Good day. It’s been a rough and busy month but I survived and am back online. Some things have changed for us here and the loss of internet here has left me with lots to share with you folks.
First off I want to update you on the drug raid that got the show cause hearing. Although there isn’t much to discuss with it it’s the same old story that we keep hearing over and over. The parties involved began educating themselves too late and didn’t have the knowledge they needed to successfully achieve their goals. As a result they decided to hire a lawyer and the show cause hearing was immediately cancelled. They entered pleas of guilty in an attempt to please the court and get lesser sentences at the advice of their lawyer and are now waiting on sentencing. I don’t know what they will receive for time but rumors are in the range of 7 to 10 years in prison. That useless shit in a suit was worth the money he was paid now wasn’t he?
Also during the past month another acquaintance, one who should know better, refused to claim ownership of “the name” in court during his recent trial. This resulted in the court taking a recess while they decide what to do with the matter. His approach has been heard around the planet several times where he stated “I’m not the legal person and refuse to be recognized as such.” but he persisted that he was there to deal with the matter. After the recess, if there actually was one since he left the room, they paged his name and immediately found him guilty in his absence.
At the same time I watch this happening in reality I still have people on the internet telling me that claiming the name is granting jurisdiction. I have no idea where this idea came from but it’s long past time people actually woke up and learned who they are and what is there’s. The legal person is your person to use as you please. It’s not you, nor are you a name; and no one is saying you are. They are looking for the surety for the legal name and that is you.
With that said for the umpteenth time, the real question is do they have the authority to bring said charge(s) against you and how so? There is actually only one (1) way that they can ever gain authority over you and that is by you granting it to them by your consent. I don’t care how you granted it but if they have jurisdiction then you granted it to them. You may have applied for a job with them and are a civil servant who committed an offense while at work. That would grant them jurisdiction (authority) just like if you worked for Wal-mart and violated their rules at work.
There is of course the most common way that you granted them jurisdiction and that is by never challenging their claim against you. It happens like this:
Some moronic overpaid thug in a blue (or black) costume with a small piece of tin and a smaller IQ accuses you of violating the rules he’s obligated to follow. These rules are made to protect you, the people, from psychopaths like him. The problem is that he’s too uneducated and too stupid to comprehend that jurisdiction isn’t about land mass but about authority and power, and about who actually has it. So he issues you a ticket, or summons for court, and you show up making silly arguments you watched or read on the internet with out ever questioning the intelligence of these arguments. You don’t even question the authority of the prosecutor or thug to demand payment from you in any way, shape or form, so it is of course assumed that they have authority. I mean after all, no sane person would assault another without having the proper authority would they?
I actually don’t believe these people, especially at the lower levels, are out to harm anyone intentionally. I actually believe that they are uneducated just like the thug who likes the power his piece of tin alleges to give him. And I actually believe that when their authority over your person, legal or otherwise, is challenged and they are forced to prove up or shut up, that they shut up because that is what I have witnessed personally. In Ontario here it’s called rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
So please, please, please stop with the stupid arguments about “I’m not the name” or “I refuse to be seen as a legal person” because that is all they can see and the fact is that you have both. They are yours to use as you please and no one else on earth can tell you how to live or use any of your property including your name and legal person. Not the pope, not the queen, and not the thug in a costume. Unless you grant it to them so stop granting them the authority over your person and stand in honor.
Rob
Rule 21 is excellent but Rule 22 is for “special” things.
“Consent” also is given by waiving due process. In a victimless crime, there can be no affidavit of complaint signed by a complainant (damaged party) before a notary which complaint is laid before a magistrate who issues a warrant for arrest.
By the arrested party not setting their record by demanding to go before the magistrate to inspect the affidavit of complaint (which doesn’t exist in a victimless crime) and if necessary authenticate the notary and the magistrate (oath of office) as properly authorized bonded offices.
The officer offering the citation is a mere witness and is not a damaged party. Where the State is noted at the party bringing the action, facing one’s accuser demands to put the fictional State on the witness stand (impossible) to cross examine.
When demanding to go before the magistrate, the arrested party must set the record with 2 or 3 witnesses to corroborate the contractually agreed to appearance and note the denial of due process by denying the accused access to the administrative remedy to inspect the accusatory instruments necessary to establish a clain.
The Notice of Fulfillment of Promise to Appear with accompanying Affidavits of Appearance is served on the clerk denying access, the city attorney, and the elected clerk of court. After 10 days, with no rebuttal; Notices of Default are served on the same three parties.
Not demanding to see magistrate is consent, and it is the violation of the penal code that requires going before the magistrate is what the accused is convicted of, not the infraction.
That’s a drawn out way of doing it but if it works where you are (I’m thinking UK with the magistrate talk) then go ahead. Whatever is successful is what I want people to be able to find here.
Rob
I’m not the name, I have a name, I’m not the PERSON but I have a PERSON..and I am the one whom uses it with honour, and not for bad reasons..so ya, good article…