Mar 25, 2013 7:14 PM

Has the man and/or the NAME entered a PLEA when he got arrested..???

Lets imagine the MAN got arrested. Maybe they assinged the NAME a "PUBLIC DEFENDANT". In a later hearing, maybe a NOT GUILTY PLEA was made on behalf of the NAME by the PUBLIC DEFENDANT. BAIL was GRANTED. Lets imagine that while on BAIL, the PUBLIC DEFENDER was fired by the PERSON. A NOTICE was entered into the court file NOTICING the PUBLIC DEFENDANT was no longer REPRESENTING the NAME, along with the filling of the SURETY BOND AND LEGAL NAME into custody of the court. A NOTICE OF MISTAKE was sent via registered mail to the "jugde" and the prostitutor (no offense to prostitutes), along with copy of the VOID offer to contract to APPEAR in trial, and copy of the BC. The PARTIES have been NOTICED, they got the REGISTERED POST. There is/was a trail to be held, lets imagine, maybe April 1st. The NOTICE OF MISTAKE has NOT been filed into the court record, yet, waiting to see if there is any kind of RESPONSE or ACTION taken. I would imagine hell will freeze over first, before they reply with a thank you note. Well, what an IMAGINATION I have. Maybe, those are the available IMAGINARY FACTS.

Lol.....

Lets IMAGINE the man and/or the name had REALLY done something UNLAWFUL....

Lets imagine my grand mother had NOT fucked with my grand father....

Well, Pierre, I see that if it would be for you, I would loose my IMAGINARY friend! That would make a big boy cry. :p!

Lol....2 options for your IMAGINARY friend have done sometging UNLAWFUL he sould of pleaded guilty.....if NOT, he should of NOT entered any plea...

You should be good to (not) go. If they don't respond...

The public defender was fired by the person....this CANT erase a CRIME presumption..??

This is what "Judge Dale", the annonymouse "judge", has to say: <<At your Arraignment or Trial, the Judge will ask you if you are the named individual [ALL CAPS BIRTH NAME] on the complaint and your natural response will be to answer in the affirmative but that is exactly what you don’t want to do!

Remove your Birth Certificate and respond to him by stating: I am making a Special Limited Appearance on behalf of the defendant who is right here and [hold up your Birth Certificate!]

Then state the following: As I understand this process Judge; the County Attorney [or] Police Officer has leveled a criminal charge with the Clerk and against the TRUST, using the ALL CAPS NAME that appears on this BIRTH CERTIFICATE! The use of capital letters is dictated by the US Printing Style Manuel, which explains how to identify a CORPORATION.

The Clerk, who is the ADMINISTRATOR of the CESTA QUE TRUST, then, appointed you Judge as the TRUSTEE for the TRUST and since neither of you can be the BENEFICIARY, that leaves me and therefore you are MY TRUSTEE!

So as MY TRUSTEE, I instruct you to discharge this entire matter, with prejudice and award the penalties for these crimes to be paid to me in compensation and damages for my false arrest!

NOTE: The Law of Trusts dictates that an Administrator; Trustee and Beneficiary cannot serve two positions in a Trust. So a Trustee cannot be a Beneficiary too!

The TRUSTEE Judge has no alternative but to honor your demands but you have to get this right and act with confidence! You really need to know this information well, so that you canât be hoodwinked or confused by either of them! They will or may attempt to play some mind games with you if you display any doubt; stammer or display a lack confidence! Appearances [the pomp and majesty] of these pseudo Courts, is totally for your benefit and is intended to invoke fear and intimidation! If you show fear or intimidation, you get a pony ride!

NOTE: I’ve seen and heard of Judges and Prosecutors interfering with a defendant’s response, which made the defendant, become confused and he was subsequently committed into a mental hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. The Judge and Prosecutor successfully twisted what the defendant was trying to say and then the Judge Ordered a mental evaluation.

Understand that the County Attorney will be forced to pay the Cost of Court out of his own pocket, if the case is discharged, so he isn’t going to give up that easily and the Judge; Clerk and County Attorney, stand to make a pretty penny off of your conviction and incarceration! So don’t screw it up”

If the County Attorney begins to act too cocky with you, you can take the wind out of his sails by asking him to produce the 1040 for this case? If he denies the need to do such a thing, inform him that you will be taking care of that for him ASAP [as soon as possible]! He may move for a discharge at that point because you are a little too dangerous or smart! The last thing that Prosecutor wants is the IRS examining his files for the last seven years because he makes money on every conviction but he doesn’t pay TAXES on them as a Rule! He usually only declares the salary he receives.

Also: Should you accidentally find yourself in a mental hospital; the Psychiatrist who is assigned or appointed to evaluate you is just as corrupt as the Judge; Clerk and County Attorney and he will falsify all of your responses to him, just so that you are recommitted back into the mental facility with a review in six months! So lie to him and deny that you ever made such remarks! Of course, if you accept the criminal charges against your Birth Certificate, then you will instantly be deemed SANE!

Sorry that I had to be the one to tell you this but this is how corrupt many of my fellow Judges truly are and it should explain why my conscience caused me to retire early! Before I learned what was really going on; I believed that my duties and performance were entirely Constitutional. I was lied too also!>> http://lucas2012infos.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/judge-dale-retired-the-great-american-adventure-secrets-of-america-part-1-5-25-may-2012/

"Judge" Dale makes it seem like a walk in the park. An IMAGINARY "Judge", for an IMAGINARY case. Humm.

I think your good. I sent in all that stuff and since they didn't respond I showed up in court :/ they scooted me out...

I should mention, I wrote an affidavit (Dean's advice), not a notice and only faxed it in... but they definitely got it...

THE girlfriend seems to be a VICTIM of some "imaginary" CRIMINAL stuff.

Its typically the policy enforcers who charge in these cases...

I possess a 1993 issued certified hand written copy of my birth certificate, it is beautiful penmanship hand written script, in proper first letter capitol; remainder lower case of the name, the double dip trick is the use of the 3 capitol letter initials which creates a federal jurisdiction because they can only SEE (as in catholic bishop) those capitols and spaces and blank is omitted making the initials DJ federal speak, just like MA for massachusetts. tie DAJ and the cusip id # together and you have a stock certificate. it's like some letters are written in the same red ink as the cusip, and they look at it (SEE) through a red lens like at the 3d movies.

Yeah what is some criminal stuff in regards to GF.. ..???? DID HE SMASHED HER FACE.. ..well than he is fucked.. ..did he destroy some of her property? ??? Well than he is fucked.. .. your imaginary friend is not called Joe by any chance? ?? If yes dude watch yourself he is a COP

How you file NAME BC SURETYBOND INTO COURT FILE ??? I mean do you file the original or just a copy???

the origional is allready filed into the state house through the division of records, they leased it to the federal reserve. you can only get a copy, and that doesnt have to be complete or identical except the data it contains has to match (they can leave out pertinent information from the copy).

So a copy of the original copy or the original copy? ??? Does it even matter??? I'd say marching in with BC in your hands is sufficient. ... Does the clerk always have to NOTARIZE?? When documents are filed into the court?

Certified Notarize Copie...

My IMAGINARY friend is not called JOE, nor he is a COP. He is a MAN. Lets say he did a little face smashing. Nothing serious. But, the STATE OF FLORIDA wants some money. They have a "witness" that is a NAME, and a TRIAL date. They are salivating for the dough, because he was already 1 month and a half in the hoper (no money for lord BAIL), and they think this is just another case like any other. Beverly May, should the affivadit be FILED on the court record? Or, should eveything remain in the private, still?

NOTARIZED.. .hmmm interesting when a clerk notarizes BC he certifies the signature/whatever as a fact, I didn't sign it someone else did someonelse ACTS than as surety which is FACT....Is that all ...simply a certified notarized copy of your BC Into courtfile. ..surety has been established.. .A Notice of mistake via reg. Post and thats it really. ....why show up in court. ..???

Lets say he did a little face smashing: Thats AGAINST the law....why not plea guilty and FACE the music..???...:D ..unless it was SELF DEFENSE, which I would doubt ...

He deposited the certified copy that the STATE makes, in bond paper and everything. What David Johansen says, is CORRECT. The original RECORDING is at the REGISTER'S OFFICE of the OFFICE FOR DEMOGRAPHICS REGISTRY, here.

If your imaginary friend hurt her i think there is no way he can tiptoe around this issue.. ..he wasnt COMMERCIALY ENGAGED WITH SOME SORT OF CONTRACT ISSUE.. i dont have the correct words at my dispose but if he harmed someone he stands liable as natural person and security.. .

et voila....2 Options: plea guilty, or no plea...

If he pleaded NOT GUILTY, he accepted the fact that he may or may not did something wrong....he will have to PLAY THE GAME....and face the music.....If crown have PROOFS against him about some beating on woman...I hope the crown will SMASH his face...lol...

If I Make a copy of the certified copy that the state makes and get a notary public to authenticate and certify this copy than it is a authenticated copy of the certified copy that the state makes.. ..IS IT VALID IN COURT?? ?

Yes...

The MOST I get from this TENDER FOR LAW place is EVERYONE IS TO OBEY THE LAW.....EVERYONE, ME INCLUDED....:D

If you cant do the time.....dont do the crime...

What does it mean to deposit on Bond paper? ?? Is the BC on bond paper, or is there a process where you fill out paper work (on bondpaper) to file your BC into a courtfile ??? Sorry i am still a virgin when it comes to this

notaries only notarize sinatures.

Before I posted my imaginary thead, I wanted to tell my imaginay friend NOT to show-up that day, because that would be crazy (to me, a domplete contradiction). And I would try to keep everything in the PRIVATE. To prepare an affidavit affirming he is a man, and all the other good stuff that he has done to clear this MISTAKE, just in case a WARRANT for the arrest of the name is somehow issued. If that happens, I would suggest to send via a CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE using a notary, would send registered mail all the goodies to the clerk of the court, for filing. I also wanted to tell him, to buy a plane ticket to Panama, just in case the MEN IN BLACK went after him. But, I want to listen what this respectable group have to say about it. I would be "sad puppy face" if my IMAGINARY friend goes to imaginary jail, because of some stupid technicallity. I only have one Imaginary friend. It would be unbearable. ;)

INCLUSION is the exclusion of everything else. ..ME INCLUDED Joseph Pierre Gilles

misquote. we know what you mean but dont say it like that in a court...

James Baal INCLUSION is the exclusion of everything else. ..ME INCLUDED: this is for LEGAL matters / letters....

@ David Johanson.. ..Yes therefore establishing surety on that matter.. I didn’t sign the surety bond someonelse did ITS A FACT NOW. ..or am i wrong here.. .

Hey Maximiliano Pérez, your IMAGINARY friend should run now....if not, he will have to FACE THE MUSIC....believe me....he could write hundreds of affidavit if he wants, that WON'T change anything....

I was responding to pierres statement of the TENDER FOR LAW.. .

THERE IS NO LAW. There is no "justice", nor ANY "judges". It is all a fiction, and the court can only PROCEED with the CONSENT of the living man. No MAN has power over another. Its a spell! The bad thing is that they have guns, and we live among INFANTS, MINORS, LUNATICS, and INCOMPETENT braindead people, that would turn us in in a second.

THERE IS NO LAW ???...where's that ?????

Your imaginary friend should get a CONSCIENCE.....and put in is CONSCIENCE package: WE DON'T SMASH FACES....:D

I'm confused my self now.. ..???

So the REASONING is: 1) its all bullshit. 2) So, if you are charged with a fake crime, just rub it off. 3) But if you commit a real "crime", then the bullshit has the moral authority to turn into real? How can the courts be invalid for somethings, but valid for others? Who gave this people such power? BY WHICH AUTHORITY these people can "judge" another MAN? I sure didn't sign ANY VALID CONTRACT for that.

The REASONING is: You dont HURT no one, unless in SELF DEFENSE situation, again, if your IMAGINARY friend Hurts someone by pure egoism, I HOPE he get his ass kicked by the crown....its NOT all bullshit, there is NO fake crimes....there are crimes or no-crimes....

I hear you and don’t have an answer as for now. .. its your right to waive benefits, its your right not to contract, its your fundamental right as human being not to get hurt or property damaged. ..I think when a really CRIME is commited, obligation kicks in and whoever is liable stands liable thats a important rule in law of trust.. .I think.. .

There are crimes or no crimes.. ...BRILLIANT. ...

Trust Law vs Criminal Law is 2 different thing....we dont talk COMMERCE here, we are talking Criminal Offense....

I wish Scott Duncan could give his INPUT here.....

Do they not merge into each other?

why would they ????

I think you just summoned him,, :-)

To be protected someone has to agree to Protect you from crime....Why would anyone protect you from crime

There is a separating line here somewhere. .

In the case of my imaginary friend, I see is no simple matter at hand, for many reasons. Now, lets entertain this situation for a moment. What if my imaginary friend indeed committed the offense. He APOLOGIZES, and asks for FORGIVENESS to her partner. She in turn accepts his apology, and FORGIVES HIM. If there is not any meeting of the minds, any PROPER NOTICE given, any considerable CONSIDERATION offered, or that I have ANY INTENT to CONTRACT, so... At this point WHAT THE HECK IS THE STATE OF FLORIDA TRYING TO COLLECT MONEY for an act that has been already FORGIVEN by the victim?

Back to previous question is the BC on BONDPAPER, or am I filing this into the COURT recorded on bond paper?

They already have the NAME James Baal, you just Dispose to them 1 certified copy of your BC....thats all

Just checked out bond paper *sigh* i get it now.. .i thought it was a receipt like paper with three copies or something..

He APOLOGIZES, and asks for FORGIVENESS to her partner.She in turn accepts his apology, and FORGIVES HIM...That is fukin PATHETIC.....how in the world your IMAGINARY friend can call her PARTNER...???.......Your IMAGINARY friend OBVIOUSLY commited a CRIME, and he will have to FACE THE MUSIC...period., if he have a one way ticket for PANAMA, he should use it....NOTHING will work for him....your IMAGINARY friend is CONFUSING Criminal Offense vs Commerce....he is fuked....

Considering your last imaginary play. ..I think it is a pretty mess you are trying to keep up walking.. if she accepts and forgives that's it finish case.. .dismissed NO?

Maximiliano Pérez, why your IMAGINARY friend entered a NOT-GUILTY plea if he, indeed, commited the CRIME..????...is he a LIAR ????

Not at all James Baal, she is NOT the crown....if the crown have PROOF...they will do their JOB....

Joseph Pierre Gilles is on to something here are you saying even if she accepts and forgives he still has to stand the criminal charges??

Why NOt ???

If I steal your car and you forgive me...do the CROWN will say...ok you can go sir..???

If I rob a bank and the banker forgive me...???

To me, beating a lady, is way more SERIOUS than stealing a car or robbing a bank....but hey, thats just me...

We had a case here guy got beaten badly on the head.. (Irish drunken row) he ended up in coma for couple of weeks but luckily woke up....anyhow he forgave his abuser and ask the court not to punish him.. The case is still awaiting final decision but the abuser has been ordered to undergo probation report.. .interesting to say the least.. .Here in Ireland probation reports are ordered if the judge is confused on how to proceed with the case.. had one my self done very interesting indeed.

he forgave his abuser and ask the court not to punish him: WHY????

personal feelings aside...if there is no accuser there is no crime...she forgave the "imaginary friend" the crown is the third party, how can they properly bring a charge if they are not damaged?

Because the have SOLID PROOF of damages...

proof, but no witness?

oh yes...she must of testified something....and now, she wants to untestify what already been testified

I was growing one tiny little plant outside my backyard all natural.. .they came in guns blazing almost smashed my doors, left the house Fucking destroyed, stripped me half naked, threaten to drown me in my toilet bowl for telling lies, all for one tiny unsmokeable plant. .fucking retarded and a waste of money if you ask me.. .

if the IMAGINARY friend went in court and entered a NON-GUILTY plea.....some PROOF must have been filed into court

Thats a COMPLETE different story James Baal

I don't know why Joseph Pierre Gillespier but I suspect that the matter has been Dealt with in the private.. some sum off legal tender easy offered as remedy ;-)

not guilty is admitting they have a reason to charge you with an action

Every time is the same: Did I commited a crime ????....yes or no....????

Yes it is sorry.. just telling why I had a probation report ordered

If you answer YES, you plea guilty.....if you answer NO....you dont fukin plea NOTHING

I agree with you there Joseph Pierre Gilles, but trial time is coming...will she be there as a witness? The crown brings charges but is not the damaged party? how does that fly?

We dont have all the détails Kelleran Holman....lets say there are 14 witnesses..???

let say they (cops) took pictures of her

we need more détails on the PROOFS

isn't the complaining/damaged party supposed to be one of the elements of a charge? she would have to be there at some point of a trial, correct?

If I see you beat your wife, and I decide to go to court to say what I've seen.....do you think because your wife FORGIVES you that the CROWN will stop everything ?????

lol...

that is just like the "policy" guy telling me the other day that HE would be laying the charge...as though HE was the damaged party...I have a problem with that...

If you beat your wife, and she doent call the police and she forgives you and no one saw the beaten....thats another story...

but if you beat your wife, and she call the police, and she makes a deposition, and they take pictures of the injuries, and they arrest you, and you enter a NON-GUILTY plea, and your wife decide to forgive you....do you think the crown will throw your deposition in the garbage can with these pictures...???

The crown cannot act without being AUTHORISED to do so witness testimonial won't be enough I guess but a victim report and authorization to bring charges will do.....as long the crown is authorized to proceed everything is good (or maybe not) Your imaginary friend may start studying some MAFIA rules of engagement they are usually pretty convincing when it comes to dropping charges

Again, if I steal your car, I get caught, and you forgive me, and ask the judge not to proceed....is that make sense ???

Don't get me wrong, as we don't have the details of the "imaginary" event she may have forgave him, so she can burn him in his bed at a later date, lol Either way unless she has "expired" she is...or should be a primary witness...NOT the crown with no firsthand knowledge...or maybe I have got it all out of wack?

can the cop not take the case on if the woman wont

depend...If I would be a cop, I would pursue if I have ALL the proofs I need.....how the fuk a sane lady should forgive that ???....

assualt is a common law broken not a statue

Question: Can sufficent reliable EVIDENCE be enough to bring charges without VICTIMS authorization ?

This is my point: You DON'T beat a lady...NEVER....unless it is in a self-defense situation....if your TESTOSTERON is on a HIGH LEVEL, there are plentys of place where you can go and fight....leave the lady alone

Question: Can sufficent reliable EVIDENCE be enough to bring charges without VICTIMS authorization ?..oh YES...

what the fuk is this victim's AUTHORIZATION thing ????....since when victims need to AUTHORIZE something ?????

Is there is LAW, then everything is a CONTRACT. The LAW says a 3rd party has no business there, UNLESS THERE IS A CONTRACT between ALL PARTIES agreen to PROPER NOTICE given, considerable CONSIDERATION offered, and INTENT to CONTRACT, and all that good stuff the LAW says.. My question is: BY WHICH AUTHORITY ANY MAN CAN APPLY the "LAW" to another MAN, is there has not been any VALID CONTRACT AGREED by them? Slavery, anyone? Involuntary servitude? So you are BORNED and automatically the LAW of men applies to you, even without all the things a VALID CONTRACT MUST have are missing? BY WHICH AUTHORITY ANY MAN CAN APPLY the "LAW" to another MAN, is there has not been any VALID CONTRACT AGREED by them?

summary convictions there is no evidence u get railroaded if u assualt someone id say it would be much worse never mind if you hit a woman

Maximiliano Pérez....you are mixing everything....why are you talking about CONTRACT ???.....

our personal feelings about hitting a woman, or anyone for that matter that isn't a self defence situation seems pretty difficult to put aside....but If she isn't prepared to follow through, it would seem that neither should this case....regardless of our "beliefs" on how wrong it is...no?

If your IMAGINARY friend beates his wife, and he enetered a NON-GUILTY plea, and they (crown) have enough proofs to show that this really happened, well, this is CRIMINAL.....has nothing to do with contracts....your IMAGINARY friend is cooked...

Joseph Pierre, let me ask you for something. Show me PROOF of HOW is it that the LAW applies to you. Did you signed a CONTRACT with the CROWN saying you accept all their laws? Have you taken a Oath or Affirmation In CONTRACT saying you will obey the LAW? Whats your PROOF? For example, the LAW applies to Scott, because he TOOK AN OATH, and the LAW DOES apply to him. I am not trying to create controversy, but rather get some brain cells going here.

Kelleran Holman....I really don't get it...lol...IF THEY HAVE ENOUGH PROOF WITHOUT ANY DOUBTS THAT THIS REALLY HAPPENED IN REALITY, THEY WILL JAIL HIM....

there is no BELIEFS implied here

I have an IMAGINARY friend, he robbed a bank, got caugth, but the banker forgave him and asked the crown or judge not to go to court with this, because he forgave the guy.....

My question is WHERE does the crown get this right from? they can charge prosecute...for someone else even though that someone else has forgiven the matter? WHERE DOES THAT RIGHT DERIVE FROM?

sorry caps lock, lol

lol...The crown have pictures of a beaten lady and a deposition let say....lol....

if the crown has NOTHING, well he is free.....but if they have SOMETHING.....forget about this forgiveness shit...they will proceed

I get it, being a Victim is enough.. .considering that this scenario becomes dimensional.. if there is sufficent evidence that she is the victim, fuck the abuser FACTS will prevail

and if SHE go to court to say stuff like....oh he was in a bad mood, thats not his fault, thats my fault, I should of left him alone.....and that kind of crap....there will be more severe damages for him....lol...

so they have a "right" because of some pictures and a statement made while everything was emotionally charged? ....if she withdraws that should be the end of it...personally she maybe should stick with it if this was an unprovoked attack...but she is an adult and who are we to make decisions for her?

If these people function in FICTION, the BIG QUESTION here: BY WHICH AUTHORITY ANY MAN CAN APPLY the "LAW" to another MAN?

We are talking criminal charges here on someone that INDEED commited a CRIMINAL offence....ffs...c'mon guys, there is no way out in this....I will never try to supporte that kind of shit....he should enter a guilty plea and face his RESPONSIBITIES....

There is no FICTION here for fuk sakes.....this is REALITY....your imaginary friend commited a REAL crime....what the fuk is going on here ????

NO. ..its a CRIME backed by FACTS and/or EVIDENCE.. .the judge can consider her pleadings.. .but in the end its up to him...

The big question here is: WHY YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND PUNCHED HIS LADY ?????

thats the REAL question in REALITY

I in NO way condone hitting a woman, not by any stretch....but are we looking for the truth of the law or allowing our "feelings" on the matter to interfere? where do the rights of a third (crown/cop) come from, if the victim wishes to withdraw?

Because they have OTHER proofs of the crimes....no need her...they have OTHER proofs...more than her ONLY wishes....OTHER proofs....lol...lol... :D

If there are NO OTHER PROOFS....thats another story

If I beat you, and you go to the police to FILE a complaint against me that I beated you, and you drop the complaint after....thats ok...

LOOK AT THOSE THREE. Crime FACTS EVIDENCE JUDGE.. ..HE HAS WHAT HE NEEDS

If I beat you, and the police see me beating you with 14 other witnesses...I'm fukin cooked....with or without you

I'm not trying to argue with you Joseph Pierre Gilles, I'm just asking WHERE do the rights come from to proceed...?

what rights ???....

He defended himself, because that psyco-bitch attacked him. Now, try explaining that to a moron fake "LAW ENFORCER", and try to get to admitt the psyco-bitch SHE LIED, because she was ENRAGED. She later APOLOGIZED to him, because she admitted to him she LIED. He has FORGIVEN HER, and so has she. But the question in LAW here is: BY WHICH AUTHORITY ANY MAN CAN APPLY the "LAW" to another MAN? I am waiting for PROOF for this.

Fundamental question of this thread is what is the difference between legal fiction crime and REAL CRIME. ..when is legal fiction Fiction and LAW REALITY.. .

oh fuk...the story just turned 180 degrees...:D

BY WHICH AUTHORITY ANY MAN CAN APPLY the "LAW" to another MAN? I am waiting for PROOF for this....are you a complete idiot ???????

RIGHTS. ....Dude this is a COURT OF LAW Facts and Evidence are the only truths that have standing.. ..its not about emotions or confused thoughts... its REAL reality at the mercy of the JUDGE

Gods law

ok...I'm done here.....and dont forget this friends: EVERYONE IS TO OBEY THE LAW.....EVERYONE...psycho-bitches, psycho-bastards, etc.......:D

you mean the "imaginary" Psyco-bitch? lol If the crown is proceeding they must have a "right" to do so Joseph Pierre Gilles, that's what I was asking, how do they get it, if all is forgiven, it becomes a waste of time and money...unless.....

Evidence. .......*sigh*....

Rights come from: Being caught doing something UNLAWFUL..:D

Everything a living man does in "LAW" is only thru VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE, ONLY WITH CONSENT. CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. If it doesn't have the consent of the living man, they call only PROCEED by using FORCE, and that will be a VI COAUCTUS act. But I see, Pierre, you are a proud slave in your plantation, and so another few (taking Likes in cosideration) Maybe you'll get to be HOUSE NIGGERS one day. ;)

And everybody take this into consideration, if anything I have said here is a LIE, Scott would had called on my bullshit already. Think about that.

they dont care weather u consent or not once your in court thats my experience with them

I thought there was no space for "BELIEF" in this group. Yet some BELIEVE "LAWS" automatically apply to the MAN, like magic. Where is the PROOF? BY WHICH AUTHORITY?

I have been in a very similar situation Maximiliano Pérez, (domestic) though it did not get to the point you are at, there are always two sides to a story..."personal opinions" clearly got in the way of the answers you were looking for...

"house niggers"....that's bad right? lmao

Let me use Scott's example again. Scott signed a CONTRACT with THE CROWN, in form of an Oath and Affirmation to OBEY THE LAWS. Now Scott, I am positive, did this out of his OWN FREE WILL, and with CONSENT, there was a MEETING OF THE MINDS, there was CONSIDERATION, and all that goof stuff of CONTRACT LAW. So NOW we have PROOF that the LAW applies to JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN, and applies to THE CROWN as well, because there is a VALID CONTRACT between the 2 PARTIES. Now, anyone who HAS NOT done this in CANADA, how would you say that the LAW applies to the MAN in CANADA? BY WHICH AUTHORITHY?

that would be the "presumption" in law that you are acting as person, and not the man?

But I see, Pierre, you are a proud slave in your plantation: You are a REAL idiot in this REALITY my friend....I see myself going and kill the guy the other side of the street and say to EVERYONE....I dont conscent to be GOVERNED by you...I'm not a slave....this is ridiculous.....

I can hear the head scratching... All the way down here in the Caribean.

Dear Pierre, I am NOT REASONING, I am posing a question of LAW. I have presented my case with FACTS. Yet, the question remains: BY WHICH AUTHORITY ANY MAN CAN APPLY the "LAW" to another MAN, lacking CONSENT? You are also asumming that I do not obey the LAW. I have NOT said that. I have just posted a question of LAW. And, I dont get offended if YOU call ME an idiot. I still LOVE YOU, Pierre. <3

Common Law was established by Alfred the Great, who reigned from 871-899AD. He compiled the laws and customs of the nation into the "Liber Judicialis," based on the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. Alfred's son, Edward, declared To all who are charged with the administration of public affairs I give the express command that they show themselves in all things to be just judges precisely as in the Liber Judicialis it is written; nor shall any of them fear to declare the common law freely and courageously. In contradiction to the Common Law, the Civil Law of Rome prevailed in continental Europe. (it is this which the government are using, statutes and acts) When William the Conqueror invaded in 1066, he brought with him jurists and clerics steeped in the principles of Roman civil law. Our ancient laws and customs withstood the shock, and remained without any serious amendment. Common Law includes the Charter of Liberties, which makes the Monarch subject to the law, the 1102 Synod of Westminster, which abolished slavery in England, the 1627 Petition of Right, which granted the right to criticise the government without fear of arrest, as well as Magna Carta and the Declaration of Right. Common Law defends property rights and rights to self defence. Do not harm, or cause loss to another. Simple really, common sense even! Many of our greatest constitutional documents are Common Law documents. These are not Acts of Parliament. Their principles cannot be repealed by Parliament, and when our Monarch swore to uphold the "laws and customs" of the people of the United Kingdom at her Coronation, those "laws and customs" include Common Law. Precendents are created by Jury's of 12 good men. NOT JUDGES, as they would like you to believe. The only true court of law is where there is a jury. All other courts appear to be mearly adjuidcation meetings. The government of the UK has been trying to do away with jury trials to the detriment of the people of England.

Does Common Law comes genetically inbeaded, in form of a contract, inside MEN, that since Alfred the Great Common Law, or ANY kind of "LAW" AUTOMATICALLY applies to ME, a MAN in the 21st Century? How is that for BELIEF!

well, Maximiliano, you SHALL/MAY/MUST apply some REASONING in here....:D ... If someone kill / Beat / Harm someone because he is not HAPPY about whatever it is.....he should be brought before JUSTICE to be prosecute.... If someone kill / Beat / Harm someone on SELF-DEFENCE....thats a COMPLETE different story

Yet, the question remains: BY WHICH AUTHORITY ANY MAN CAN APPLY the "LAW" to another MAN, lacking CONSENT? BY WHICH AUTHORITY?

have you ever asked that question max?

By which authority you ask? The authority of mindless zombies with weapons. Well, here in my neck of the woods that seems to be the case...

lol....

Yes, Mo! I've asked the question here at least 4 times! :p ;) ; and I hope I NEVER have to make that question surrounded with people with guns, no brains, no heart, and NO SOUL.

Hey...I've beated the guy the other side of the street, because I was made and I did not like his face....but BY WHICH AUTHORITY ANY MAN CAN APPLY the "LAW" to another MAN, lacking CONSENT? BY WHICH AUTHORITY?

It would be a COMPLETELY REASONABLE question to make, and IN FACT a question in LAW, because the matter is between the face-smasher, and the smashee, which are MEN, not SURETY for some sick "game". Why is a 3rd party CLAIMING INTEREST on this matter, between MEN? BY WHICH AUTHORITY, a DEAD THING, claims AUTHORITY over the living MAN? Any "judges" willing to answer the question, and be prepared to DIE?

ive asked some lunatic sitting on the big chair who they were? have you an oath of office?let me see it?what authority do you have over me ?to bring me here? im only learning things and wanted to try stuff out that nut case locked me up thats how it works here i was in court for driving i had there shit i just wanted to see how it worked out

It would be a COMPLETELY REASONABLE question to make: I dont think so....if you harmed someone ...unless you are in LEGITIMATE DEFENCE.....

Boils down to this really doesn't it?

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."

Plato

Since I cant get a simple answer to the question on the table, I make another question. When could a MAN charge another one and/or others with SLAVERY, INVOLUNTARY SERVITUD, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, and all that evil stuff?

There is not a simple answer. We are all here on this mostly water covered rock blasting through the unknown. Either we get along and explore the limited time we are exposed to this illusion, or we fight with one another. I guess that's a simple answer...

civil war

lol... you're belligerent.

So, do MEN have a CONTRACT with Plato, and his quote could be FORCED into MAN on the 21st Centery? Is Plato PROOF that the LAW applies, without CONSENT, to another MAN today? I just want to be clear, Joel. But if there is really LAW, then it MUST CONFORM to LAW, and it has to be explicit, and written. So, please ANYONE FIND THE LAW THAT WOULD EXPLICITLY STATE the AUTHORITY that would give a MAN authority over another MAN, WITHOUT CONSENT, and without a VALID CONTRACT? What is that LAW? WHERE is that LAW at?

Yea, I agree, Joel. Please understand I am just trying to get some THINKING out of the box out here. I am not waging WAR against ANY, I know this is a pivotal question in LAW, Im making. Lets bear with each other.

Plato is a philosopher. You know he was just thinking about things... I don't think he would force anything on anyone. LAW is man made, So your issue isn't really with Plato is it? Are you suggesting a regression to prehistoric cave man lives, where the strongest survive - survival of the fittest? Let's all go kill everyone we can until some else kills us?

I have NOT suggested anything. I have just posted questions of Law, and question in LAW. << Are you suggesting a regression to prehistoric cave man lives, where the strongest survive - survival of the fittest?>> Well, Dear Joel, are not we living ruled by a mob that believes in precisely that? He whole WARS, the TRUST, and the BC should be enough PROOF that, perhaps, cavemen did not have it as bad as we think.

I also posted a question! lol. I know exactly what you are saying. I am not really sure there is a good answer! I mean going back to the fact that a bunch of bodies are floating about on a spec of stardust brings things into perspective for me. Does all this shit really even matter? LOL.. What we have as a society today is far from free and fair for all. Somewhere in history someone fucked up LARGE. I don't know how it happened, or why, but here we all are. We can't change the facts that led us to our present point, but as a society or group we must choose what is reasonable amongst ourselves. Ideally GOVERNMENTS would be elected to uphold the values held by a society and that would be the ONLY function of GOVERNMENT. Scott Duncan posted an article about Religious Trauma Syndrome (RTS) somewhere earlier. I think all forms of "higher power" including but not limited to Science and Law/LAW are inducing their respective "Trauma Syndromes" on humanity...

have we changed subject here ?????

The simple answer is you are the highest authority. Unless, you agree to some form of law. But if you don't kowtow to some societies' laws you will have them forced upon you- ultimately

If there is really LAW, then it MUST CONFORM to LAW, and it has to be explicit, and written. So, please ANYONE FIND THE LAW THAT WOULD EXPLICITLY STATE the AUTHORITY that would give a MAN authority over another MAN, WITHOUT CONSENT, and without a VALID CONTRACT? What is that LAW? WHERE is that LAW at?

What LAW defines a VALID CONTRACT?

we definitly changed subject here....lol...

The Tender for BELIEF? Is BELIEF really holding this whole thing up? That would be a great disappointment. :)

HAHA, sad but true it would seem.

what BELIEF...?????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

BELIEF that there is ANY LAW....

wiki? gross.

have to start somewere

You have said it, Joel. Perhaps, the only way a LAW may apply to a MAN is if he BELIEVES (therefore CONSENT, FREE WILL) that there is a LAW that applies to him, even thou he wasn't, unlike Scott, signed a VALID CONTRACT to OBEY the LAW. Its called VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE. But a "judge" or a "prostitutor" will NEVER show ANY LAW that would bound a living man to slavery, and involuntary servitude, without CONSENT, and without a VALID CONTRACT, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST. IF IT IS NOT WRITTEN, IT IS NOT LAW!!! I rest my case. Back to my good hemp brownies, now. :)

RE: "Can sufficent reliable EVIDENCE be enough to bring charges without VICTIMS authorization ?"

QUESTION: Has the VICTIM identified themselves as corporate property?

ANSWER: Most likely, YES!

no matter how you think, believe or want to call yourself, if you HARM someone, you have to PAY.....no need beliefs to UNDERSTAND that.....

Wiki! NOT so gross. -->> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law

<<What LAW defines a VALID CONTRACT?>> THAT IS A PIVOTAL QUESTION! Its called CONTRACT LAW. And in order for there to be a VALID CONTRACT it MUST have certain elements. Some are mentioned by Scott, in his NOTICE OF MISTAKE (good stuff!) Some are: meeting of the minds, considerable or valuable consideration, intent to contract (CONSENT and FREE WILL of the parties), offer, acceptance, amoung others. A PARTY may claim there is a CONTRACT, but... Is it a VALID CONTRACT? And then again, BY WHICH AUTHORITY would CONTRACT LAW apply to the MAN?

If I would either be LYING or talking shit, I would had been banned already from this respectable group, and Scott would had probably got in a plane down here to "smash my brains into jelly".

You are ALL BELIEVERS! You BELIEVE "law" applies to YOU, just because. What a dissapointment. :)

<<Stockholm syndrome, or capture—BONDING, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Why did the imaginary friend smack the imaginary girl a few times?

She got into HIS apartment without permission. She had found out he had cheated, and when he walked in the door, psyco-bitch mode was turned on, and she attacked him like a manic. He defended himself. The cops came, she lied saying HE attacked her first, he went to jail. After he comes out on BAIL, she confesses to Him, asked for forgivemess, and forgave each other. Now she tries to tell the prosecutor she forgave him, and she does not want to testify against him. Well, prostitutor subpoena her, to make sure she appears and they can $$$. Now, if SHE is the injured party, why is all of the sudden a 3rd party exercising AUTHORITy over the MEN to collect? They both would have to have a VALID CONTRACT with the STATE, agreen to solve this private matter amoungst MEN with the STATE, so the STATE can intervine. Is that so diffucult to comprehend? Something else, PROCEDURAL RIGHTS may make you waive SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS, so if he would want to go to trial, if there is LAW, that WOULD NOT be a venue to see matters of One of the People, with allegued Constitutional Rights, it must be in an Article III, section 2 venue, alleguedly. He would be waiving rights if he CONSENTS to be in that lower court, conforming to LAW. Now, THATS THE LAW. ;)

All the STATE has is a picture by email of an allegued affidavit with her allegued facts, pictures she sent by email on a later date of some brusses, and the police "report". That would ALL BE NON-ADMISSIBLE evidence in court, even according to the rules of evidence, if contested. Besides, an attorney CANNOT PRESENT EVIDENCE INTO THE CASE. Either he is a witness, or an attorney, but he can't be both. So, WHO would be presenting the evidence for this case?

200 comments and still nobody has been able to answer with FACTS to this important questions.

If you give ALL the détails, it would help reducing the comments and give help...

I think those are all the details, so far Pierre.

The IMAGINARY psycho-bitch need to TELLL the crown that she LIED on the first place......

I think there is a possibility of creating a HUGE fatal error to the STATE's "case". If they BOTH put on the record an affidavit of truth with a PRAECIPE TO DISMISS, via NOTARY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE VIA REGISTERED MAIL, with extreme prejudice, along with both BC, affirming they are MAN and WOMAN, and are WAIVING THEIR HUMAN RIGHT to be recognized as PERSONS; That SHE has FORGIVEN HIM, and That HE has FORGIVEN HER. That it is their wish to solve ANY/ALL matters in the PRIVATE, and they DO NOT CONSENT TO A 3 PARTY being involved, NOR they CONSENT TO ANY/ALL PROCEEDINGS. Affidavits of other PEOPLE attesting to what they are doing, and what the wishes of the MAN and WOMEN are. IF for any reason outside of LAW, their bodies are FORCED TO APPEAR, they will exercise SILENCE, and then follow thru with charges for criminal breach of trust, kidnapping, extortion, etc. That, or Im still on time to suggest the Panama thing. What do you all think about this possibility?

Lets remember, THERE IS NO FACTS BEFORE THE COURT YET. Its like if nothing has happened, at least allegedly in LAW its supposed to be that way. The only facts for the judge, and JURY (if there is a trial after this load of crap) to see is all these affidavits. Not good for the STATE, ISN'T? I mean, thats if you all BELIVE in LAW. :)

The IMAGINARY psycho-bitch need to TELLL the crown that she LIED on the first place......

The question would still apply, Dear Pierre: BY WHICH AUTHORITY must a WOMAN be FORCED to talk to the CROWN, without CONSENT? WHO is the CROWN? When was the CROWN was granted AUTHORITY over MEN (did you all miss that chapter?)? Where is our CONTRACT? Is the CROWN a SLAVE MASTER? IS the WOMAN a SLAVE? Am I one of those they would send to those "psychiatric" evaluations, just for asking for something as simple as PROOF OF CLAIM, by SHOWING A CONTRACT, OR A BILL OF SALE FOR MY BODY?

CONDUCT defines CONTRACT .....UNLESS you are living somewhere outside in the wild and KILL/HARM just for fun..Well as long you are ENGAGED with this SOCIETY SIMPLE rules APPLY to you....THIS is A CONTRACT (COVENANT) YOU are MAKING with this IMAGINED SUPERIOR BEING called "GOD" WHICH TAKES YOUR reasonable question

"BY WHICH AUTHORITY ANY MAN CAN APPLY the "LAW" to another MAN, lacking CONSENT"

out of the equation.... ITS not another equal BEING its a HIGHER ORDER ..... BUT and take note of my BUT.... this BEING could have been at the beginning simply a INVENTED IDEA to RESOLVE this ISSUE....TERMS OF CONDUCT for everybody UNDER THIS NEW AUTHORITY......... AFTER all you can't tell me its of no BENEFIT for you that I cannot come and shoot you in the head...or the other way around...... SO......WHAT would you suggest to resolve this ISSUE Maximiliano Pérez? Should everybody be allowed and HARM others???

Its a interesting point... where is Scott Duncan?

I don't know how to resolve anything, much less these dilemmas. But maybe, if I was KING, I would let the people that "believe" in LAW do as they wish, and leave the heck alone to those that can stand alone as KINGS, and have the balls to fully take responsibility for their Kingdom.

Still no CONTRACT though!

Who called the cops ????

An imaginary psycho-bitch called the cops to tell lies.....now the imaginary psycho-bitch have to call the cops to tell the truth....problem solved....for you...

I have Scott Duncan's series...:D

Well, thats maybe IF I was KING. Contracts would exist among those who "believe" that a CONTRACT could FORCE any MAN to do anything against his will. They could have all of those. KINGS only rely on their WORD. Either you are KING, or SERVE-ant. Cant be both.

So if you are KING you can go and KILL anyone you like by simply stating ""BY WHICH AUTHORITY ANY MAN CAN APPLY the "LAW" to another MAN, lacking CONSENT

That would be kind of funny though! Mounty Phyton moment!

lol....this is too funny...

Maximiliano Pérez for christ sakes....tell your IMAGINARY friend to tell his IMAGINARY psycho-bitch to tell the cops the truth....the hell with this KING shit....

RE: "Contracts would exist among those who "believe" that a CONTRACT could FORCE any MAN to do anything against his will."

Aren't CONTRACTS designed to do just the opposite? ITS NOT the worshiping of the GOLDEN CALF no its the new thing, fucking awesome ITS a piece of PAPER in which we all TRUST to perform as it is STATED within!

Ok, BREAKING NEWS! I kid you not, I just received an imaginary phone call from my imaginary friend, telling me his girlfriend received a phone call from the prosecutor given her all these excuses of why they would NOT pursue trial, and were CLOSING the case, and dropping CHARGES! This is NOT a joke. I have to thank my KING, and also Scott Duncan, and nobody else (sorry), for this accomplishment! Once the SURETY thing got into my head, all Heaven broke loose.

lol...

tell your imaginary friend to drop this psycho-bitch, and/or to not cheat on her anymore....:D

That's not fair.. ....you lure us into a legal dilemma open up the gates to a very fundamental philosophical question, than you presume that we should feel sorry that we didn't, contribute for your victory.. ...I thought you were asking a question but it turns out you had no answer and after all no intention to answer at all.. .I am confused whoever your king is why does he like to fuck with people's MINDS?

I told you...

Seems Maximiliano believes in the law, since he fretted for 24 hrs thinking the NOTICE wouldn't hold itself...

I think his question is more about the AUTHORITY. Sure the laws are there - that is pretty obvious. It looks like his point is why or how is he bound to them. When I first joined here a few weeks ago, I posted something along those lines too. So where IN FACT does any AUTHORITY come from?

Not in the initial post...

Right

I had a hard time reading all the drama from there to here... :/

That NOTICE is such a powerful document... needs to be memorized...

I think you are right. I like Dean Kory's ID thing too. Maybe a little personal "passport" type document could be made that includes Dean's ID idea and Scott's notices... I am ok at Photoshop, perhaps I'll have a go at it a little later when I have some time.

I wonder what these guys are up to:

http://www.legalphotoidcards.us/

just lookn' at that link with the word "legal"... hmmm - let's see

They are out of BC, Vancouver... Platinum Party? I dunno...

Well they put D.O.B. which is hearsay isn't it? I dunno too

Here's a neat 2 hr audio they put together about registering your NAME as a corporation (trust) and appointing the Queen, Prime Minister, etc as executors in that trust. Interesting concept...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lzrX82SQsk

judges are useing "Mead vs Mead"and suggesting that anyone useing a fee schedual could be deemed to be intimidating the police in there duties! what a load of crap!

Yeah, who the fuck are they again?

Yah, have you read that crazy Mead garbage... no wonder they use it...

Dean Clifford talks about how in the Mead vs Mead that judge is just giving an opinion, it's irrelevant...

crown just admitted a copy to the court at my pre trial and is attempting to keep me from cross examining there witness by getting a court apointed lawyer to do it

ill be argueing that very point!

Have you tried the Notice of Mistake? I don't know if it's too late now... I am still learning and wrapping my head around it all. Challenge their "authority" . At the end of the day, they can arbitrarily lock you up, right? Bastards!!!

tried to present it in court yesterday but they refuse to accept anything from me...im mailing it registered mail to the crown

Presented in paper? What if you started of saying "for the record" and READ out the thing? Just based on something Scott Duncan said somewhere that you basically have no standing to put things into thier court... hopefully Scott will chime in and tell me how fucked I am here.. before you do this...

Scott said the Notice of Mistake can reset everything...

i all ready took heed to Scotts info and did exactly that...when the crown was done and it was my turn to respond i read it onto the record,the judge tried to talk over me but i just continued till i was done!

the problem was you were THERE

send it reg mail...

all ready on it...thanks!

might add something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGnipdfqZvM

Remember you only USE that NAME... its not yours

<<Seems Maximiliano believes in the law, since he fretted for 24 hrs thinking the NOTICE wouldn't hold itself...>> Wow, hold it right there, sweet Beverly May! You are either LYING, or trying to MISS LEAD others here, and "nobody's got time for that"! :p I CHALLENGE YOU to provide PROOF I said, or even suggested, Scott's Duncan NOTICE would not "hold". Ouch! Busted! I have NEVER said that. Watch out, baby girl, don't you come mess with the BIG boys! And my reason thinking Scott's Duncan NOTICE would work was not because of the LAW (the rapist's LAWS), but because they have no VALID CONTRACT, and no CONSENT, and SLAVERY would be put in front of everyone to see, even MORE clear than today, despite the approval of the HOUSE NIGGERS with a strong BELIEF in their MASTER's LAW. Cant James Baal, Pierre, and others see I am in YOUR SIDE? Who are YOU DEFENDING? The CROWN? Did you all took an OATH towards the CROWN? Did you all signed a VALID CONTRACT? You bunch of BELIEVERS! I petty you! :)

How can ANYONE CLAIM I am WRONG, without presenting any PROOF? Don't you all BELIEVE in LAW? My claim stands as TRUTH, as long as no VALID FACTS are presented to rebut my claim. Where is the LAW that would grant any MAN power to force something to another MAN, without CONSENT, or a VALID CONTRACT? BY WHICH AUTHORITY? :p ? Cannabinoids give you super powers! Ask the Pharisees!

You all have EYES, yet you cannot SEE! A SPELL, is with WORDS. A BOND? Now, who can only be BONDED? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bondslave

Yeah Max! YOUR PERSON is a BOND SLAVE!

There is only one word that relates to slave, and its BOND. You have Bondslave. But, do you have Bondfreeman as a WORD? No, there isn't... (maniac giggling!)

<<Dean Clifford talks about how in the Mead vs Mead that judge is just giving an opinion, it's irrelevant...>> ALL "judges'" orders/rulings are just opinions (to say the MOST), and are IN FACT JUST offers to CONTRACT; unlike Scott, that has a VALID CONTRACT binding both PARTIES into an AGREEMENT, and you MUST then OBEY. ;) But, if there is no CONSENT to an AUTHORITY, you can DECLINE, or VOID that order/ruling/determination. Why not? If a stranger comes to you to try to enforce his LAWS on you, without CONSENT and a VALID CONTRACT, would not you send him to heck??? Where are your BALLS? Or OVARIES, if a woman, I guess.

i'm here as the agent in regards to the M.Hatter...

Hmmmmm....long post that's gone in lots of different directions & I came in late...my 2 cents worth on the imaginary friend: Your thread Maximiliano Pérez, so feel free to critique, same goes for anyone else :-)

If the imaginary 'she' called the police, that could be construed as an invitation to contract on her behalf...if the imaginary girl didn't call the police but accepted their offer to contract by offering a statement etc & did it in the name of the 'person', against another 'person', then that could be construed as accepting an offer to contract.

If anything has been done through/as/on behalf of the person, and the 'person' is the creation/property of the corporation, then they have every right to intervene to deal with 'their' property/cattle.

The MAN & WOMAN can then notice the corporation of the mistake that he and/or she are the 'person' or were acting in that capacity at the time of any alleged real or imaginary incident...ie: NOTICE OF MISTAKE.

As for the philosophical/moral issues & questions re LAW & the ability of one MAN to judge another MAN, eg: Common Law concepts of harm etc, or books with imaginary friends talking about judging one another by their actions or by the supreme imaginary friend's laws, or Maxims of law that make statements such as:

An equal has no dominion over an equal (Par in parem imperium non habet) Black’s 7th p.1673

The power which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived (derativa potestas non poteste esse major primitiva) Bouvier’s 1856,

These are examples of 'beliefs' that are relied upon by a MAN to be considered equal, and to be superior to a fiction (eg: government)...in other words, a reliance on a stated BELIEF that is used in a legal system, to establish the basis of your argument that you may be relying upon to support your particular situation.

Maybe the 'government' relies on the belief that might is right, the power of coercion & corruption trumps all & presumptions of such confer implied consent by the governed/person & that the person=Man etc...

So, my take on this is it comes back to each individual's ability to behave consistently with the moral code they choose to live by, and to be able to rebut the presumptions of others when they attempt to impose/enforce their code/rules etc & to be able to remove themselves from the jurisdiction and/or defend themselves by whatever means necessary, to be aware that rights incur responsibilities, actions have consequences & ultimately: 1. Don't lie about an action (the imaginary man hit me) 2. Don't then call the 'rapist' to beat up on the imaginary man 3. After calling the 'rapist' & asking for their help, DO expect the rapist to want to rape you...after all, that's what rapists do!

But my biggest concern is the following: What facts throughout history, can anyone here rely on, to suggest that 'All are equal'???

Tell it to the native American tribes, the Australian natives, the maoris, the victims of the Khmer Rouge....the list is exhaustive...

That in itself is a BELIEF that has a huge amount of cognitive dissonance associated with it...and it further confirms the statement from Scott Duncan aka the Oracle, that all belief is evil.

Ok. Lets make this even MORE interesting for some of the BONDED brains. I will make another CLAIM, and I ASSURE you no MAN could rebut it. I, a MAN, CLAIM DOMINION over all the living things on EARTH that are NOT other MEN. I also CLAIM DOMINION over all "natural resources". I CLAIM I will NOT rule over other MEN, and that I will share DOMINION ONLY with other MEN. Now, BY WHICH AUTHORITY, any other MAN, can rebut my CLAIM in LAW?

mmmhh....some BONDED brains may have the stupid idea of shooting you a bullet right beetween the eyes with that kind of claims....lol...:D....you gotta Watch out with that shit...lol...

Can ANYONE here, please, tender me some LAW, for all my unrebutted CLAIMS? :( So far EVERY OPINION given here has been based on BELIEF. No FACTS, no LAW, to back anything. Am I LYING?

I have no reason to rebut just for now.. .....lets come together and discuss YOUR INTERPRETATION of SHARING.

The problem here in REALITY is that a few BILLIONS humans on this earth run their life with BELIEFS....so, in REALITY you will end up with a bullet beetween the eye and/or in a psychiatric hospital and/or in jail if you APPLY these FACTS......I get what you say Maximiliano Pérez....I just have a hard time with the PLANET you choose to apply all this....

Some say BELIEF is evil. And in this particular matter, I agree.

what do we do with these few BILLIONS humans who run their life with complete BELIEFS....?????

we throw them all in HELL ???????

If your claim of DOMINION causes HARM to others, wouldn't mother nature take over and apply the law of selfpreservation???? The ultimate AUTHORITY I GUESS NO MATTER HOW THIS TURNES OUT.. .. SCOTT MADE PRETTY COOL STATEMENT REGARDING THE UNIVERSE AN HOW IT TRIES TO EAT YOU OR KILL YOU FROM THE BEGINNINGS ON.. ...UNFORTUNATELY THIS SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY TRUE AUTHORITY.. ..

This place is a pretty violent spectacle.. ..and we are part of it. ....EAT OR GET EATEN. ...

"Mother nature", James? How is that for BELIEF! ;)

You suggest that NATURE IS A BELIEVE? ???

He says different....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhxqIITtTtU

I TRUST Nature....too many PROOFS of it...:D

Maybe I added BELIEVE BY suggesting that NATURE is A mother but NATURE in itself is a fact NO?

nature (nchr) n. 1. The material world and its phenomena. 2. The forces and processes that produce and control all the phenomena of the material world: the laws of nature. 3. The world of living things and the outdoors: the beauties of nature. 4. A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality: couldn't tolerate city life anymore and went back to nature. 5. Theology Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace. 6. A kind or sort: confidences of a personal nature. 7. The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing: "She was only strong and sweet and in her nature when she was really deep in trouble" (Gertrude Stein). 8. The fundamental character or disposition of a person; temperament: "Strange natures made a brotherhood of ill" (Percy Bysshe Shelley). 9. The natural or real aspect of a person, place, or thing. See Synonyms at disposition. 10. The processes and functions of the body.

I have the ANSWER to the question of BY WHICH AUTHORITY a MAN can have AUTHORITY over other MAN. But I wont share it, as yet. I wanna see if anyone can come-up with the answer.

Maximiliano Pérez You haven't yet explained to me WHY nature is A believe?

How about answering at least 1 of the 20 questions already made by me, pertaining to LAW?

I can't......DUDE I DON'T KNOW.....I got to get over this BELIEVE thing first HOW can I answer when everything seems to be BASED on BELIEVE......????? :-(

Maximiliano Pérez "After he comes out on BAIL, she confesses to Him, asked for forgiveness, and forgave each other. Now she tries to tell the prosecutor she forgave him, and she does not want to testify against him. Well, prostitutor subpoena her, to make sure she appears and they can $$$." The same happened to a friend of mine and when the cops came to the door with the summons/subpoena she told them she didn't want it and didn't accept it. So they posted it, she returned it marked NO CONTRACT. I told her to stay at home on the day of the trial which she did. I went to the trial, my friend was called to the dock and when they called the girlfriend to the witness stand she didn't appear. The case was dropped due to lack of evidence and nothing happened after that. I was in court and saw this happen. THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE .

When I say "BELIEF IS EVIL" I really mean it. This is why. It poses as "knowledge" and is given the same consideration as "fact", lest you "offend" somebody.

Belief is the END of thought. It is NOT a virtue, and you are NOT a "bad person" for saying so.

Give BELIEF all the ridicule and contempt it deserves. ALL of it.

I conditionally accept your claim of: 'I, a MAN, CLAIM DOMINION over all the living things on EARTH that are NOT other MEN. I also CLAIM DOMINION over all "natural resources". I CLAIM I will NOT rule over other MEN, and that I will share DOMINION ONLY with other MEN. Now, BY WHICH AUTHORITY, any other MAN, can rebut my CLAIM in LAW', upon proof of claim that:

1. There is not already a pre-existing claim in existence 2. That you have the ability to enforce said claim as and when challenged 3. Proof of contracts with 'other MEN', individually & severally, that constitutes a valid binding agreement of said individual and/or joint dominion.

Furthermore, I attest that I am aware of no evidence that you can successfully enforce your claim, or of any valuable consideration you have offered in exchange for said claim & believe that none exists.

Also, should you wish to make such claims, what privileges & benefits do you offer in exchange for the support of such claims? After all, with rights come responsibilities, and you may need a few million allies to help you enforce said claims ;-)

"Egyptians" are imaginary. A few men controlling a BUNCH of men (through slavery) accomplished the Sphinx.

A few men controlling a BUNCH of men (through slavery) accomplished the Sphinx..????....is that rigth ???...history seems to repeat it self over and over and over...???

and over...

I had NEVER been facing the history of man kind by a so short sentence: A few men controlling a BUNCH of men (through slavery) accomplished the Sphinx...:D

"After he comes out on BAIL, she confesses to Him, asked for forgiveness, and forgave each other"...

I would have liked to have heard the pillow talk after the 'forgiveness'...based around the presumption and in the context that all law is contract:

Her to him: Snookums, I'm so sorry that I didn't read the fine print in our contract that we have a non-exclusive license agreement that enables you to dump your DNA all over another non-exclusive license holder's chest. I was under the mistaken presumption that ours was an exclusive license agreement.

Him to her: I'm sorry too Diddums, I didn't read your amendment to our agreement stating that any non-exclusive licensing to any third party confers implied consent for you to embed your fingernails in my face or enforce 'other measures' that may or may not be disclosed in the original agreement. Furthermore, I didn't read the clause that states you have the right to hire the services of a subcontractor to assist you in enforcing said rights.

Her to him: Unfortunately Snookums, I told the subcontractor that YOU would pick up the tab for their services, because fact of the matter is, after we engaged their services, they performed the tasks I asked of them & they haven't received any compensation yet, and it was YOU and YOUR actions that created my obligation to engage the services of said subcontractor...

Him to her: But Diddums, I am not a party to your agreement with the subcontractor, so they have no valid claim to pursue the matter with me...they may want to pursue YOU though. After all, YOU engaged their services & they may want to pursue YOU for a false claim or at the very least a call out fee...but I'm glad WE forgave each other...for now...

Somehow, I get the feeling that this imaginary drama/thread between the imaginary guy & imaginary girl needs a 'TO BE CONTINUED' note, cos there is no way there's going to be a Disney happily ever after...

Charles Moreland...that may assist Scott Duncan in enforcing his 'Why I want to kill you all' aspirations ;-)

Excuse my ignorance, but I wasn't sure of the significance of April 4th...so here are a few events from April 4th through history... http://www.brainyhistory.com/days/april_4.html My favourite: 2011 Reports claim that China has successfully modified cows to produce 'human milk'....WHY? ;-)

A Woman's period is much like Mad Cow Disease. Human milk is just the next thing that women and cows have in common! :D

I get the belief thing being EVIL. One can only experience or not experience, correct?

I really want to 'Like' that last comment Scott Duncan...but EVERY action has consequences...and I'm not sure that I'm prepared for the potential consequences ;-)

And KNOW. KNOWLEDGE should be the goal. Your brain is built for it and can hold FAR MORE than you know. You CAN'T know, because belief is intellectual styrofoam pellets. Mostly nothing and insulating substance with no real use.

The Fiscal year ends on 4th April in my Cuntry, I wonder why?

cos April 1st was already taken???

So the belief is taking up the space which needs to be allocated to Knowledge !

To experience is to Know, I'd love to know Jessica Alba :-)

or belief is creating a wall/filter/screen that prevents us from discounting/rejecting belief & discovering knowledge...

get in line mate ;-)

It's dinner time here, I'm of to Know some Rioja with my dinner :-)

belief create anxiety...

you end up with a bunch of anxius people running around and wants to kill each other

Maximus Legis, I hope it's not liver, although I hear it's good with fava beans and a nice chianti!!! ;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVlkZVAw8Gc

^ Hahahaha no, Venison tonight Stuart shot it myself.

We get to KNOW(ledge) from EXPERIENCE ... that is the process of LEARNING and survival.

...and BELIEF is EXACTLY NOT THAT :D

From EXPERIENCE and the KNOWING gained, overcomes BELIEF. Well, that happens with most open-minded people,; not the bigots.

You don't have to "overcome" something that you purge from yourself.

Perhaps 'overcome' was a poor choice of word.

Eamonn O Brien: So is the BC proof of one's claim to the role of BENEFICIARY in a courtroom scenario?

If we appoint the JP ADMINISTRATOR can't he re-assign the role of beneficiary to the state?

I may as well throw some questions out there that come to mind. The more I ask the clearer it will become, hopefully...

Scott Duncan: YES

Eamonn O Brien: So if there's a hearing set for a particular date and it's being held for the PERSON I'm authorised to represent, notification of the capacity/ies should be sent asap...? (Scott clicked Like on this)

Scott Duncan: Yes, and notify them that you are there as a "Friend of the Court". Not as Plaintiff or Defendant"

Eamonn O Brien: So we possess the PERSON (control it) and they own it (legal title).

When they conjure up offenses they try to place liability on us as surety/ ies.

Where does the SOLB come into play or is it necessary at all?

Scott Duncan: RE: "If we appoint the JP ADMINISTRATOR can't he re-assign the role of beneficiary to the state?" - No, because the STATE gave it no VALUE. YOU did. YOU get the benefit, not a state trust.

Eamonn O Brien: I give it value by acting as the living representative?

Scott Duncan: Ok, "statement of live birth"...is a statement.

"Fiona Munro want's to make porn with me" ...is a statement.

Scott Duncan was born on February 31st 1966 ...is a STATEMENT.

All have equal value.

...and have NOTHING to do with law.

Eamonn O Brien: Ok... Got ya. The BC is the only important document...

So registration of birth notifies the GOVERNMENT of another man/woman in the country. They then create the PERSON for us to use as beneficiary, they are surety and administrator is us also unless we wish to appoint someone else... Like when we write up our last will and testament, we appoint an executor....

Pete Daoust: They then create the PERSON for us to use as beneficiary: No, they want us to give it VALUE

Scott Duncan: THERE you go!

Scott Duncan: NAME attached to VESSEL. That's all it is.

YOUR "WILL" is something to research for clarity. Remember, there are NO HOMONYMS IN LAW.

Scott Duncan: The record is EXPUNGED when the bankruptcy occurred. That is the "protection" the law offers.

They can just run this cycle forever.

Scott Duncan: A bankruptcy trustee must accept it. They have no obligation to.

Scott Duncan: You are also in the U.S. You have a slightly different status than the commonwealth.

Derek Moran: bankruptcy trustee = Receiver General Rona Ambrose?

Scott Duncan: That's the one!

Tell her I said hi.

Scott Duncan: BIRTH CERTIFICATES are NOT FEDERAL

Scott Duncan: In either country.

Scott Duncan: CITIZENSHIP is FEDERAL

Derek Moran: So who would've been 'THE COURT' that appointed Rona Ambrose as the Bankruptcy Trustee?

Scott Duncan: Derek, the government is who "The Court" appointed. The rest is just busy work..

Derek Moran: 'The Court' = IMF ? (Scott clicked Like on this)

Scott Duncan: Fun Fact. Those born in Washington are NOT considered valid certificates. The Birth CERTIFICATE for The DISTRICT of COLUMBIA is actually considered a "Coupon" like a Chuck-e-Cheese ticket.

http://www.bis.org/

WoW.....will I ever cease getting VALUE from the Greatest skewl in the Universe ??..... I think not.

Scott Duncan: When I say "BELIEF IS EVIL" I really mean it. This is why. It poses as "knowledge" and is given the same consideration as "fact", lest you "offend" somebody.

Belief is the END of thought. It is NOT a virtue, and you are NOT a "bad person" for saying so.

Give BELIEF all the ridicule and contempt it deserves. ALL of it.

Oh my, what a dickhead I was. I'm just a dick now.

Mackximus, please...you're only encouraging Pete to somehow make a 'Meme' out of that statement ;)