posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 12:22 PM
I saw a clip on TV of someone being "sentenced" (note the legal def of "sentence" and the colloquial are different) and the judge asked this
question: Do you understand and accept the terms of this sentence?"
These are TWO separate questions, yet they are tied together - total manipulations of the mind. The first of course is "understand' and the human
brain simply latches onto that one and responds yes and ignores the second (understand means two different things as well). Why ask if one
"accepts," according to many of the folks on the thread who say the judge is godlike, why ask the question at all? Why if the judge is godlike, does
he need to get the person's acceptance? Even worse, the person didn't answer, the lawyer did (as the person is of course dead in the court.).
For clarity as some seem to miss what is being said. To argue with the court once jurisdiction has been given is a failed effort. Those who say that
saying you are sovereign and the rules don't apply won't work are right, but the reasoning is a bit off. People who say this when they have already
given jurisdiction will loose, as they have entered into contract and agreed to jurisdiction, they are just offering a legal "defense." The OP's
point is to say that one should never give jurisdiction in the first place, thereby eliminating the whole defense argument.
One might think of it this way. A guy walking down the street calls you out and wants to fight. You're a pretty good fighter, what you don't know is
the other guy has a gun. So you have a decision to make, accept the fight, or walk away. Most folks think because the "judge" asks you to fight you
must - remember he has a gun. The OP's point is do not fight, you cannot win - he has a gun, instead realize you do not have to fight and you can
resolve the matter in another manner.
It should be said as well, if you fear the law, jail, judges, fines etc. simply do what is done and there is something to be said for it given the
state of things. There is no harm in it as this is what is and has been done. No one is asking you not you. What is being suggested in these threads
and by others, is to stop being frightened, take back your power, stop being a slave first and a natural human being second. Start to see you are
free, even the system that takes from you every single day, when it wants and how it wants, knows you are a naturally free person. As Proto has so
eloquently pointed out in many threads, the system is rigged to make you forget that fact, leave it alone as if it is dangerous to you, but in fact is
is dangerous to the system, a system that hates you to begin with and controls you simply by creating fear and insecurity when faced with it.
It should also be noted that those who suggest because someone has failed at working this part of the system is proof it does not work. Not all people
are equal in their skills. Many go about things wrong, or without clarity, or are not intelligent enough etc. Failure does not negate something. I
have come to see that those who are successful at things rarely say anything at all, so there is most likely a significant population of people who
use these notions to their betterment and keep it to themselves.
To those who point to case law as PROVING that all of this is nonsense. The logic is flawed. A: Case law is law contained within the fight, they are
rules made up in the system one is trying to avoid. The "case law" for the OP's notions is what exactly what he states - there cannot be case law
to say that case law does not apply. The second problem is most obvious, no court is every going to make case law rendering itself obsolete. Those who
have fought tickets on the law of contracts have been TOSSED OUT. The judge does not go back into chambers and write case law, he ignores it as the
whole thing has nothing to do with him - no fight took place.