth is always the best defence. And lastly, all Judges are in violation of their Constitutional Oath, and they know it. They do not expect you to know this.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I will not be around today throughout the afternoon, but this evening, I will be posting followups to the posts on the thread.

Yes, I have done these things in court. The results are varied from each time. This stuff DOES work. You have to WORK it though. The power flows from the individual, not toward them.

Principal
Agent

Agent is ALWAYS under the principal, just as the interest on a debt can never be more than it's Principal. No corporate "hired" officer is ever higher than the "we the people" natural person. As soon as you believe they are more powerful, they have you right where they need you. It's nothing more than a confidence game. Government rules by the "consent of the governned" and if you never give consent, you never lose your standing as the Principal.

For the Record, and let the record reflect the Judge has stated "so and so"
Let the record reflect the judge has stated there is no evidence"...etc.

As the Principal on this account, I hereby order you to terminate this case. I order this case be dismissed and expunged from the record.

In one case I know of the judge referred to the defendant as the "government moved the court".

The people, free and unhindered in contract with government agencies are the Government "in fact", not in fiction.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by nwodeath]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   
There are hundreds of different ways to approach sovereignty...however, some things remain of most importance.

Never EVER, Testify!

"Anything you say, CAN AND WILL be used against you in law" --

Now read that one hundred times before you proceed any further!!!

Im not kidding, you didn't read it 100 times yet to yourself!!!!

Now, okay, that is important to understand, but why?

Everything you say or anything anyone else says is "evidence". Without that, there is NO EVIDENCE!!

They can admit 100 and 1 million details to your case, but until someone speaks on the record and makes an accusation against you, or until you actually say something that incriminated yourself, THEY HAVE NOTHING!!!!!!!

I do not mean, they have a little bit, or they have one scrap, or they will bring in blah blah blah....THEY HAVE NOTHING!!!!! That means, absolutely NOTHING!!!!

Now, as soon as someone steps up to say anything against you, you have to identify them for the record.....



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   
It's extremely important to remember, NEVER yes, "Yes, I agree". In every matter, you must actually disagree, because this is what happens.

You must actually say, I do not understand, or I disagree and DO NOT CONSENT" The way it works is everything is PRESUMED, until rebutted by facts or opposing affidavit in court.

They presume you are the defendant.

They actually make the MISTAKE, INTENTIONALLY, and presume YOU, the flesh and blood living person, who is the government if FACT, is some kind of artificial entity created by the state, with subordinate powers and rights and duties and obligations, furthermore bound to codes rules and regulations within that artificial structure, called the UNITED STATES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Etc.

The Fact is that there are Two distinct and different Californias. The California STATE created in 1871 and the California Republic created in 1849. The California STATE is a corporation created after the Civil War and Military Rule. After Military Rule, the Congress reconvened NOT under Constitutional Assembly procedures, but under EXECUTIVE ORDER. That is CORPORATE RULE, NOT Government in the Republic "organic" state.

Everything created from that is Corporate including Judges, DAs, Police Officers etc. That means EVERYTHING is a contract!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STOP thinking the Constitution is in Place. It was superseded by Lincoln's Liber Laws in the 1860's and since we are under Military Rule, and it's ALL CORPORATE, it's all under US, the people, the PRINCIPAL, STILL. Lincoln did not sell out the Republic, he preserved it, in fact, but he HID it underneath the facade of corporation/fascistic rule. But the people were never subverted, only the statutory state, and all it's proper functions and laws.

The people remain FREE to contract, as ALL FREE PEOPLE ARE, Free to Contract...

So, DO NOT let them presume you have a contract with them!!!! EVER!!!

Never use your "God Given Constitutional Rights" , because that is admitting those rights came from a constitution, and they came from God, not the piece of paper!!!

The Constitution IS THE CONTRACT!!! People.....Free People....You can Have a Constitution or You can NOT, but each and every person has this choice, we are not bound to one almighty piece of paper holding us together as a society..DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? It is individual, and you DO NOT HAVE TO CONTRACT.

Tell them, "I do not consent to that", if ever pressed to a place of serious discomfort. As a matter of fact, why don't you tell them "I do not consent to that, before, now or in the future" "I do not consent, in the past, or in the present, I do not consent to any judgment or sentence you pass upon me" I do not consent, to Green Eggs and Ham. I do not consent, Sam I am"


[edit on 17-10-2009 by nwodeath]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

I have been told that any attorney or member of the bar is sworn not to do this, but I know how crooked a lot of attorneys are, and they would certainly use it if it was effective, and if their client paid them dearly for it!

My last question is, can a defendant appoint anybody to defend them? Does it have to be a member of the bar? In other words, can you (as an expert in this subject) appear in court on my behalf?

]

This cannot be done this way.
There is a serious for this, VERY SERIOUS.

The Bar members are part of a Masonic Organization, the British Accredited Registry, where the bar was founded going back to England. The "Bar" actually means the "Bench" too. The meaning of Bench goes back to "Banc", they just used a "c" instead of a "k". [Bank]

The Bench, or Bar, is the Bank.

Now, do you want to ask again, why your Public Defender does not "use this information". He is "BARRED" from being on the private side of the account ledger and he is held in "the public trust".



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Recommended reading for anyone trying any of these online theories involving the US as a corporation, flags, taxes, declaring sovernty, the UCC, etc…

Idiot Legal Arguments: A Casebook for Dealing with Extremist Legal Arguments
What follows this introduction is a truly extraordinary collection of cases and decisions dealing with the "paper terrorism" tactics of the so-called "patriot" movement. While some members of this movement prefer the use of guns or bombs, the weapons of choice for many others are harassing lawsuits, harassing filings, bogus documents ranging from counterfeit money to counterfeit identification cards, tax protest arguments, and many related activities. Often these tactics are accompanied by bizarre legal or, more accurately, pseudolegal language. Many people who encounter such tactics for the first time are surprised and sometimes confused by the strange and unexpected arguments that show up in the courtroom.

Bernard Sussman has compiled the most extensive collection ever of legal citations and rulings related to these "patriot" arguments. This exhaustive concordance will be a valuable resource to attorneys and judges who will be thankful to discover that previous courts have often dealt with these issues before. However, this guide is also useful to laymen and others outside the judicial system willing to wade through all the citations. It is particularly valuable in helping people to understand the energy and ingenuity with which these extremist individuals seek to undermine or pervert the legal system through radical reinterpretations of our society’s laws. Taken together, these arguments, frivolous though they may be, represent an assault on the judicial system by people who would like to consider themselves immune to the laws that govern modern society. In putting together this collection of precedents, Bernard Sussman has provided a great service to all who wish to see the laws preserved.


Judges do not take kindly to this kind of stuff, and the law is actually on their side. Most of these arguments are nothing more then conspiracy theories. Sorry to tell you, they just don’t work in the “Real World”…



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Evil
and you have no jurisdiction over Americans, were soverigns

You might enjoy this one...

("Now Richey stretches the bounds of both lucidity and judicial tolerance past their breaking point by claiming that the landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in Erie RR Co. v. Tompkins, 1938, 304 US 64, stands for the proposition that the States of the Union are mere private corporations governed by provisions of the UCC. True enough, Erie makes difficult reading for first year law students, but even a cursory reading by a lay person reveals that the UCC is entirely unrelated to the case. And even given that the concepts in the decision might seem totally alien to Richey, surely a man who has done the legal research Richey has should know that the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute did not promulgate the first official text of the UCC until September 1951, thirteen years after the Erie decision. ... Moreover the court is not amused by the notion that Indiana is a mere private corporation governed by the UCC." Richey v. Indiana Dept of State Revenue (Ind. Tax Ct 1994) 634 NE2d 1375



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


If you don't mind, I prefer you not mix my apples with your oranges....

Nothing you stated applies to what I am doing or talking about.

You can never be held in contempt for asking questions, only for making statements....

If your questions are legitimate, then all you are doing is PRESERVING YOUR RIGHTS, that is it. No judge can get angry for anyone for preserving their rights.

Don't be so foolish or naive to think I have studied for this long and I would get stuck in something as simple as you describe.

I never stated to say anything in court about being a sovereign or how certain things do not apply to you, or how the court does not have jurisdiction etc.

That would be entering "testimony into evidence". I already stated, NEVER DO THAT!



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ohh_pleasee
Most states make you register your vehicle once you buy a car. Well, it turns out that you turn in the bill of sale and/or the Manufactures Statement of Origin at the DMV for the CERTIFICATE of Title.

This is where you literally surrender your ownership of the car to the state, and they give you a certificate, and CHARGE you for it. It truly is ludicrous all the way around when it comes to law.

The only reason you need to have insurance on the car by law of the state is because you need to cover the states property if you damage it(not that it's not good to be covered).

As a human being you have the right to travel freely, thus, this is beyond any law that can be applied, you just have to know your stuff.

For example, Motor Vehicle does not mean car. Just like Person does not mean human being.

That doesn't work either:

State v. Booher (Tenn.Crim.App 1997) 978 SW2d 953 ("the appellant asserts that the state ... has unduly infringed upon his 'right to travel' by requiring licensing and registarion .... However, contrary to his assertions, at no time did the State of Tennessee place constraints upon the appellant's exercise of this right. His right to travel ... remains unimpeded.... Rather, based upon the context of his argument, the appellant asserts an infringement upon his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of this state. This notion is wholly separate from the right to travel. The ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a fundamental 'right'. Instead, it is a revocable 'privilege' that is granted upon compliance with statutory licensing procedures.")

Lots more case law on the topic at the link above.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Yeah, I get you your trying to say the US is a corporation, and you’re a sovereign. Doesn’t work anywhere but in fantasy internet land. Someone might get away with it for a short time, but they will eventually get nailed because there is case law that stands against all these arguments.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by nwodeath
Do the terms and words used in law have different meaning than those in English language?

Judge: Well, yes they do. [That is the only answer he can give]
[edit on 16-10-2009 by nwodeath]


I'm not very educated with laws most everything I know is from someone's interpretation of the law unless I have to look up some city code.

I was wondering if in this scenario the judge would say "no, the meanings are the same"

Now at this point you can't argue with a judge or he could hold you in contempt I think. So then the case would have to play out and then an appeal filed, but then the appeal could just get thrown out without being looked at or the next judge may say the first was correct.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by nwodeath
 


Yeah, I get you your trying to say the US is a corporation, and you’re a sovereign. Doesn’t work anywhere but in fantasy internet land. Someone might get away with it for a short time, but they will eventually get nailed because there is case law that stands against all these arguments.


Funny how it worked for me, but somehow "it only works in Internet Fantasy Land" ??? It sound like someone doesn't want the people to know something, huh?

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you are a lawyer with no future.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by finnegan

Originally posted by nwodeath
Do the terms and words used in law have different meaning than those in English language?

Judge: Well, yes they do. [That is the only answer he can give]
[edit on 16-10-2009 by nwodeath]


I'm not very educated with laws most everything I know is from someone's interpretation of the law unless I have to look up some city code.

I was wondering if in this scenario the judge would say "no, the meanings are the same"

Now at this point you can't argue with a judge or he could hold you in contempt I think. So then the case would have to play out and then an appeal filed, but then the appeal could just get thrown out without being looked at or the next judge may say the first was correct.


He cannot say the meanings are the same. If he does, that's a "reversible error" on appeal. Its procedural misconduct, and it's completely reversible, provided that you do not sit on your rights.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join