Apr 28, 2013 1:39 AM

I tried to post this but it was pending approval.

WELL DONE - Who ever this guy was he went well.......

I didn't mean to steal your thunder Andrew.

As long as it is shared that is all that matters.

I don't think he did so "well" Joseph, he continually MOTIONED the court AND declared himself a CITIZEN numerous times.

He bought to attention what the courts are up too - whether he did it right or wrong doesn't really matter.

Doing things CORRECT ALWAYS matters!

YES i totally agree - but even so, the more people who stand up and be counted the better....gotta give him 10points for effort....never knock anyone for trying - this how some learn - by making mistakes

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that one CANNOT claim COMMON LAW jurisdiction when one IS present in STATUTORY jurisdiction.

The fact is the court is committing fraud, as those following orders of the court do not have the understanding of what is taking place and are presuming because the judge signs the orders he is operating in his official capacity. when he is operating as administrator in a defacto tribunal and not under his oath. HE knows he is committing fraud and others are operating in good faith based on his official capacity as a true justice of the peace. They fail to make the distinction.

Comes down to I was only following orders, and ignorance is no excuse under the law.

Where he went wrong was right at the beginning he didn't REFUSE the Judges Jurisdiction over himself - there are ways to do this - which I have used in court here in NZ. Now just dealing with their trying to get the Man to pay the legal fictions debts, fat chance they got there....as I have always said - IT'S NOT WHAT YOU DO - IT'S HOW YOU DO IT THAT REALLY MATTERS.

Joseph, I'm not knocking anyone, I did ask for a scalpel. I know this is the place to dissect such audio/video.

Didn't take your comment as a knock, without questioning we learn nothing

Theres some good comments and some bs said everywhere these days but its all good - it creates AWARENESS which hopefully some will learn from, it pays to keep an open mind and to remember everyone does things differently

He probably should have entered his Certificate of Live Birth into the record; waived another in the air and said "Who the fuck else in this courtroom has one of these?"; presumed the judge was the TRUSTEE in the matter (how can he rebut that?); informed the court he was indeed the beneficiary and sole shareholder of the JOHN P. DOE estate; asked who the fuck give them written authorized consent to hold that shareholders meeting, and demanded the judge uphold his fiduciary responsibility and discharge the matter OR ELSE be brought up on breach of trust; felony treason, and hanged until DEAD-DEAD-DEAD .... lol

At least he threw a fucking fit and let them (and anyone else in the courtroom) know that he knew what the hell was going on ;)

"sovereign citizen" *sigh*

The CROWN prosecutor is your "trustee" they are there (re)presenting your trust account so they can fill it with more of your money so when you die the state gets more of your money!

I thought the prosecutor was there hoping the judge would successfully hand you the trustee hat; wear the administrator hat for himself and hand over the role of beneficiary to the state/crown prosecutor ;) .... If you're the beneficiary of the legal person estate and the prosecutor is the trustee, who's the judge? ;)

If I'm not mistaken, the clerk of court appoints the judge as the trustee before the shareholders meeting ever starts.

"Sovereign citizen" ... Oxymoron of the millenium ;)

NO! The judge is the COMPETENT ADMINISTRATOR there to help clarify the matter of SURETY.

although you are the legal beneficiary they won't allow you access to your account unless you know how to do it.....the Crown is actually you - so in fact they are all there re presenting your trust account so they can take money off you and add it to your account for them to collect when you snuff it.

Yes - that's correct He is the ADMINISTRATOR to clarify the SURETY

Regardless, Mr. Wildstar NEEDS a NOTICE OF MISTAKE!

He's there to make sure you don't get taken out of circulation too long hence short jail terms, the longer you in jail the less time you have to add money to the trust account therefore they get less when you die, or there to make sure the fine/money is sufficient to satisfy the Crown re presentitive....re before presentitive says it all, the accused is present (the true crown) they are there too re present you....all a game of deceit

I'm not a qualified surgeon, but I think the patient has bled out all over the floor. WHO handed me this scalpel? :D

lol

I thought the judge could only become the administrator of the legal person if you allowed him to assume that role by tricking you into submitting to the jurisdiction of the court, which would put you in the trustee position and the crown/state in the beneficiaries seat.

How can a judge be an executor/administrator of something he did not personally create?

Dwaine, there are threads here where Scott has explained (in great detail) WHY you want the judge to help you clarify the matter of SURETY.

Okay, I just joined this group the other day, so I may need to research that further ;)

NO and Yes - the role he plays is the one you allow him too, by refusing his jurisdiction and claiming your jurisdiction or legal standing in the court determines what role he acts in, he will assist you if you go about things correctly.....see above

You appoint him/her!

If I'm the beneficiary at legal age, I can appoint myself as director and instruct the trustee to perform in favor of the beneficiary, which would be me ..... is that not correct?

Cat, dog, vampire, legal person and chili pie ... my ADHD is kicking in ;)

To quote a QUALIFIED surgeon and chef... "IT'S ALL ABOUT SURETY!"

Theres the small matter of getting access to the original BERTH (BIRTH) certificate that they use to setup the trust account, without that its rather difficult to do anything, though if you utube BILL TURNER NZ you may learn how to use your trust account to pay your bills?

So who holds equitable title in the legal person?

I don't want access to the original; it's not mine; I didn't create it. I own nothing but control everything ;)

Know that and you know where to look for the original, when you come down the canal (marine term,a funny that when they use Admiralty Law) and are Berthed (another Marine term) your parents register at the hospital? from that document the trust is set up

The birth is the creation of the "legal Fiction" all caps slave

But why do you need access to the original? Are you not the ONLY one who can obtain a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth short of a court order? .... That act alone holds some equitable weight, does it not?

they change the no on it - you require the original number you were assigned, they won't give it to you cos that would give you access to your trust account and upwards of possibly 5million $$

Dwaine... Your parents would have received a form at the hospital where you were born. This is a Notice of live birth. They take that to the Births, deaths and Marriage registry (called different things in different jurisdictions). In New Zealand, this notice is used to Register the Child. The Registry then fills out a government form called (in NZ) an RG142. This is the precursor to the Birth Certificate but is retained by the Government. Your Birth Certificate is the ajoiner to the Situs Trust set up in your 'fictional identity' (all caps) name. The Birth Certificate is a Bond of security Interest. It is a valuable document.

Joseph Davia, you must be new here. I'll tell you this once, and if you EVER mention "All Caps Name" here again, you will be banned.

None of that shit has been valid for 300 years, and will mislead you when you try to see reality.

In America the hospital administrator coerces the mother into signing a "Record of Live Birth" which a few days later reaches the state Registrar's Office where he/she gives birth to the legal person estate via a newly created "Certificate of Live Birth".

The Registrar is the Court of Probate and probate also deals with estates of the DEAD.

My legal person is my bitch and no one else' ;)

whatever!!

I don't take to threats that's why the system has trouble with me, think I'm guna respond favourably to bullying comments like that - WRONG!!

Joseph, I think Scott is trying to divert you from getting hung up on the all CAPITAL letter smokescreen. There are a lot of people who have COLB's with proper spelling, so don't let the strawman thing cloud your mind.

constructive comments NO PROBLEMS

Correct Dwaine, the terminology just varies in different countries. But the aim is always the same. As for estates of the dead, this is why one never engages a lawyer to 'represent' them. It all comes down to 'the dead cannot speak' so a representative is needed to do so. As for above, the trick seems to be to challenge any prosecutor BEFORE the judge speaks. The role of the judge is one of process only and he has to ensure due process is followed, thats it. Challenging a prosecutor to supply 'full disclosure' sends them reeling because the truth is they can never do this without exposing the true nature of 'the game'.

Joseph you were given PROPER NOTICE, that's not bullying!

Also, when one hires an attorney, one is submitting to an officer of the court, and when one makes that crucial mistake, one can no longer make any jurisdictional challenges ;)

It doesn't cloud my mind - its just another angle to view things from - there are so many directions to go in - if I'm wrong then I'm happy to be corrected - NOT THREATENED thats all !! We are all here to learn

Scott Duncan... please excuse mine and Joseph Davia's ignorance. We have been exposed to various nuances within the Freeman Movement and other resourses down here in New Zealand and the information we have gathered down here may be a bit retarded from what you and other posters on this page have discovered. Its merely the truth we seek.

Because one is now considered a WARD OF THE COURT; a child of unsound mind; an imbecile, and has no business administrating their own affairs ;)

I'm just here for the hot dogs and diet tips, don't mind me ;) Scott's the expert, I'm just trying to make you guys think a little :)

This is a GREAT PRESENTMENT... of what not to do...

The government and its agencies will always view us as children. Thats why we need to apply for licences... its seeking permission to do things which are already lawful undertakings. I think in some provinces in Canada statutes speak of Child of the Province? I belive it is so in British Columbia.

Anyone feel free to call me names and poke me in the eyes; I won't ban you like Scott will .... I'm a nice guy, and have no authority to ban anyone ... lol

Has anyone gained access to their "birth bond" and the Gazzillion-Quadrillion- Bullshit-illion Dollars that are coming to you? ;)

so am I till threatened, then I turn into an arrogant asshole who won't back down even when knocked down, my arrogance would match Scotts - just my knowledge of certain things obviously doesn't

that I concede with due respect

That's "Eleventy Billion", sir.

Again Joseph, PROPER NOTICE does not equate to THREATS.

There is a magic code you must enter into a time machine located in the basement of the Federal Reserve Bank ATM machine. That machine will dispense you a Magic Ring that will take you to the Mountain of Gulfor where if you stand with one leg on a purple rock while holding your cock in your left hand, you will see a hologram of a dollar amount floating before you. Grab it with a fishnet made of scarlet linen and present it to the King along with your "birth bond" and trumpets will play as the guardsmen bring out your "Eleventy Billion" dollars in golden wheelbarrows ;)

Cash up front or pay with ??

The advancement of the truth is utmost - how some of us gain it is as different as each one of us is, though in saying this - the knowledge Gerry and I seek is common to us all in how its applied - its learning to use it to benefit ourselves who are truth seekers and are sick of our freedoms disappearing into someone else's bank accounts, supposedly for our benefit when in fact that's bullshit and deceit, which Gerry and I won't stand for...justice has to be seen and done to all who seek it.

He likes to ARGUE that bloke WILDSTAR. Should change his name to OFF HIS TITS STAR. GOOD IN HIM FOR HAVING A CRACK AT THE KUNTS.

Joseph, if you want TRUTH, then you have much to READ here... not TYPE

I just got my first TATTOO & it sums me up in a nutshell. Does any one want to see my new TATT??

NO! :P

stop being kriptic and just say what you mean Beverly.

I was just gonna say... that's unfortunately the "graffiti" part of this group

not into tatts unless on a sexy girl, which you not?

I just hate it when I have an opinion and someone else comes into that thread and mucks it all up with legal jargon and truth. There's an asshole around every corner ;)

Beverly May Braaksma... I am starting to wonder if I have tripped and fallen into a hole in the universe. In short, can you please explain the purpose of of this page and offer a good place to strt the educational process to get up to speed?

its called THE TENDER FOR LAW... and go right to the beginning... scroll way waaaaay down...

AND READ THE TRUTHS YOU ARE SEEKING!

Some good ones are any threads about SURETY and the ALL RIIIIISE is a good one too

oh, and NOTICE OF MISTAKE

Thank you.

when I appeared in court the first thing I didn't do was "rise" then when asked too I agreed to stand on condition I did not waive my common law rights nor give consent to "in persona jurisdiction"

That won't make any difference... keep READING... read the 'ALL RIIIISE" thread right now!!!

K thanks

read it - until I got to the last few comments didn't make a lot of sense to me, where you question 'Who are you'? 'Do you represent the Crown"? that makes sense cos if they do then there's a conflict of interest etc etc

Its all in the SURETY of the NAME...

Right - got that thanks, so the name is important - just not quite in the way I been using it, though corporations are persons, eg in law when its stated that something "includes" blah blah then it actually means that everything previous is excluded, is this correct or am I on the wrong path with this as well?

Read the NOTICE OF MISTAKE. Also download a Black's Law Dictionary to know what words mean.

YES...

No, your name is a fiction LIKE a partnership or corporation PERSON

it is your PERSON allowed to conduct in commerce, you USE IT but it is not yours. The Govt created it (it is REGISTERED), therefore they are SURETY for that name.

You are the BENEFICIARY of that name (PERSON)

Have read it - yes I'm on the wrong path or yes includes excludes everything else? Am I able to use that as a template - if so, have searched NZ legislation and can't find change of name act or anything that has maybe similar relevance here in NZ

No, your not on the wrong path, there is just much more to it.

Thanks Beverly for clarifying that

This is the same as GRANTOR... the one who created the Trust, TRUSTEE... the one who Administers the Trust and BENEFICIARY... the one who is to gain from the Trust. The problem is that any Court will seek to have ME (the beneficiary of MY trust) actually take the role of Trustee myself, as it is always the Trustee who pays. Correct?

not if you are the beneficiary... If you say your NAME (person) is YOU, then they expect you are the trustee for that name.

You don't answer to that name, its only a security interest of which you are the beneficiary of. Period.

never admit being "you" who is you?

Yip, got that. I need to maintain my position as the beneficiary at all times. If I aknowledge the NAME they call or refer me to as being, then I step into the role, as per their expectation, and become liable as the Trustee.

Joseph, I wouldn't worry about going through all their legislation... unless you are going to BE your name, therefore considered a Government Agent

Basically, any NOTICE or SUMMONS for court, copy that NOTICE OF MISTAKE... maybe even send it in with a notarized copy of your birth certificate and there... They've got their guy!

that notice asks for proof of me being a govt agent and proof of claim (where's the injured party?)...

AAAAND you don't even go into court. Done

right got that - just reason I asked was in the at the bottom of the NOTICE OF MISTAKE there is reference to AQUILAE TRUST SEAL - couldn't find any ref to that plus

Oh... no that's Scott's Trust... There's more to read on trusts and liening your PERSON

read the "present in lieu of identification" there is ref to acts relating to Canadian Law which isn't relevant here in NZ so was trying to find what I could replace those with here in NZ eg half way down the page there is ref to Change of name act, nothing here in NZ similiar

thought so just wasn't quite sure

Thanks so much for clarifying this for us - it is very much appreciated

Joseph Davia... Its like what Bill Turner says, The rules of a society only applies to THAT society. Rules of Court apply only to those that made them, ie; the Bar Association.

Thing is, you don't belong there in the first place. You just don't go at all. Even if you have shown up as NAME, send in the NOTICE OF MISTAKE... it resets everything... and don't go. They are pulling the living into a fictional accounting meeting.

Well all these statutes are "regulations" for Government Agents... of which you are not. And even if you DO work for the govt, when you are driving home from work: how does that make your driving

for government?

Thanks you just confirmed the thought I had last week after spending 3 days on the net researching

Also, information on liening your person, registering your fictional self against your factual self (Creditor/debtor) on the PPSR.

Well, and does it make sense? More sense than all the crap out there? Sure made sense to me and I can vouch that it does work!

Awesome Beverly, thank you for your time and assistance. It is much appreciated.

Keep reading and try to ignore all the random blather...! Post questions after you've read some more. Watch any comments if Scott had "Liked" them, those are answers

No problem! It might take a while to soak it all up...

Yes I have noted that Scott has the attitude that he will not simply give the answers, makes us work for the info. Shows he is a man of integrity and I applaud that. If it comes too easily it can be abused.

yes sure does - just needed a few things pin pointed so to speak - you have confirmed the road we were on is the most sensible, logical one, its always good to get your thoughts corrected and confirmed, sort of brings peace of mind, thanks again

Beverly before you go, on the present in lieu of identification,if I was to replace the "change of name act' WITH "the legal person" instead would that be correct?

it states "waive all benefits of the (.............

What instance? As a signature?

Or do you mean that thread on here?

no just write in place of the ref to the change of name act - rewrite it so it says "waive the benefits of the legal person."

You don't have to waive anything, you are only the beneficiary

to waive, would be as administering... as a trustee would do

No - There are two documents Scott has done , one is the NOTICE OF MISTAKE the second is PRESENT IN LIEU OF IDENTIFICATION on this document there is fer to change of name act which relates to canadian law - we have nothing similar here so I was wondering if it would still be correct to use the phase - were it states "waive.all BENEFITS ......second last paragraph

replace the name of the act with ...Legal person so it reads - waive all BENEFITS of the legal person

If you are referring to the thread on here In Lieu of Identification, I don't know if Scott was done with that (it was stated there). There are eleventy-billion acts it seems, so there might be something regarding a change of name act where you are.

I have been working on a similar document for NZ but wasn't sure about the phrasing of the terms for legal purposes - when I read Scotts it made sense

Again thanks - gotta go get dinner sorted 15mins to six in the evening here

Sure, you could make a new post with your document here or post it under that thread and tag Scott to ask if this would be correct. He's the one you want to send questions to...

"you are not a party to the U.S. constitution as it is a compact" padelford&fay v. alderman and city savannah.

at the risk of sounding like an idiot [me] the party needs to quote a pre 1933 case law [or is that pre 1871] resolution, inorder to cause the court to be able to recognize common law jurisdiction. he needs to get someone with a repair plate to get his vehicle released before it costs more than it's worth, and for the same reason, because the towman isnt liable and the bill is daily storage, and that fight is a different complaint alltogether.

I think that because he was even speaking with the judge itself was acknowledgement of the jurisdiction. he failed to set the stage properly by beginning with (and i think this was one of Scott's firmly made points): for the record I reserve All rights and if the court has any objection, towhich the court can not reply thus having reserved ALL rights places the party as administrator eliminating any presumption of him being trustee.

the whole point being you cant play there game and expect to fight them, they can rewrite the script at will. unless you are prepared as scott has specified, incorporate, trust, lien the fuck out of the security interest (birth certificate), your in their system until they provide you a way out by such things we have discussed as being called beligerent.

contempt! civil/criminal? criminal, produce the victim? civil, produce the contract?

Joseph Davia and Gerry Cardinalli listen to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK4MhTJhgwc

Thank you Beverly.

You CANNOT "claim" common law jurisdiction in a statutory court. A statutory court ONLY has jurisdiction (authority) to hear statutory matters - THATS IT. Can you go to Wendy's and "claim" they MUST provide you with a Big Mac??? Wendy's has NOT been granted authority (jurisdiction) to make a Big Mac for you. If you want a Big Mac go to McDonalds (a court that has common law juridiction).

RE: "if I was to replace the "change of name act' WITH "the legal person" instead would that be correct?"

That document was written SPECIFICALLY for the CHANGE OF NAME ACT. Scott has stated to NEVER change ANY words in his documents, EVERY word is placed with PURPOSE/INTENT.

yep got that - was just an enquiry -thanks

WOW..!!!!...Nice long graffiti.. :D, if ever there is anything you guys don't get, let me know, I will lightened you.....

Yep & if pierre, dont ENLIGHTEN ye I wont :-)

No offence from one Joseph to another - when my balls are full again sorry need a woman to lighten me, bit like Scott in that regard, I love pussy too much to ever be lightened by a man....lol

Never been jailed ??? :D

Cheers - good to know :-)

Only overnight - that was enuff, but been close several times

Maybe I used the WRONG word.....I will make you a more INTELLIGENT human should have been used.... If there is something you don't UNDERSTAND, let me know, I'll make sure you UNDERSTAND :D

TRUST ME :D

one thing I know - its fucken good communicating with you all - you have been a great help, I've spent many years trying to learn all these ways of dealing with legal matters, everything I've learnt suddenly clicked together after connecting and reading what you have posted.

Thanks again it is much appreciated

UNDERSTAND im have learnt that term - am happy to comprehend but not to stand under anyone.... ;-)

never frett spending an overnight, and send them a bill for your time. one pure gold ounce per hour, and councel them if you can. the answer to every question they ask is "i dont understand" or some derivative thereof unless you know the better question to ask.

thanks - its the process involved in getting the gold ounce per hour after billing the pricks that I want to learn as well.... :-)

You send a bill

Then a statment

then a Notice

Then a default

I would charge $250 per hour......forget about this gold thing, stay in the REAL world.... :D

Have been fighting with Inland Revenue here in NZ for past 13yrs,I no longer pay taxes etc etc thats how ended up defending / standing up to them in court in 2011, now they are trying to get me to pay fines after they convicted the legal name without the man present - now know how to deal with this....

THEN file a PPSR which here in NZ is like a UCC FORM?

on WHO ?????

On the Police/Justice Dept or whoever I'm lodging the debt against

ok...just checking :D

Personal Property Security Register - PPSR.

That's gotta be the most patient judge in the universe....he's in a claims court confessing he's a citizen (property/employee) of the United States of America (corporation) to another employee, whilst refusing to obey the policies of said corporation. Nothing coming - no remedy there, me thinks...