As many may already know, Santos Bonacci was arrested recently and charged with not complying with court orders and not paying outstanding fines. The Victoria Police state that there are 50 unpaid violations and yet Santos was one of the great heralds of “deny the name and stand in common-law and you will win” people.
Santos has been on Kate of Gaia’s radio show several times and, until his recent arrest, Kate and Santos appeared to be quite good buddies. I’m not sure what exactly caused the rift between them as they both preach the same message on how to become “free from the system” and still do. What I do know is that Santos has been convicted of 50 offenses that come with fines. Santos has refused to pay these offenses and has tried to use U.C.C. teachings to discharge them. Again with no success.
I don’t know why people keep following these “gurus” who teach erroneous ideologies about how to win in court and how to discharge fines and penalties when not one person has succeeded using these methods that can be brought forward and demonstrated clearly. These methods of “freedom” never work and never will. You can argue about the truth behind these ideas all you want, that’s irrelevant. It’s true the sun is hot. It’s not true that if I reach into the sky and block it from my view it becomes colder because my face is cooler.
The issues behind the scenes and the ideologies of abandoning the name can and will work if you wish to return to the natural state of man living in the wild. So long as you wish to live amongst “the dead” you will be required to have a legal person to identify your natural body with. This is why Kate is now legally known as Jane Doe – XXXX. She needs that legal name to operate in the system which she is currently trying to proceed with charges against the City of Guelph and the Police of that city.
My point here in summary is that you can either run with the likes of Santos, in all the meanings of that term, or you can actually begin to learn who and what you are in law and stand and defend yourself properly. There are different ways of doing this and engaging within the legal system is one of them. You can still do this without a lawyer and I recommend using Jurisdictionary® as a viable means of learning the system. I have studied the program and found it to be highly useful if for no other reason than to learn why you should NEVER avoid the people accusing you.
Other methods I use without all the filings and such like you may use in a traffic offense or other summary situation are discussed and expanded on in my members area. You can always find other like minded people seeking to defend against tyranny within the social community of this site.
In summary I encourage everyone to properly defend against the accusations brought before you whether they be financial, statutory, or civil claims. Running from the situation never resolves it and it never goes away on it’s own. I hope Santos gets things sorted and resolves his issues but so long as he runs and refuses to deal with the claims against him he can and never will be truly free.
Rob
Official Police Request For Assistance In Finding Santos “Sam” Bonacci.
Here you go Rob…
Don’t know about Australia but I’ll assume the exact same on every “free” country.
i rule no wo/man.
no wo/man rules me.
All equal.
If you the man have a claim of damage caused by me, i’ll fix that damage.
If not,I owe no one anything, because the rules (on America an unknown number) are not mine.
I did not write them,they are in a language I do not comprehend, and I do not consent to any extortion.
Living that way for 8 years and has worked perfectly…Doesn’t public money build the roads on Australia? Gas taxes pay for those here, why would Santos owe a fine, for using what he in fact paid for already?
Why he would owe fines? Because some psychopath made accusations and he either didn’t defend properly or not at all. As a result another psychopath decided to say he owes revenues for using the public’s property. I have defended against the accusations of crown prosecutors and had them withdraw. I hope people will listen and learn to properly defend against these false accusations.
Hey Rob;
i enjoy ur collumn—funny thing is i am talking with Santos as i read this:
The problem is Santos was not operating as a man in common law;
as i am a student and working with the few i know around the globe who believe in common law as a life style, each wo\man sees this as a time to bring hope back to freedom on common law lands around the globe:
The advice of i; a man,Allan at this time for Santos is to write a letter of apology to the judge and ask for forgivness’
something like this:
forgive me your honour i am a legal idiot;
if i cause harm to another man, i wish to compensate him for harm or injury i cause.
Hi Rob i came across this, there are more clips of the guy talking about his experience, but this and the next part are audio recordings of him going through the court and not giving his name and coming out the other end free. have a look and see what you think
I listened to the recordings despite the poor audio quality that is typical of court proceedings but don’t see how you believe he won. If I heard correct, and I listened 4 times, he got time served and was convicted. That may be walking out free but it isn’t winning against the charges.
I’m currently waiting on an audio to process and I’ll be putting it up in the membership section of an actual win. It’s not my method and I think he lucked out but it is a win and in my opinion any win against the corporatist wannabe slave owners is a good win.
Perhaps I missed something in your audios and if so please point that out so I can comprehend what you are trying to show me.
Thanks
In the beginning of a change a patriot is a scarce man, and hated and scorned. When his CAUSE success the time join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” Mark Twain.
Santos is a man of principle who walks his talk. He stands alone against a tide of corruption and ignorance with only his conscience to comfort him. Taking cheap, smarmy shots from the sidelines merely illustrates what a pathetic, sniveling conformist looks like. So thanks for your contribution.
So because I believe running and not standing your ground is wrong you imply I’m a conformist, is that correct? Despite that you obviously know nothing about me and don’t seem to care to learn. Am I correct in what I think you are saying?
Hi Rob,
Can I ask you if you personally have studied and understand each and every one of these processes, methods and lifestyles that you decry by “I don’t know why people keep following these “gurus” who teach erroneous ideologies about how to win in court”?
Because if you haven’t and the fact that you personally might have no knowledge or experience of many of these processes achieving success does not mean that they don’t have successes, does it?
So why pump out all this negativity stuff of things you haven’t studied let alone have ever tried and clearly don’t have a clue about.
Re your claim:
“These methods of “freedom” never work and never will.” Rob that’s a very bold statement. I say that because I have first hand knowledge that it’s wrong. My reason for asking you why your so negative is that you sound like a supporter of the stinking system that binds men in perpetual DEBT servitude, with a system they have been using and evolving for hundreds of years and your attempting to destroy peoples hope yet you offer absolutely nothing to replace that which you trespass on other than fight nice, using their so called rules in their bent and twisted system which Santos Bonacci surly has shown is like playing Russian roulette with a psychopath using loaded dice. Why is that Rob?
With all due respect your knowledge base is very limited from you writings.
In response to your:
“Running from the situation never resolves it”
I’ll say, “Do not judge a man until you have walked in his moccasins for two moons”
The legal system that you appear to be defending is utterly corrupt at all levels. Do you understand that there is no “LAW” they do as they please and the sheep not only tolerate it they condone it, so well have they been conditioned.
Are you sure you are free of all such conditioning?
There are more ways of killing a cat than choking it with cream.
I don’t know why you people keep thinking I’m defending the corrupt system because I call out the actions of your personal heroes. I do not support the system and have in fact asked for anyone with evidence that these methods do in fact work to bring it forward. For months now the challenge has stood and no one has even tried to bring forth the evidence requested.
In the absence of such evidence of success and having personally witnessed people lose, and get hurt by using the techniques I criticize, I am forced to believe no such successes exist. If you have recorded evidence to the contrary I invite you to provide that evidence now and prove me wrong.
As to the comment of “do not judge a man” I believe if you re-read my post I never did judge Santos. Rather I asked why he runs from his opponents whom he was so loud and proud to criticize up until recently. One who lives “in honor” never runs from a fight but rather faces it and either wins or loses based on his personal abilities. Yes they rig the game against you but that does not mean an automatic defeat. I have stood in the lion’s den and walked out a victor four times in the past year and a half.
I do not criticize without first hand personal knowledge of victory against the psychopaths. Can you make the same claim and can you provide proof as I have done in the past?
This is not an attack against you and if you feel it is then you have no idea what an attack is. I merely wish for you to make clear your criticism and provide evidence your ideologies work as I have done in the past and continue to do. If you have no experience and you have no wins then you have no right to question those who do.
Still awaiting the evidence requested months ago,
Rob
A very well put together article, Rob.
It is difficult to ‘win’ these kinds of court battles, especially when the corrupt judicature ‘errs’ in law, even with simple traffic violations, as an example.
Kind Regards.
Thank you. And I agree dealing with the corruption can be difficult which is why I like to hit them hard and fast in the face with the regulations they created with questions demanding to be answered.
Who is running the man, the dead man, the legal fiction, The Name, THE NAME, the person, the trust/s or the all of the above?
They are all given “life” from the man who is called by the name Santos. They are seeking the surety for the name/legal person/ who or whatever you want to call it. The “name game” is a lie as everyone has a name. The question is, however, is the person (man) with the name accountable to the statutes in question and did they violate them?