The Tender For Law

English Only

ENGLISH is the international language of law and commerce. Knowing FRENCH is useful for understanding LEGAL ENGLISH, but FRENCH is not the international language of law and commerce, so we will ignore French speakers who speak to us in the language of a conquered people.

Non.

I understand that you are a proud Québécois, but the people here have nothing but contempt for you because of decades of transfer payments and NONE OF YOU understanding what Quebec sovereignty means. None of you know who Russell Rogers Smith is, and you're too proud and arrogant to teach. Just go away and be Retardier somewhere else.

Volume 6

May 21, 2014 4:04 PM

Kenneth Paul

All good questions, Paul, but in reality, you won't get to barrage the judge with all these questions. You will get one good shot to start the conversation, so I usually start with what I call "the four corners": "For the record, I am here for that matter by special appearance because there has been a mistake; where is the proper notice so I can help you settle your matter honorably?" When the judge asks "Who are you?" My response is usually "You may call me Amicus Curae, or friend of the court. or you may refer to my limited capacity as Spoliated/Naked Owner, Settlor and/or Bailor. Which do you prefer?" When the judge asks "No, I mean what is your legal NAME?" My response is usually "What evidence is there that I could OWN such a thing?" When the judge asks "Are you NAME?" I almost always respond " Where is this court's authority to use that NAME for personal identification?" (By the way, there is NONE. I've personally spoken with the Dept. of Vital Records about the Birth Certificate... there is NO AUTHORITY to use that NAME for personal identification.) In court, the person asking questions is leading the conversation. Like Christ did in Pilate's courtroom, always respond to their question with a question that redirects the conversation to YOUR point in law. The name of this game in court is "he who goes into dishonor first loses." You cannot go into dishonor by asking questions... and speaking in questions is an art form. If you find yourself making a statement, always turn it into a question. Everything they propose is an offer, so get used to responding "upon proof of claim" to stay in honor. This is called a CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE. When they say "YOU have been charged with the heinous crime of jaywalking." I usually respond "I will happily accept that charge upon proof of claim that I am one and the same with the NAMED defendant. Again, where is this court's authority to use that NAME for personal identification?" One final note... every time the court refuses to address your question, you might want to transform their silence into acquiescence. When they ignore your question or their reply is non-responsive, precede your next question with the statement "Let the record show that this court agrees by way of their silent assent that (there is no authority to use that NAME to identify me - or whatever your point was to the question you asked)." This is a principle of TACIT PROCURATION BY SILENT ASSENT... always turn their silence into your point ON THE RECORD. On a different point, I'd like to show you how to not be the NAME, and destroy their whole procedure by letting the NAME show on the record as property of the US Government. I like to think of this as "Law Fu", where they attack the NAME Unlike you Paul, I find it best to NOT own the NAME... and frankly, there is no evidence that you have any property rights in that NAME. You were never a party to the contract that created that NAME, but we do know the State paid the hospital for the benefit of birth registration, so the record shows that THEY are clearly the intended beneficiary of that contract. It is dangerous to go into a govt courtroom asserting that you OWN property rights in that NAME when they take silent notice that this NAME is their govt property... that is why they quietly assert jurisdiction even when you don't give it to them! SO WHY OWN ANYTHING? Heck, I was born into this world naked, and I'll be leaving naked... in between, all I want is quiet enjoyment of everything, and a little safe harbor and innocent passage is nice too! There is much safety by being only the Spoliated Man or Naked Owner in a usufruct, where the govt gets the benefits of that usufruct and has the obligation to provide care and maintenance in that usufructuary relationship. It is much easier and more effective to complete the usufruct by endorsing the Birth Certificate (which happens to be an indemnification receipt used by the occupying army to hold title to property in abeyance under Lieber Code 31 and 38)... I assign it back to them by endorsing it "pay to the order of UNITED STATES without recourse in fulfillment of 12USC95a(2) and 12USC95b"... I send copies to the Commander in Chief, Sec of the Treasury, Attorney General, and Comptroller of the Currency. Again, I make it appear in their records by way of the UCC, a copy of which is put into the court records along with a NOTICE OF INDEMNIFICATION CONTRACT which points the court to the "peace treaty" offered by the United States pursuant to 12USC95a(2) and 12USC95b, accepted and fulfilled by by my endorsement and return of the Birth Certificate. (It is a violation of their oath of office to dishonor the obligation of contracts or to question the public debt.) By doing this in advance, it offers me an easy, honorable way to leave the courtroom. The record now indicates that the NAME is property of the State. Once I stump the judge by exposing he has no authority to use that NAME to personally identify me, I usually follow up thusly "Let the record show that there is no evidence that this court has any authority to use that NAME for personal identification. However, in absence of evidence to the contrary, it is my understanding and belief that since the State paid for the benefit of this birth registration, it is the legislature's intent that the State be identified by and through this NAME... is there any evidence to the contrary?" When they don't respond, or try to change the subject, I push on "Let the record show that there is no evidence to the contrary and that the State is to be recognized by and through that NAME. Is the State here today?" Point at the prosecutor, representing the State, and declare "Let the record show that the State is present today to defend their property interests in the NAME. Judge, THERE is your named Defendant. Now that all parties are present, I trust you can settle this matter honorably without me... so if there If they threaten to issue a warrant, you might remind the court "Notice to principal is notice to agent. Now that this court is put on notice that the State is to be recognized by and through that NAME, and that I am not one and the same with that NAME, any further harassment by officers of the State cannot be assumed to be based on their ignorance, but instead malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance in bad faith. Please notify all your officers so they do not cause a damage by arresting this man before you for the warrant you intend to issue. Have a good day!" This is why they never write me tickets anymore (even though I don't use their licenses), never invite me into their courts anymore, never let me into their jails anymore (I teach this stuff to other inmates), never write me IRS letters anymore, etc. I'm confident that I am on some "don't fuck with this guy" list... and I'm fine with that. I mean, why learn how to fight in a courtroom if you can get yourself to be never invited in there? LOL
Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 9, page 1169 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.
Unique ID: 462493170453287_670424622993473
Unique Facebook User ID:
1418151238455385
Last Updated:
Type of Post:
status
Place of Post:
None

Read Comments 17

Back to top