RSS

Emergency Lights

09 Nov

Emegency (?) Lights [courtesy Google Images]

Emegency (?) Lights
[courtesy Google Images]

A friend of mine is a student of traffic law.  He sent me an email complaining that the Constitution and common law seem to be suspended in the context of a traffic stop.  He was especially concerned by the fact that the police can stop drivers along the roads and highways and essentially arrest us without a warrant.

I replied with a notion that I’ve never researched and which could be completely mistaken–but which has been rattling around in the back of my brain for most of a decade:

The usual traffic stop starts with the flashing of emergency lights.

I suspect the traffic ticket and possible arrest are based on the alleged existence of an “emergency“.

If the existence of an “emergency” were effectively denied, could there be a lawful traffic stop or traffic ticket?

Under the pretext of “emergency,” the laws are suspended and the occifer may be thereby empowered to do whatever he likes.  For example, it might be illegal to drive more than 15 MPH on a one way street in a school zone.  But if someone is shooting at you and creating an “emergency,” you have the right to drive at 50 MPH in reverse, going the wrong way on the one-way street in order to avoid being shot or killed.  In the context of an emergency, normal laws are suspended and the only principle that I know of is “survival”.

The Constitution of The State of Texas requires that all proposed laws be read aloud on three separate days in the state legislature before they can be voted on.  The legislature escapes that constitutional mandate by declaring there’s an “emergency” so they can vote on the law as soon as it’s been mentioned just one time.  This procedure illustrates that the state legislature routinely violates the terms of the State constitution by simply declaring an “emergency”.   There is no actual emergency, but under the pretext of an “emergency,” the state legislators can “legally” commit unconstitutional acts.  Therefore, it’s not unreasonable to suspect that some similar suspension of the laws could take place whenever the traffic cop turns on the emergency lights or emergency siren.

Similarly, when an “emergency vehicle” (ambulance or fire truck) is flashing its “emergency lights,” that vehicle is exempt from normal traffic laws and can speed, run traffic lights and stop signs or drive the wrong way up one-way streets.  Again, a “state of emergency” can excuse people from obeying ordinary laws.  So a “state of emergency” can effectively suspend ordinary laws.

Therefore, it seems possible that arrests (or at least detentions) are lawful without warrants within the context of an alleged “emergency“.

It’s not impossible that the flashing “emergency” lights on a cop car mark a small, special venue within which the constitution, common law, etc. are presumed to be suspended.

It may be that once the occifer turns on his emergency lights and you don’t object, you are presumed to have consented and agreed that you and the occifer are in a “state of emergency”.  

It’s even conceivable that under the “The State vs this state” hypothesis, “this state” may ultimately be presumed to be a “state of emergency”.

Perhaps the best approach is to ask the occifer when he approaches you, “What’s the emergency?”  If/when the occifer answers, expressly deny the existence of an emergency–other than the fraudulent emergency the occifer himself created by flashing his emergency lights, pulling you over on the side of the road and increasing the odds that you’ll both be hit by another car.  You might even find a phrase to include over your signature on the traffic ticket that denies the existence of emergency or, in the alternative, declares the “state of affairs” to be one of “peace”.

I wouldn’t bet on it, but it’s  conceivable that by pasting a “flag of peace” decal, hanging in the vertical position on the back of your car, you might create evidence that you are driving “without” a “state of emergency”.

It might be possible to argue that the occifer did not “observe” a state of emergency that was created by the driver of the car he stopped.  Instead, it may be that the occifer “created” the alleged “state of emergency” by flashing his lights and placing both driver and the occifer in danger of being hit by passing traffic.  It might be argued that the occifer “created” the “state of emergency” as a fraudulent pretext for the sake of suspending the constitution and common law and thereby depriving you of their protections–and then extorting a traffic fine from the driver “under the color of law”.  That would be one helluvan argument, if it could be sustained.

 I’ve never really studied the concept of “emergency”.  But if research showed that the traffic stop is ultimately based on an alleged “emergency,” then the key question may be whether a genuine emergency was caused by the driver being ticketed and actually existed before the cop turned on his emergency light, or if the occifer himself created a false/fraudulent emergency by turning on his flashers, suspending the constitution and common law, and causing the driver to stop in a dangerous condition along the side of the road in order to be subjected to a fraudulent fine.

I have a hunch that if we found the definition of “emergency” in the traffic code, we could learn how to effectively refute the existence of an alleged but fraudulent “emergency”.  If there’s no emergency, they’d have no basis to flash their lights.  If they can’t flash their lights, they can’t stop us from continuing to drive and there’d be no traffic stops.

Or, you could travel with a box of glazed, jelly-filled donuts and offer to give one to the occifer if he let’s you go.

So, anyone have any insight into the concept of “emergency”?  Is an “emergency” critical to the presumed “legality” of traffic stops?

 
87 Comments

Posted by on November 9, 2013 in Police State, Traffic Law, Tyranny

 

Tags: , , ,

87 responses to “Emergency Lights

  1. Lance

    November 9, 2013 at 3:43 PM

    Can we still get a remedy in equity? Can we still get a remedy in admiralty? The answer is yes you can. So what they did was they combined the procedures for these law forms in what became known as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So it’s this set of rules right here that governs all of these various law forms. So the question is, can I still get a remedy under the Federal Rules and Civil Procedure in any of these things? The answer is yes you can; it’s right inside Civil Procedure in any of these things? The answer is yes you can; it’s right inside there.

    In any event I think all of you are pretty much aware that all of our present governments are corporate in nature. You know different that the original ‘de jure’ governments wherein the people, now this is interesting, the people under the ‘de jure’ government were the sole shareholders of the corporation. But then to facilitate the monetary systems and different things that were being brought in into use, they further incorporated. And so they took the value of the corporation out of the hands of the people and put it into private individuals and enterprises or special interest groups, as we’ll demonstrate here in a minute. So basically these new corporations have moved in and elbowed out the real government. And these new corporations are just simply stripping all the money that they can out of the suspecting, unsuspecting population.

    I mean if that guy who is sitting there thinking the judge for only charging him two hundred bucks realized that the guy sitting up front was getting thirty percent of that two hundred bucks into his private retirement fund, he might’ve thought different about it.

    Okay, so you have a corporation here and the corporation has founders. And so the founders then are the priority stick holders of the corporation. Now in order to raise capital for the corporation, what do the founders do? They offer, sign up right over here. So then down from the founders, we have the common stock holders. Now when the corporation wants to raise money for the corporation, what do they do? They tax. They tax the common stock holders. Do they tax the priority stock holders? No. They’re the owners, why would they tax themselves? So they put a tax on the common stock holders for the enfranchisement or for the benefit privilege of being a shareholder, a common stockholder in their corporation.

    So how do you get to be a common stock holder? With your signature. Now all you’ve got to do is within the jurisdiction of corporation, all you have to do is sign up for some benefit privilege and bang, there you go. You’re a common stock holder. So let’s say, I mean uh you know, if you move into the area, if you sign up for utilities, if you I don’t know, join the PTA or if you sign voter registrations or whatever you do, if you put your name to a document with a corporation now all of a sudden you’re a common stock holder. And you can be taxed, you can be fined and all these kind of things to raise capital for the corporation because they need money. Or if they didn’t need money they wouldn’t be doing it right? Now, another thing that you don’t realize is that if you’re in the jurisdiction of that corporation, they will assume that you’re a common stock holder in that corporation unless you demonstrate otherwise.

    So how do you demonstrate, you know, that you’re not a common stock holder in that corporation – actually either you’re a private man or you’re a member of another corporation over here see?

    So as you’ll look at this, in many instances it’s easy to visualize this corporate structure and this entity and so forth if you look at it from a trust perspective. Now is it a corporation a trust? The answer is yes, it is.

    When the outcome is uncertain then you’re involved in a trust. And so all these corporate things that we’ll be talking about here, if you’ll look at it from this perspective that we’re also involved in a trust situation and so some of you have been studying on these trust things and have a pretty good concept of that.

    First time that you signed on as common stockholder in the United States was the Social Security form SS-5. You ask for a benefit privilege, and so now you became a franchisee of the corporation. So your right in the middle of that.

    But one of the concepts that’s so important as a result of signing the SS-5 form with an unqualified signature, then you put yourself into the position as an assumed trustee of the Social Security trust.

    In equity, when a party has possession of a thing to which they have no legal right, then they are construed to be the trustee of the thing.

    So if you’ve got you know ten dollars in your pocket, if you’ve got you know a hundred dollars in your bank account and so forth, you have no legal right to that, you gave it away. But you are construed to be the trustee of it.

    A traffic stop is simply this, you know, the big corporation is needing money and so they go to the common stock holders to get it. Because that’s the only party they can tax on the thing.

    A lot of people don’t realize that a traffic stop is court, you see?

    I had a deputy sheriff stop me one time and I got to talking to him and I said, “I see you’ve got a gun there, is it loaded?” He said, “Yes it is.” I said, “Well if you’ll look in my pickup truck here you’ll see that I don’t have a gun so we’re on unequal status here. And on that basis I might do what you say.” You see what I mean? He was putting me under threatened duress, you see? So well I don’t recommend you doing that.

    The roadside stop itself is in fact an administrative court. And as we go into it here to some of the things that could be said at a roadside stop, I’m just trying to demonstrate that the officer who made the stop is acting in the capacity of an administrative judge at the roadside and in that capacity he can in fact give a summary judgement. Or he might not depending on what you do. So we’re going to show you some techniques and things you can say and so forth so you won’t get an administrative judgement against you along the roadside, you see.

    Everybody drives around on the highways in a corporate vehicle. Now why do I call it a corporate vehicle? Because it doesn’t belong to you, it belongs to the corporation. Now when you go out in our day and age, when you go out and purchase a new vehicle, many people don’t understand that you are in fact entitled to manufacturer’s statement of origin for that. Now that is the paramount title to that vehicle at the point.

    If in fact you can go and purchase a new vehicle without having to finance it, when you’re entitled to the manufacturer’s statement of origin or what we call the MSO. Now, if you have that in your possession, that is proof positive to go straight into the DMV, Department of Motor Vehicles. And they’re going to be the owner of the vehicle. And what they’re going to give you in exchange is a lien holders on that particular piece of property. But make no mistakes about it, the vehicle. If you’re driving around in a corporate vehicle, what does that mean? You’re a common stock holder. And can you be taxed for the use of that corporate vehicle? And the answer is yes you can be.

    Well I got a friend of mine, he cleared the title on it and he re-titled the vehicle into a foreign foundation.

    Okay now remember, this process of turning over the MSO to the DMV is strictly voluntary. Now a lot of times if you do go and purchase a new vehicle, even if you pay cash for it, the dealership will try to coerce you into allowing them to send the MSO to the DMV.

    I talked to a highway patrol man, actually he was a retired highway patrol out of Arizona some years ago. And he said, we were instructed that if we pulled over a vehicle and the driver of the, what they call the driver of the vehicle produced the MSO on that vehicle, he said, we would totally leave them alone. Because that demonstrated that the vehicle was private property.

    One here from a court case out of the Tennessee appeals court in 1966. It says, automobile purchases for the purpose of transporting buyer to and from his place of employment was consumer goods, as defined in UCC 9-109. So under UCC 9-109 the vehicle was known as consumer goods. It was decided in 1978 apparently out of Maryland. “The provisions of UCc 2-316 of the Maryland UCC do not apply to sales of consumer goods.”

    Where it called an automobile which was involved in a probate will and so forth, it called them household goods. Here’s one it says, a yacht and six automobiles were personal belongings and household effects. And again this is out of a probate court.

    Now I’ll give you an example, demonstrating that what you’re thinking is a government or a court or something like that and nothing more than a corporation. And whether or not you want to be a part of that corporation or not, that’s up to you.

    Well if it’s a corporation operating over here in Utah, let’s just see if they are chartered. So I went to the secretary of state website and did some research to see if I could find this corporation, to see if it was chartered in the state of Utah, and guess what? It wasn’t. So what did that indicate to me? That it’s a private corporation. It has to be a private corporation because it’s not chartered with the secretary of state. And so, and I was going to do more research to find out if this corporation here was paying taxes on their profit.

    So what does it say about this enterprise that’s going on here? Its a private enterprise. Now is it government? Well of course it’s not government. They’ve simply taken over the government.

    It’s these entities here that have taken over the state. And now they’re running it, they’re running the courts and everything and the proceeds that come from this enterprise right here, does it go back to support the community? No, it’s private. They’re taking it out of public and they’re taking it into private.

    And so there’s all kinds of ways that you could put a restricted, let me emphasize this, I’m going to shout at you here with my capital letters, A RESTRICTED SIGNATURE on something. This is an unrestricted signature. That means they can do anything they want to with it because you haven’t indentured it. Remember I said that all this stuff is a trust? And so you have to indenture it, you have to create the law of the trust; you have to create the law of the signature.

    People like to use ‘AR’, which means authorized representative, or they might put you know UCC 3-402, 401- B2, you can look it up. Or they might put UCC 1-308, look these things up so you’ll understand what it is. They might put out, ‘with reservation of rights’ or they might put ‘without recourse’, we like that one. But anyway one, you know UCC 3-419, now that’s an interesting one.

    They can make money on it. And do you want them to make money on it? Well I don’t think I do, because they’re private corporations.

    Now again, let me reiterate that when a police officer pulls a vehicle over on the highway, folks that is an arrest.

    First off when he pulls you over, he has reason to believe that you’re a common stock holder, because you’re driving around in a corporate car obviously, because the thing has license plates on it. You know they might way State of Oregon or California or whatever. So it’s obvious that whoever is behind the wheel of that vehicle, that they’re in the state vehicle. And because they’re in a state vehicle, the policeman automatically assumes that they must be a common stock holder in the corporation. So he says, ooh great, the CEO over here of this corporation told me I need to go out and collect some taxes from the common stock holder, so there goes one there, I’m going to get some money out of that guy, see? So they stop you and say, hey we need money. Now they’re not going to say it just that way, I mean we got a dog and pony show going on out here on the highways and in the courtroom and so forth.

    So you know, you get pulled over and they get to talk to you and get into a controversy and the administrative judge in the form of a police officer executes summary judgement right by the roadside and gives you a payment coupon so you know who to send the money to. That’s all that it is.

    Now just remember, just remember this is key; if you do decide to go into court, you have to understand that you already have summary judgement going against you. You already got summary judgement when the police officer already judged the matter along the roadside. So you’re already into summary judgement. So if you’ve been listening to our analysis of civil procedures and so forth then you know that the remedy for a summary judgement is a counter claim.

    So you have to understand all this traffic stuff is totally all involved in the civil law or what we call quasi-criminal – which it’s all just civil law.

    So you have to understand all this traffic stuff is totally all involved in the civil law or what we call quasi-criminal – which it’s all just civil law.

    But I did want to remind you that everything that goes on in these situations, these administrative courts, is all ruled by the double entry bookkeeping technique.

    Everything in the public involves itself with double entry bookkeeping technique. And again so if you’ll look at, you know, the double entry procedure, that’s what I was saying, a counter claim would apply here because over here you got a traffic ticket. That’s a claim. That’s a claim for money. And so how do you balance out a claim? Well with a counter claim, because at the end of the business day we have to arrive at that zero balance down there. So however you arrange your counter position to overcome the claim here is for the purpose of reducing the accounting in this particular matter down to zero. That’s what you’re trying to get at. It’s always the same thing; it always is.

    So let’s talk about some of the things that you can say, or some of the things that you can do at a roadside stop that might be helpful to you. First off, don’t get ignorant with them folks. Like I said, they’re carrying a gun. So it’s not a real smart thing to do, you know and listen – that’s a dangerous job. And I wouldn’t want that job, and why these guys do it, I don’t know.

    I’m sorry, you know I didn’t realize that I was breaking the law, I didn’t intend to do that, can you forgive me.

    If the policeman at the roadside stop is an administrative officer or administrative judge capable of finding you guilty, is he also capable of dismissing the case? And the answer is, yes he is.

    The root of your problem was, was that he was driving around in a vehicle that was still owned by DMV. If he’s doing all these other things here, especially if you’re running some kind of private plates on those things, make sure that you go and unregister the vehicle from DMV before you attempt to do some of these things. Otherwise you’re creating an injury on the corporation, you see. Because there’s a certain amount of liability that’s incurred against the corporation when you’re actually operating one of their vehicles. So if you want to do private plates or some of these other things, I think we’ve spoke about some technology in this regard at the recent Gardener’s seminar down in Portland, and so I can’t, I don’t have time to go back over all of that.

    And so I objected to them in court on the basis, show me your chain of evidence, where did these pictures come from? You know who had possession of them before you got them? You see what I mean?

    It makes good sense to stop to find out what’s wanted. Anytime an emergency vehicle throws on it’s lights, whether it’s a policeman, a fire truck, an ambulance or whatever, I mean it just makes good sense. I mean you don’t know what the emergency might be. I mean let’s say for instance you’re driving down the highway, a highway patrolman pulls up behind you and throws his lights on; you don’t know if there’s been an emergency at home, I mean maybe something happened at home. The wife called the highway patrol, said he’s up here on route such and such, see if you can find him, his cell phone is not working and tell him there’s an emergency at home.

    For a long time I have taught people that their first appearance is on the side of the road. We don’t make statements, we ask questions.

    I claim you as my witness and claim Christian law.

    God speed be with you, peace officer, how can I assist you, peace officer?

    See he’s calling the guy that stops him a peace officer. Peace, peace officer, see?

    God speed to you, peace officer, how can I assist you peace officer.

    “I do not consent to do business with the police and waive any assumed [key is here assumed] benefit privileges, how can I assist a peace officer?” He says, “they definitely do not like this and sometimes go back to the car and get on the radio for a bit before continuing with the attempted harvest. Sometimes they will come back with a, “…but you were speeding!” To which we respond, “Was I really? Forgive me. How can I assist a peace officer?”

    So here’s a real good approach. Again it’s non-confrontational; you’re simply saying “how can I help a peace officer?” See, so and then some of these other things that were used to avoid demonstrating enfranchisement, you know that they’re relying upon to tax the common stock holder.

    So anyway, and one of our favorite things is, point of order! And you know one of the most other important things in Robert’s Rules is that a motion to dismiss has to be heard, so go look at your Robert’s Rules of Order and you might find some interesting little tidbits there that you could use in some of these proceedings and so forth.

    Now there’s none item here that you ought to have on the tip of your tongue every time you go down to a court, and that is objection! Facts not in evidence.

    And so my effort in the matter was putting together the footing and foundation. And the footing that I used a commercial lien. And the foundation I used was a state UCC filing. So those are the things I think told these parties, you got to put a foundation up.

    Objection for facts not in evidence!

    Trinsey vs. Pagliaro; one of the key statements in that decision was that statement of council in brief or in argument are not sufficient for motion to dismiss or for summary judgement.

    I mean they’re making accusations, talking about this and talking about that over there and they have no right to do so. Because again, the attorney is trying to introduce testimony from the floor of the court which is uncertified or unsubstantial testimony. And so again, we come in, well objection, the attorney is trying to introduce facts into this case that are not in evidence. If it’s not in evidence you can’t talk about it, and that’s why we always say that any kind of comment by an attorney in a courtroom is all hearsay, because they don’t have any firsthand knowledge. If they don’t have firsthand knowledge, then they can’t you know represent that it is. And so this concept of facts not in evidence is really an important key and not only for traffic court, but for any kind of court you’re involved in and so that’s why I constantly am getting phone calls or having consultations with people when they say, well we’re in this court case here and here’s what’s happening and there’s what’s happening and I keep going back to the same think, have you introduced any evidence into this case? If you haven’t, then you’re going to get what you deserve. You have to put the evidence in. Because if you don’t put any evidence into the thing then the whole thing is all hearsay on their part and your part so the judge gets to act in equity and choose which one he likes the best. But if you put evidence in, the proper way, and you can look at the evidence rules in your court. But it’s basically all the same thing across the board, but if you put evidence in, now all of a sudden you have the footing and you have a foundation upon which you can build your structure. So don’t act like the attorneys you know, build your evidence.

    Or you might say: objection, the attorney’s trying to testify. If he wants to testify, let him get up there on the witness stand and swear in like everybody else. And then there’s a lot of times where you’ll have the judges, they’ll start to testify from the bench, well objection, objection you can’t be testifying from up there. I mean if you want to say something in this matter then get off that bench and you take the witness stand, but you’re not going to give testimony form up there on the bench.

    Now you have to understand right up front, that a traffic court is not a court of record.

    I try to look pretty but it’s a waste of time. Anyway when we start talking about courts of record, you have to understand, especially a traffic or magistrate court is not a court of record, and we’ve had to deal with that in the past when we’ve done certain things that I will describe to you here in a minute.

    Diesel Therapy.

    And so eventually he just stood up and told the judge, he said, “Can I say something?” And the judge said, “okay go ahead”,you know. So he threw his right hand to the square and he said, “For and on the record”, and then he told all kinds of things on the record. He was giving testimony from the floor of the court. Now when they left out of there, that newfangled attorney they brought in, he asked that attorney, “Is everything I said in there part of the record?” And the attorney said, “Yeah.” He said, “Can I sue you them based on what I said?” The attorney said, “You sure can.” See? So again if you get into a situation where you’re uncertain, throw that right hand up to the square and start testifying for and on the records.

    But he put another word in there where he says “for and on the public record”, you understand the courts are private, so now he’s going to put the thing into the public. In other words he’s going to shine some sunlight onto the vampire, and he said it’s been very successful when you put it onto the public record.

    But one of the things, if you’re in a court of record, don’t say anything until you’re sure that what you’re saying is being recorded. And you can ask the judge, is this being recorded? You know, is there a court reporter here? Is it being videotaped? Because you don’t want to say anything and then have it you know not show up on the record, if you think what you’re saying is important for the record.

    Now you have to understand, that if you do get into a court of record that that court reporter’s certified transcript can be introduced into evidence into a court of record. So he was making evidence, that’s what he was doing with that court reporter. Now you know you may not get into something that difficult; you may not think you need a court report, but one of the things you can do is that you can memorialize the conversation that was had in that court. Now what I mean by memorialize is as the court goes along, you can take notes and after you get done taking the notes then you can create an affidavit. That’s what we call memorializing a conversation. And so you can create an affidavit stating that this is a memorialization of the conversation that was had in traffic court on certain date, certain time, blah…

    For instance on this first time I got in front of this traffic judge you know they read you your rights. Because again, traffic court is quasi-criminal. So they’re reading rights, they’re Miranda-izing the defendants that come into this traffic court. That shows you how ridiculous it is. So anyways, this is a traffic judge, he reads a Miranda and then he says, “Do you understand these rights that have been read to you?” And I said, “No.” they looked at me and said, “You don’t?” He said, “Well, what part of it don’t you understand?” I said, “Any of it.” Because what he was actually asking me was, do you stand under these charges. And I was not going to certify those charges, because if you say yes that you understand them, then you have certified the charges against you.

    And so I said, “Well, do I have constitutional rights?” And I knew that I didn’t, I never signed the constitution. How do I get rights out of the constitution? But I asked him, I said, “But do I have constitutional rights?” He said, “Oh, yes you do.” And I said, “Well, I don’t waive any of that either.”

    A court cannot profit on the disability.

    “I’m confused.” the judge says – so you say, “I’m confused, can I ask a question?” You see. And they’ll always let you ask a question, now they might not answer it. But the judge might say, “We’ll what’s your question?” So you might say, “Well it appears that the court is wanting to contract with me, and any valid contract must be with full disclosure, so my question is about the plaintiff. Who or what is the state?” See all these cases come in, in the name of the STATE OF OREGON, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, whatever. So my question is about the plaintiff, who or what is the STATE OF OREGON? Okay okay, but that doesn’t tell me very much. So I’m objecting to this proceeding for failure of ratification of commencement. Now this is something new that’s kind of hit the community which is rule 17 federal rules, civil procedure or it’ll be codified in your state rules of civil procedure. Anyway it has to do with the ratification of commencement.

    If you’ll look at the rules you’ll find that a case can only be prosecuted in the name of a real party in interest. Now this is key, this is important, because you can have all kinds of fun with this. So for the most case, all these court cases come in, especially in traffic it’d be the STATE OF OREGON or the CITY OF PORTLAND or something like that, so let’s just say that It’s the STATE OF OREGON as the plaintiff in the name of a real party in interest, is this a real party in interest? No it’s not, it’s a fiction obviously to a proceeding on the basis of failure for ratification of commencement because it has not been revealed who the real party in interest is. In other words, who’s going to get the money? So we’re really concerned here with the real party in interest and the STATE OF OREGON is not the real party in interest obviously because it’s not a man or it’s not a woman, it’s a corporate fiction. So we’re objecting until the prosecutor will reveal who the real party in interest is because we may in fact want to sue the real party in interest for any kind of injuries they might have done with this. So like I said, it’s a catch – 22 because STATE OF OREGON again like we shoed a while ago on that business we were doing with you know Dun and Bradstreet and all that and the Secretary of the State and so forth, this is a private corporation acting like it’s a public court, but it’s not. See it’s a private one. So do you think that anybody in this courtroom in their right mind is going to reveal who the real party in interest is in this matter?

    They’re not about to tell you who the real party in interest is. So again, if you can’t discover that then your objection is going to hold on the ratification of commencement. So let’s go back over it again. “Your honor I’m confused, can I ask a question?” “What’s your question?” “It appears you know, that the court’s wanting to contract with me, any valid contract must be with full disclosure, so my question is about the plaintiff. Who’s the plaintiff?” “Well it’s the STATE OF OREGON.” “Well you know, thank you for your answer, but that doesn’t tell me a whole lot. What I’m really going for here is to find out who the real party in interest is so I’m making an objection to this case moving forward under rule 17, ratification of commencement, until the prosecutor will reveal who the real party in interest is.” See we’re piercing the corporate veil, you understand that, you should understand that by now.

    Who has standing to sue? And if you don’t have standing to sue, and this is an important concept, if you don’t have standing to sue then you can’t, it’s just that simple. Alright so one of the little approaches you might use here…

    So eventually the prosecutor is going to rest his case. So now you get a chance to talk from the defendant position, see. So we’ve gotten to that point now where I get a chance to put on my case.

    Did you file a valid cause of action against me?” And the officer is going to say, “Yes.” So then you ask him, “How many elements are in a valid claim of action?” See, and you don’t care. First off you know he don’t know, if he’d been to law school even he don’t know. So the prosecutor is going to say, “Objection! Your honor, that calls for a legal conclusion from Officer Smith and the witness is not competent to testify.” Thank you, thank you, thank you.” “Your honor, I agree with the prosecutor. Officer Smith is not competent to testify.” Now what did you just do to Officer Smith’s testimony? See? He doesn’t have any. So does a prosecutor have a witness against you? Well of course not, see. Now I did this once in a quasi-criminal situation; it was a juvenile matter with one of my kids.

    They’d ask me if I wanted to cross examine and I’d say, no I don’t want to cross examine but I want to hold that witness as my witness. And so what I would do to that witness, well I would destroy the witness. And the way I would do that, would be that I would ask him, I said, “Can you identify the defendant in the room today?” “Yeah,” he said, “that kid right there.” And I say, “Okay can you identify the plaintiff in the room today?” Remember, see? Remember who the plaintiff was, it was the STATE OF UTAH. And so the prosecutor jumped up and said, “ Objection your honor, he can’t ask that question.” Well I could, under rule 17, I could ask that question. I said, “Okay I withdraw that question.” I said, “But here’s my next question.” To the witness I said, “Do you have firsthand knowledge that the defendant injured the plaintiff?” And they said “No.” So I impeached their testimony in doing that and removed them as a valid witness in the case.

    “You know, he can’t answer that question, he’s not competent to answer a legal question.” Thank you! The prosecutor just made your case for you.
    You might request the court to dismiss the charges on their own motion. Now see you can do this. It has to do with subject matter jurisdiction and certainly standing is a part of subject matter jurisdiction. And so what we do is that we don’t ask the court to do anything for us, because it’s the duty of the judge in any case if the subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, that the judge has to dismiss the case on the court’s own motion. So we would say something like, well your honor there’s obviously nothing here to talk about, no subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and so forth, so I’m requesting that the court dismiss the case on its own motion. See so now they’re going to take the liability, not you. So anyway that’s another little tactic you could use there.

    Again because we’re involved in traffic court and the whole thing is actually admiralty procedures and so forth. And so you know admiralty court involves itself with the insurance. Everything is an insurance claim and so the word claim is an important word to use in this particular situation here and so we’ve used that. Now you realize that because we’re over here in admiralty that what is being sued is a thing, it’s an interim proceeding, which means they’re suing a thing. They’re not suing somebody, see.

    With traffic things, that you’re involved in admiralty proceeding and they’re suing a thing.

    It might go something like this, you know the judge might say, “Well, this is case number 123, STATE OF UTAH versus JOHN DOE, is Mr. Doe here?” Now there’ve been a lot of people who’ve gone in arguing the thing, I’m not you know JOHN DOE or whatever and they really don’t get too much purchase unless you want to do an abatement.

    Unless you’re going to do an abatement, there’s no reason to argue about it.

    I recommend that you never say your name in the court, because I know exactly what they’re going to do with it.

    “Well for the purposes of this meeting, you can assume that I’m JOHN DOE.”

    Remember what we talked about how Gordon had outlined for you, you know, at the traffic stop itself where you tell the officer, I am claiming you as my witness? I’m claiming you as my witness, see. Okay so, “Objection your honor, Officer Smith is my witness.” And the judge is going to say, “Overruled.” And you can say, “I take exception.” You know you watch all these lawyer shows on television, you know how to do all that. I take exception. So the judge will say, “Noted.”

    “Well, I wish to reserve my right to cross examine this witness but I want to hold this witness over as my witness.” And so then the prosecutor will say, “Okay, well the state rests.” now this is key, and this is cool. Let me write this on the board so you’ll have it in your mind. The state rests, which means they’ve done all the talking they want to do about this.

    So the judge would say, “Okay Mr. Doe you can call your first witness.” I say, “Okay I call Officer Smith.” Officer Smith gets back on the stand, you know and the judge is going to remind him you’re under oath you know and blah… and state your name for the record and all that gibberish. And so the first question you would want to ask Officer Smith is, “Officer Smith, do you have a claim against me?” Now you notice I didn’t ask Officer Smith if he had a claim against JOHN DOE. I said, “Officer Smith, do you have a claim against me?” And Officer Smith is going to say no. So then you would ask him, “Do you know anyone who has a claim against me?” And let’s say Officer Smith says “No.” So then you talk to the judge, you say, “Your honor, release the order of the court to the defendant.” Release the order of the court to the defendant. And what that means is he’s going to give judgement in favor of the defendant, you see.

    “Officer Smith do you have a claim against me?” No. “Officer Smith, do you know anyone who has a claim against me?” Now what if he says yes? See? Okay so Officer Smith says, “Yes.” Okay, so you ask Officer Smith, “So you’re saying under oath that you have firsthand knowledge that someone has a claim against me?” Now he’s looking right straight down a charge for perjury. That’s what he’s looking at right there, because he’s only making an assumption. Because see there has been no certified charges brought to this case. And so if he says “yes I have firsthand knowledge”, that means he has to have firsthand knowledge that certified charges have been brought to this case by a real party in interest.

    Officer Smith. “Say, Officer Smith, do you know anybody who has a claim against me?”
    “No.” So the prosecutor is going to jump up and day, “Your honor, the STATE OF OREGON has a claim against JOHN DOE over here.”

    “Objection your honor, the prosecutor already rested his case, and I object to him introducing any new witnesses into this case.”

    Don’t be acting like an attorney.

    Alright here’s another little strategy you might want to try. Again it has to do with the reluctance of the court to reveal the real party in interest. Okay so we got the same scenario, all the preliminaries and so you get a chance to question Officer Smith and so you ask, “Officer Smith, I am confused about your conduct here today. Your testimony seems to be irrelevant. Are you employed by the STATE OF OREGON? See. You’re setting him up. “Are you employed by the state of Oregon?” And he’s going to go, “Well yeah, sure I am.” “Well okay, just to make sure that you’re really employed by the STATE OF OREGON, can you here today produce a paystub from the STATE OF OREGON or any kind of tax information that identifies you of being an employee of the STATE OF OREGON?” Because see remember, who is the plaintiff? The plaintiff is the STATE OF OREGON, and so this officer here who’s given out this ticket is claiming to be an employee of the STATE OF OREGON when probably he’s really an employed by some other corporation. And so the prosecutor is going to jump up and say, “Well your honor, I object to this line of questioning.” And so you might say something like, “Well judge, this is going to be an easy thing to settle, it just so happens that I have here a copy of an IRS W9 form.”

    I have here a copy of an IRS W9 form that we can have Officer Smith here fill out just so we can clarify this matter.” Now don’t that seem fair? You what a W9 is, it’s a proof of identification to put them into it.

    And that is none of these people in the court want to identify themselves on a W9 because it’s going to show a conflict of interest, it’s going to demonstrate that they have been involved in crimes. And if they fill out that W9 then we’re going to report them to the IRS and the IRS is going to come get them, see.

    Again you know the strategy here has to do with standing, you know the real party interest, the corporate fiction coming in here and trying to make money off of all these things we’ve talked about so far.

    No a bill of particulars goes right back to common law more than anything else. But again I showed to you that you can use common law for a remedy even in the court system that we have it today.

    Now just like the word says, it’s a bill. A bill for particulars and bill of particulars.

    Now a demand for a written bill of particulars has certain elements in it, and again this goes back to the common law jurisdiction. This is a lawful demand for a written bill of particulars. “All parties take notice of the above named demandant is herewith submitting this timely lawful demand for written bill of particulars to the above named defendant, Bill Brown, bar number such and such who is the county attorney. Demandant is here and requiring that this bill of particulars be fully answered to the above named defendant, Bill Brown, bar number such and such who is the county attorney. Demandant is here and requiring that this bill of particulars be fully answered, responded to and presented to the demandant in a timely manner specified below so that the demandant may ascertain the particular nature and cause of the accusations being made against the defendant.”

    We were just trying to determine the nature and cause of the charges.

    All criminal cases of course start with a bill. It’s called a true bill.

    So an indictment starts with a true bill and so we’re saying, okay send us the bill.

    It would take you know, ten sticks of dynamite to pry out a true bill out of a prosecutor. They won’t give it up. They know better than to because they know they’re operating in fiction; they take the true bill and they go over into fiction with it, see.

    Again you now we’re asking for the real party in interest, you know the name and mailing location of the injured party, a name and mailing location for the agent for the real party, and so forth and so on. And then we’re asking, in this case, what is JOHN DOE? In this case, what is the STATE OF UTAH? Is the STATE OF UTAH a legal fiction.

    So that’s why we set it up this way, knowing that it’s a catch – 22. We know they can’t answer it. And when they don’t answer it, then we go into a default on them. Because again you know a lot of times we go into court, certainly we’re pressing the issue. We’re pressing the issue when we say, we’re requesting that the prosecutor read and certify the charges for the record knowing they can’t do it, knowing they won’t do it even if they could. So this is a set up, see we’re building that footing, we’re talking about the parties involved in this, then we’re asking questions about the venue, we’re asking things like what’s the meets and bounds of the STATE OF UTAH knowing that the STATE OF UTAH doesn’t have any meets and bounds, see?

    So anyway, the next area; the jurisdiction, right action, cause of action and so forth. Then the procedure, you know we’re asking about the procedure, did they do this right and so forth and so on, and then we have a conclusion down here. Failure by defendant to timely and completely respond to this man would be construed as an unlawful act to willfully withhold full disclosure, see. So again we’re not playing like attorneys. We’re acting like men. So as man to man we’re requesting certain information here, which if they don’t provide, they have no standing. You can’t sue without standing, so certainly if they default on this, they have no standing.

    It has to do with plea and abatement. Now our favorite plea and abatement has to do with either misspelling or misnomer. Now on any document, if there is a mistake on the document, we can always request a correction on the document until we deal with it. So a plea and abatement basically is saying you know, we’re not arguing about the contents of the document, but what we’re talking about here is the correction of the document, kind of like in the nature of a dated integrity board hearing. Some of you all studied on dated integrity board here and I think that’s title five of the US code 552 or 522, somewhere in that area.

    Abatement says that okay we got this situation here, and the paperwork is not right, and so we’re going to stand over here until you get your paperwork straightened out, you see how that works? And so if you will straighten out your paperwork, we’ll come back. Now you know that a fiction court can’t straighten out any kind of paperwork.

    Okay so you might say, “Your honor have you received my request for a plea and abatement?” And judge is going to say, “Yeah I have it right here.” “Okay, are you prepared to abate this matter at this time?” “No.” “Are you a judge of oath of office or are you a magistrate?” “I’m a magistrate.” “Well, will your bond cover the injury that you’re fixing to incur with me because of your refusal to abate this matter?” Now this is key, the magistrate bond down in Las Vegas that we researched, was only twenty five thousand dollars. And so when we start talking to the magistrate in a traffic court you know, will your bond, is your bond big enough to cover the injury that you’re fixing to do for refusing to abate this matter? Now what do you think they’re going to do with it? They’re going to send it on over to the district court, or to the higher court up there because they have a higher bond up there, let them deal with it. So once you get into that court over there, now you’re into court of record – now you can start pressing some of these issues.

    I’ve been informed when being pulled over you should always ask questions and never answer with statements. What’s your view on this?” I think we went over how to handle a traffic stop. When he says pull over and the officer asks you to step out of the vehicle, should refrain from doing so? I personally wouldn’t. I mean I’d step out and lock the vehicle.

    Rather than registering whatever vehicle you’re using with the DMV, that you would register it with the Department of Transportation. And so the regulations regarding vehicles with DOT are different than DMV.

    There’s a fellow here, years ago in Portland, and he was a practical kind of guy. And so he got a ticket for a parking meter, and so he went out and created a subpoena, a summons and a subpoena for the parking meter, went out and wrapped it around, I mean taped it around the parking meter, went out and wrapped it around, I mean taped it around the parking meter, took the parking meter off the pole and took it into court and put it in the witness stand. So what do you want to do? How about subpoenaing the camera? See what I mean? You can have all kinds of fun with this junk if you get past the point that you believe the BS that they’re telling you. So let’s say, we got a picture of you and your car down here and here’s all this kind of stuff and you did this violation and you need to send us money. Really? Okay. How about we go down here and we subpoena the traffic camera, so bring it on in here so I can cross examine it! See what I mean? Or again you could start talking about things like chain of evidence and standing and all these other things we’ve talked about.

    And if you get a certified copy of the MSO, what are you going to do with it? Accept if for value and put it on a UCC-1. Does that demonstrate that you have superior claim to the vehicle?

    I’m going to take this vehicle out of the country and I need a certified copy of the MSO. But certainly if you do get a certified copy of the MSo, then go unregister the vehicle.

    Now what’s key here, especially when you start talking about going back to common law and what not, is to you know, if you go through a used car dealer or from a private party or something like that, get a bill of sale. Now you have to understand, that in the law a bill of sale is paramount title. Paramount title. And so if you got that bill of sale as a paramount title and you get a certified copy of the MSO, you accept all that stuff, you put it on a UCC financing statement, I mean you know, and send notices around to all the highway patrols and the sheriffs and the policemen and all that kind of stuff that hey I’m sitting on paramount title on this thing, if you pull me over I’m going to sue your socks off.

    “Is the car registration process the transfer of the MSO to DMV? Yes that’s what it is. And you do it voluntarily.

    You do it voluntarily just because you don’t know better.

    If you can’t defend your position, then don’t take the position, because you’re going to have all kinds of trouble. So get it squared up and you know, once you do understand what you position is and can defend it, why not just go and notify everybody that’s what you’re doing?

    I mean you know, send a letter and so forth down to the sheriff and down to the highway patrol and whoever you’re dealing with out in the area where you’re at. It only makes good sense, I mean why wait to get stopped you know by a policeman or something like that, get it going before that happen.

    Winston Shrout, Traffic Tickets Revealed.

     
    • kennywally

      November 10, 2013 at 1:20 AM

      one can always rebut the presumption! it’s not a bonafide contract….it’s more like an adhesion contract. ” I rebut the presumption that the state owns my vehicle, I’m not for hire, not a commercial vehicle for hire, do not tresspass, ” make it a notary presentment…..just a thought

       
      • doug

        November 12, 2013 at 7:25 AM

        Did you beg the STATE for license ??? Are you a member in good standing of the Socialist (Security) Demobocracy ??? Do you, like the fiat court, use commercial paper to transact bizness ???

        Well then, pilgrim, you are summarily guilty.

         
  2. cynthia

    November 9, 2013 at 4:03 PM

    a small growing men are ‘winning’ by a combination of various mind truths
    lawful elements of legal what i call ‘Wicker Man’
    conditional acceptance upon first hand evidence proof said ‘jurisdiction’
    objection to all judge due to conflict of interest -financial gain
    frn/usd is paying de t with debt – how can i lawfully lay without another form of debt
    and others

     
  3. Adrian

    November 9, 2013 at 4:40 PM

    There are many confused people in America today. When it comes to traffic on the public roads,
    two things are of the essence: registration and DL. Those two things puts you under corporate jurisdiction.
    Any automobile registered with the STATE is STATE property.
    DL makes you, the real man an agent for the tenant,STRAWMAN.You the agent are liable for all
    the corporate rules and regulations.
    Any penalty applied to the STRAWMAN (you) is paid of by you.
    You are doing business as (dbs) your STRAWMAN.
    Privilege is oposite to right.
    Driving is a privilege,travelling is a natural right.
    When you go to the corporate court and identify yourself with a DL you’re IN.
    Case closed.

     
    • doug

      November 12, 2013 at 7:27 AM

      You are correct-a-mundo !

       
      • Mladen (aka Mark)

        November 12, 2013 at 12:10 PM

        With respect to the comments made by Adrian and Doug, I believe both of you are correct. Your conclusions are correct and I just want to provide the real reason that you are correct.

        This all starts on the first piece of paper completed right after we are physically born. Our parents fill out a long-form STATEMENT OF BIRTH and the “Informant” parents hold a false belief that the surname is their property, which it is not, and so the informant parents make an accusation due to their false belief that misrepresents the FACT in law. Notice that nobody has any proof whatsoever that the surname is their property because it is a mere assumption. Also, note that there are two separate and distinct fields (boxes) for the two separate, distinct and opposite names (1) surname vs.(2) “Given” (FACT) name, also known as “First name” or “Fore name” or “Christian name”.

        The FACT is that the surname belongs to the state (aka government, or Caesar). The FACT is that the “Given” Christian (aka first, fore) name belongs to the child and God and the state has no jurisdiction over it on its own. The problem begins when these two opposite names are joined together and when a living individual energizes what is in FACT a legal fiction, which is a legal lie, also known as the “Strawman” or “Straminus homo”, which is part of man’s artificial world of fiction or lies.

        The reason that the two opposite names are joined together by the government is because the government can only have jurisdiction over their own property, which is the surname and the combined “Legal Name”. This is a clever subversion of justice that only a mind of a being like Satan the devil (deceiver) could come up with in order to convert the allegiance of individuals away from God so that in man’s world of fiction (lies) individuals ignorantly end up serving Satan.

        All of the talk about the man-made Constitution is a distraction from the truth. You are NOT a party to the constitution! The Constitution is only a piece of paper that is made up by one or more men to put their imagination of some fiction (lie) new creation from man’s mind on paper as if it creates something tangible, which it does not. The Constitution only created ARTIFICIAL (not real) imaginary boundary lines and lots of other imaginary rules AFTER the anterior and superior NATURAL (real) laws of God (i.e. the Ten Commandments). I have no idea where the idea of man acting as if man can be his own god, or man acting as if man could rule over other men came from if it was not from Satan the devil (deceiver) in the Garden of Eden as it is written in Genesis (the first of the 66 books of the Holy Bible). As one of the former Prime Ministers of Canada (Brian Mulroney) stated, the constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. The only thing that the man-made constitution does is to enumerate and limit the powers of various man-made divisions of man-made government. But, the constitution has nothing to do with living individuals other than to prevent artificial government from damaging any real man. A fiction (lie) cannot damage a real man.

        And, as you know, registration is notice that the property being registered is property belonging to the state. So, the act of registering the newborn child makes the “Name” of the state child state property. However, people do not realize that the state name is NOT the child’s real name. The child’s real name and proper name is the “Given” (FACT) name, which is the God-given inalienable (unalienable) Christian name, which is bestowed or gifted or granted to the child by God, which is an ACT OF GOD. An ACT OF GOD is anterior and superior to any and all of man’s laws (so-called positive laws, legislation, statutes). And, there is no provision in any law to transfer the “Given” (FACT) inalienable Christian name to any person, corporation or trust. If it is true that the theory that all of this is under Admiralty Law (i.e. the law of the sea) then the real child is considered to be abandoned by the real parents and under the admiralty laws of salvage the state (government) is presumed to have found or salvaged the child and the state claims to own the child. However, the reality is that the government-issued short-form BIRTH CERTIFICATE is a receipt for deceit since it is a FRAUD and counterfeit because it has nothing to do with the real child and it only registers the property of the state, which is the combined, merged and confused “Legal Name”.

        However, the two names making up the “Legal Name” do not belong together because they are opposites. The “Given” (FACT) inalienable Christian name which cannot be transferred (conveyed) to any person, corporation or trust, is an ACT of God and the secular government has NO JURISDICTION over it on its own.

        In order to gain jurisdiction the government joins their overhead surname to the inalienable Christian name to create something brand new, which is the combined, merged and confused “Legal Name”, which is their registered intellectual property and their registered patent as shown on the short-form (wallet-sized) BIRTH CERTIFICATE, the receipt for deceit. The BC does NOT identify a living individual and it was never meant to be used as identification. And, to be clear, both the surname and the “Legal Name” are property of the state (government, Caesar) and is you say it or if you use it you are saying or using property that does NOT belong to you. However, remember that on its own the God-given inalienable Christian name does NOT belong to the government and it is the one and only true property of the individual. Those are the FACTS in law.

        The commonly known cliché is that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and that is certainly true. If any individual is ignorant, which simply means that they lack knowledge, and if the ignorant individuals says and used the “Legal Name” for their own private gain, then the individual is really stealing from a dead estate that does not belong to them and they must pay all of the fees, duties, customs, taxes, licences or the like that go along with using property that does not belong to them. Furthermore, people ignorantly applied to use somebody else’s property and people ignorantly consent to use somebody else’s property. Therefore, ignorant people have nobody to blame but themselves because every individual is directly responsible for causing their own misery due to simple ignorance (lack of knowledge). But, there is an alternative to this and there is a remedy to all this. I’ll explain the remedy, but I doubt that very many people will accept it because it is simply too truthful and too inconvenient since it would require everybody using property that does not belong to them to give it back and abandon the lie. The truth would require that people admit that they were fooled or that they fooled themselves. The truth would require that people abandon their mere false belief which misrepresents the truth and facts in law.

        The remedy to voluntary slavery is to stop participating in the fraud and to give a good faith notice to the higher powers of government stating that you are removing your property, the inalienable Christian name, from their legal fiction (lie) “Legal Name”. Where would that leave the government? It would leave the government with only their property, which is the surname and the debt attached to it. It would force the true surety (guarantor, warrantor) to come forward to pay the bet (wager) that you would never discover this truth and FACT and they would be liable for their own fictional debt. Yes, there was no transparency, no disclosure and no meeting of the minds in this worldwide deceit. But, at the same time nobody put a gun to anybody’s head to force them to volunteer to apply for anything and nobody put a gun to anybody’s head to force anybody to consent to the lie. Satan has created the best possible form of slavery, which is voluntary slavery. It is a feudal system and the feudal lord owns the surname and the “Legal Name” and you are simply renting or leasing the use of their property for a fee simple. Stop using their property and you set yourself free after you give them good faith notice of such. Now, there was unjust enrichment as a result of what has occurred in you life up until you do this, and Jesus Christ died for all believers so that they would not have to participate in the fraud of man’s make-believe (pretend, artificial, not real) secular society. This truly is a leap of faith because it requires every individual to make a choice between God and His real world and man and man’s world of fiction (lies) as created and directed by Satan and his demons, which only have temporary dominion over the secular surname and the secular “Legal NAME”. As the key question is asked in the Indiana Jones movie, “What do you believe?”. Will it be FACT or fiction?
        —– Mladen (child52of144@hotmail.com)
        —– For more information, watch 61 A – Coming out of the FRAUD (Part 1 of 3) at

         
    • Mladen (aka Mark)

      November 12, 2013 at 12:09 PM

      With respect to the comments made by Adrian and Doug, I believe both of you are correct. Your conclusions are correct and I just want to provide the real reason that you are correct.

      This all starts on the first piece of paper completed right after we are physically born. Our parents fill out a long-form STATEMENT OF BIRTH and the “Informant” parents hold a false belief that the surname is their property, which it is not, and so the informant parents make an accusation due to their false belief that misrepresents the FACT in law. Notice that nobody has any proof whatsoever that the surname is their property because it is a mere assumption. Also, note that there are two separate and distinct fields (boxes) for the two separate, distinct and opposite names (1) surname vs.(2) “Given” (FACT) name, also known as “First name” or “Fore name” or “Christian name”.

      The FACT is that the surname belongs to the state (aka government, or Caesar). The FACT is that the “Given” Christian (aka first, fore) name belongs to the child and God and the state has no jurisdiction over it on its own. The problem begins when these two opposite names are joined together and when a living individual energizes what is in FACT a legal fiction, which is a legal lie, also known as the “Strawman” or “Straminus homo”, which is part of man’s artificial world of fiction or lies.

      The reason that the two opposite names are joined together by the government is because the government can only have jurisdiction over their own property, which is the surname and the combined “Legal Name”. This is a clever subversion of justice that only a mind of a being like Satan the devil (deceiver) could come up with in order to convert the allegiance of individuals away from God so that in man’s world of fiction (lies) individuals ignorantly end up serving Satan.

      All of the talk about the man-made Constitution is a distraction from the truth. You are NOT a party to the constitution! The Constitution is only a piece of paper that is made up by one or more men to put their imagination of some fiction (lie) new creation from man’s mind on paper as if it creates something tangible, which it does not. The Constitution only created ARTIFICIAL (not real) imaginary boundary lines and lots of other imaginary rules AFTER the anterior and superior NATURAL (real) laws of God (i.e. the Ten Commandments). I have no idea where the idea of man acting as if man can be his own god, or man acting as if man could rule over other men came from if it was not from Satan the devil (deceiver) in the Garden of Eden as it is written in Genesis (the first of the 66 books of the Holy Bible). As one of the former Prime Ministers of Canada (Brian Mulroney) stated, the constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. The only thing that the man-made constitution does is to enumerate and limit the powers of various man-made divisions of man-made government. But, the constitution has nothing to do with living individuals other than to prevent artificial government from damaging any real man. A fiction (lie) cannot damage a real man.

      And, as you know, registration is notice that the property being registered is property belonging to the state. So, the act of registering the newborn child makes the “Name” of the state child state property. However, people do not realize that the state name is NOT the child’s real name. The child’s real name and proper name is the “Given” (FACT) name, which is the God-given inalienable (unalienable) Christian name, which is bestowed or gifted or granted to the child by God, which is an ACT OF GOD. An ACT OF GOD is anterior and superior to any and all of man’s laws (so-called positive laws, legislation, statutes). And, there is no provision in any law to transfer the “Given” (FACT) inalienable Christian name to any person, corporation or trust. If it is true that the theory that all of this is under Admiralty Law (i.e. the law of the sea) then the real child is considered to be abandoned by the real parents and under the admiralty laws of salvage the state (government) is presumed to have found or salvaged the child and the state claims to own the child. However, the reality is that the government-issued short-form BIRTH CERTIFICATE is a receipt for deceit since it is a FRAUD and counterfeit because it has nothing to do with the real child and it only registers the property of the state, which is the combined, merged and confused “Legal Name”.

      However, the two names making up the “Legal Name” do not belong together because they are opposites. The “Given” (FACT) inalienable Christian name which cannot be transferred (conveyed) to any person, corporation or trust, is an ACT of God and the secular government has NO JURISDICTION over it on its own.

      In order to gain jurisdiction the government joins their overhead surname to the inalienable Christian name to create something brand new, which is the combined, merged and confused “Legal Name”, which is their registered intellectual property and their registered patent as shown on the short-form (wallet-sized) BIRTH CERTIFICATE, the receipt for deceit. The BC does NOT identify a living individual and it was never meant to be used as identification. And, to be clear, both the surname and the “Legal Name” are property of the state (government, Caesar) and is you say it or if you use it you are saying or using property that does NOT belong to you. However, remember that on its own the God-given inalienable Christian name does NOT belong to the government and it is the one and only true property of the individual. Those are the FACTS in law.

      The commonly known cliché is that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and that is certainly true. If any individual is ignorant, which simply means that they lack knowledge, and if the ignorant individuals says and used the “Legal Name” for their own private gain, then the individual is really stealing from a dead estate that does not belong to them and they must pay all of the fees, duties, customs, taxes, licences or the like that go along with using property that does not belong to them. Furthermore, people ignorantly applied to use somebody else’s property and people ignorantly consent to use somebody else’s property. Therefore, ignorant people have nobody to blame but themselves because every individual is directly responsible for causing their own misery due to simple ignorance (lack of knowledge). But, there is an alternative to this and there is a remedy to all this. I’ll explain the remedy, but I doubt that very many people will accept it because it is simply too truthful and too inconvenient since it would require everybody using property that does not belong to them to give it back and abandon the lie. The truth would require that people admit that they were fooled or that they fooled themselves. The truth would require that people abandon their mere false belief which misrepresents the truth and facts in law.

      The remedy to voluntary slavery is to stop participating in the fraud and to give a good faith notice to the higher powers of government stating that you are removing your property, the inalienable Christian name, from their legal fiction (lie) “Legal Name”. Where would that leave the government? It would leave the government with only their property, which is the surname and the debt attached to it. It would force the true surety (guarantor, warrantor) to come forward to pay the bet (wager) that you would never discover this truth and FACT and they would be liable for their own fictional debt. Yes, there was no transparency, no disclosure and no meeting of the minds in this worldwide deceit. But, at the same time nobody put a gun to anybody’s head to force them to volunteer to apply for anything and nobody put a gun to anybody’s head to force anybody to consent to the lie. Satan has created the best possible form of slavery, which is voluntary slavery. It is a feudal system and the feudal lord owns the surname and the “Legal Name” and you are simply renting or leasing the use of their property for a fee simple. Stop using their property and you set yourself free after you give them good faith notice of such. Now, there was unjust enrichment as a result of what has occurred in you life up until you do this, and Jesus Christ died for all believers so that they would not have to participate in the fraud of man’s make-believe (pretend, artificial, not real) secular society. This truly is a leap of faith because it requires every individual to make a choice between God and His real world and man and man’s world of fiction (lies) as created and directed by Satan and his demons, which only have temporary dominion over the secular surname and the secular “Legal NAME”. As the key question is asked in the Indiana Jones movie, “What do you believe?”. Will it be FACT or fiction?
      —– Mladen (child52of144@hotmail.com)
      —– For more information, watch 61 A – Coming out of the FRAUD (Part 1 of 3) at

       
  4. tjdri1@comcast.net

    November 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM

    Was stopped about a month ago. The cop stood outside the passenger door while the other sat in his vehicle checking my background, registration and other material. Finally, I asked the cop who was standing next to the car, “Am I under arrest?” He said, “No, detained by Police” at which point I said, “Thanks, I’m leaving and I don’t give a damn what you do!” Later they found me and gave me a warning ticket which was totally completed. I shouldn’t have but did finally accept the damn warning ticket. Hope this is of some value in restoring some faith in our system. No one seems to know what in the hell is going on.

     
  5. Onlashuk

    November 9, 2013 at 5:13 PM

    “Under the pretext of “emergency,” the laws are suspended and the occifer may be thereby empowered to do whatever he likes. For example, it might be illegal to drive more than 15 MPH on a one way street in a school zone. But if someone is shooting at you and creating an “emergency,” you have the right to drive at 50 MPH in reverse, going the wrong way on the one-way street in order to avoid being shot or killed. In the context of an emergency, normal laws are suspended and the only principle that I know of is “survival.”

    Exactly! When Abraham Lincoln declared a STATE OF EMERGENCY after Congress had adjourned sine die he did so as, “Command In Chief,” not as President of the United States through the Office of President. That Office along with all Constitutional Offices were and still remain suspended under that STATE OF EMERGENCY. And, unless that STATE OF EMERGENCY is repealed it will remain in full force and affect. One question that I have is, how could Abraham Lincoln lawfully declare that STATE OF EMERGENCY if all the Offices had been suspended the moment that Congress walked out sine die? In would appear that the Office of Command in Chief would also be suspended as well. Yet, the declaration for the STATE OF EMERGENCY was and still is in full force and affect. This may only be a technicality, but what Lincoln did in making that declaration was both illegal, as well as unlawful because his authority to make that declaration through his Office was also suspended at that moment, but no one called him out on that.

    So then, can it be concluded that the flashing lights of an alleged LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER is actual PUBLIC NOTICE of a PRIVATE CONTRACTING OFFICER’S intent to operate under color-of-law statutes and codes for the benefit of a private for-profit corporation? Can it be concluded that said flashing lights actually reveal said PRIVATE CONTRACTING OFFICER’S intent to suspend all of his/her lawful duties that they would normally be bound to perform under, per their oath of office as a Lawful Peace Officer in honor of, “Serving and protecting,” the PUBLIC TRUST? Can it be concluded that by this action has revealed their intent to use the authority they have been empowered with by the Will of the people against the Will of the people, because of putting the interest of a private for-profit corporation ahead of their lawful duty to protect everyone’s interest in the PUBLIC TRUST as they go about their private business? Does this micro-declared STATE OF EMERGENCY actually establish the intention of the one declaring it as not intending to protect the users of the PUBLIC TRUST honorably, and their Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness, because there is no actual party in interest that will sign under penalties of perjury an affidavit claim that they have a legitimate and valid claim for harm, damaged, loss, or have been injured in any fashion? The last I knew, it was impossible to harm a fiction, it is possible that I was wrong?

     
  6. Mladen

    November 9, 2013 at 5:17 PM

    Here is a totally different perspective on things. |n law, the only thing that matters is the FACT(S) that can be proven. But, as we know, the “Legal” (artificial) language is written to confuse and deceive, and so what is “Truth” can also include a mere false belief that misrepresents the facts. I hope you understood this key point because if you did not you will not understand the rest.

    What if the combined (merged and confused) “Legal name” is made up of two opposites? One name is true and fact, and the other name is an error. One name represents a man, woman or child. But, if the opposite and unnecessary “Addition” or Sur-name is attached it represents something not real (artificial), and perhaps even an animal (beast). Would that not change the nature of what is real and what is fiction (and a fiction is a LIE)? Well, that is exactly what happens when people do not know WHO they are —– and WHAT they are not.

    In law, the FACT is that the “Given” name(s) (aka first name, fore name, or Christian name) is NOT transferrable to any person, corporation or trust; and any document pretending to transfer or attach the Christian (aka first, fore, given) name is INVALID. What does this mean? IT MEANS THAT THE COMBINED (MERGED & CONFUSED) “LEGAL NAME” ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS MERELY A RECEIPT FOR DECEIT AND IT REPRESENTS AN ARTIFICIAL ENTITY, NOT A LIVING MAN OR WOMAN OR CHILD!

    Spiritually speaking, the God-given inalienable (unalienable) Christian name is under the grace of God. And, the opposite surname is legal (artificial) property that does not belong to any living individual because the artificial surname belongs to the government (state, CAESAR) (under a little dead Latin language term called “Eminent Domain”).

    Unfortunately, most people have no time to do their own independent research or due diligence and so they just follow and do what everybody else is doing. But, what if the critical masses are doing everything wrong? Would it be OK to follow the critical mass if they are doing everything wrong? So, if we have NO PROOF that the surname or the combined (merged and confused) “Legal name” is our property, then why would we use it? Would that not be stealing? And, if the “Legal name” is the property of a stranger then would it not be reasonable and logical to expect to have to pay some sort of fee for its use (e.g. rent, lease, custom, duty, tax, licence, etc.)? The obvious answer is “Yes”.

    The sad truth and FACT is that the surname and the combined (merged and confused) “Legal name” is NOT your property. Therefore, the name on THE (not yours) BIRTH CERTIFICATE is also NOT your property. That means that you used property belonging to someone else for your own selfish private gain, which is theft and a tort (damage) because you stole from an estate that does not belong to you. That is the FACT and reality that almost everyone does not understand.

    Most people used the receipt for deceit (i.e. BIRTH CERTIFICATE), which is fraud, as a witness against themselves by applying to a third party for a 9-digit Social Security Number (USA) [called a Social Insurance Number in Canada]. This third party is also the creditor (i.e. private bank, also known as the FEDERAL RESERVE or BANK OF CANADA or BUNDESBANK, etc.) that lend their debt money from the private into the public government. After all, all de facto fictionally sovereign nations of man’s world are completely bankrupt! Actually, they are worse then bankrupt when you consider the un-payable sums of fictional debt money that they all owe to some unnamed entity.

    So, let’s step back and summarize the 3 players in the game:
    (1) Ignorant individuals (real men and women).
    (2) Bankrupt de facto governments operating by military rule (aka “Stratocracy”). And,
    (3) Third party creditor (aka private banks who operate the Social Security System and their private collections agency that they call the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) [Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in Canada]. This is the “Timocracy” that God has given a limited period of time to operate.

    Everything I have described above is a FACT and shows how man’s secular world of fiction (lies) operates. This is the modern version of the exact same false offer given by the father of the lie, Satan the devil (deceiver) in the Garden of Eden and the false offer was, “Do you want to believe that you can be a god too?” The modern version of this false offer is facilitated by the government (state, Caesar) via the standardized worldwide VITAL STATISTICS ACT and the UNITED NATIONS (which are quite dis-united) and the birth registration process that births some “Thing” that is dead, not real, and it is the “Legal Name” as shown on the wallet-sized BIRTH CERTIFICATE. The sad truth, reality and FACT is that every individual that uses this receipt for deceit has voluntarily and by consent joined a FRAUD. But, fraud is not fraud as long as you continue to participate in it. The remedy to the FRAUD is to stop using it.

    If you want to stop participating in the fraud then here is what you must know and do. Remember, that every individual born is “Given” a proper, real, Christian name by their parents upon their physical birth and that “Given” name is a FACT. The surname that is only on paper is NOT a fact and it is a mistake or error which belongs to the government and which has been pledged as collateral (chattel) to the third-party private bankers against the government’s debt. Those that use the surname and the combined merged and confused “Legal Name” are using property that belongs to a stranger and they must pay for it use. But, for true Christian believers they know that God’s graced pardon was to come down as a flesh and bone man in the form of Jesus the Christ (anointed, Messiah, Saviour, Lord, King) and his one-time blood and death sacrifice was an acceptable one-time substitute sacrifice that redeemed and purchase us and paid for all our sins —– BUT ONLY IF WE ACCEPT GOD’S PREORDAINED PARDON.

    So, the choice is simple, if you want to be the surety (guarantor, warrantor) for the debt of somebody else you can voluntarily apply to be attached to unbelievers who have no covenant with God by using the artificial receipt for deceit (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) to get a 9-digit private social insurance number from the third-party creditors so that you can falsely believe that you are your own god and so that you can pay the debt of a stranger. But, the debt can never be paid off and Satan’s false offer gives you absolutely nothing.

    The alternative is to realize the FACT and to stop participating in the fraud. You have a God-given Christian name that is your property and you can remove your Christian name from the combined merged and confused artificial fiction (lie) surname. What is left after this division? The foundation or capital that is in your Christian name is separated because it is your one and only personal property in FACT and law. Caesar (government, or the state) is left with their worthless surname which has been pledged to the third-party bankers against the government’s debt. As additional detail, when property is abandoned under man-made insurance law or the law of the sea, the abandoned property becomes the property of the insurance company and the insurance. Also, the unnamed individual who gambled on your life that you would never discover this truth and FACT would have to come forward to cover their “Wager” or bet and they would have to surety (guaranty, warranty) their surname and the “Legal name” that it is attached to and pay for their property. In the end, Satan does not outwit God and good wins over evil.

    To understand the above one must read and understand the entire Authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible and one must be a true Christian believer. There is no other solution and all those individuals who use their free will to deny God the Father and the remedy through His only begotten Son of God, Christ Jesus, are simply out of luck. It is truly a matter of faith and every individual must exercise his or her faith muscle and decide whether to side what is real and FACT under God, or stay and play in the miserable world of fiction (lies) created by Satan the devil, the father of the lie, and the temporary ruler of man’s artificial secular world.

    At this point of time we have posted 61 videos explaining all this in great detail on our YouTube channel [ ChristianRemedyInLaw ]. My intent in sharing this information is to provide people with simple and understandable truth and FACT. As always, every individual can use his or her free will choice to accept or reject this knowledge and FACT as we all are responsible for the cause of our own misery or redemption. Thanks for taking the time to read the one and only remedy to the voluntary and consensual bondage (slavery) of man created by the mind of the first creature to betray God, Satan the devil.
    —— Christian name Mladen ( EMAIL: child52of144@hotmail.com )
    To see COMING OUT OF THE FRAUD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMYgPII0Q4A

     
    • Fritz

      January 31, 2015 at 4:52 AM

      Mladen, you say, The FACT is that the surname belongs to the state (aka government, or Caesar).

      Mladen, aka, Mark, did the surnames of the Founding Fathers belong to the state (aka government, or Caesar) ? I mean, like the names & surnames appear on the Statute of 1776 and the 1787 Constitution for the United States of America. Yeah, those names & surnames.

       
  7. Jetlag

    November 9, 2013 at 6:24 PM

    Considering how much the police state and other violations depend on these fake states of emergency, maybe that’s the strategic point where our attention should be directed, to restore the Republic.

    So how about some candidates for state and federal office, and maybe a third party, with a platform of ending all trumped-up states of emergency that have suspended the People’s law? Even if no candidate running on this idea won an election, the publicity alone could be a game changer.

    A campaign to END THE EMERGENCY would be an easy sell once the American public is informed of the existence and effects of these emergencies at every level of government.

     
  8. palani

    November 9, 2013 at 7:03 PM

    A simple remedy? Pick up the cell phone and dial 911. When they ask “what is your emergency” you respond “what is YOUR emergency? I have a quasi-official car behind me with its emergency lights on and I am afraid of being tased or shot if I stop. Could you dispatch the sheriff to protect me from roadside bandits?”

     
    • Martens

      November 9, 2013 at 8:04 PM

      Simple? Yes. A remedy? No.

      911 is not going to dispatch a sheriff to protect you from getting pulled over by the police. This is not one of their options.

      A more plausible plan would be to write Santa Claus for a remedy after the fact. Someone might read your letter, feel sorry for you, and offer to help.

       
      • Adask

        November 9, 2013 at 8:17 PM

        Even if calling 911 is not a remedy, I wonder if it might not be useful as a way of creating evidence that you disagree with the traffic cop’s assessment that there is an emergency. I.e., if you called 911 to dispute the existence of an emergency (other than one being created by the traffic cop), you’d be creating admissible evidence that no emergency existed until the traffic cop turned on his emergency lights.

        One other point: calling 911 without an emergency to report can result in fines in some venues. So you might want to be careful about denying the existence of ANY emergency, but instead deny that any present emergency was falsely or fraudulently created by the traffic cop when he turned on his emergency lights. That YOU didn’t have an emergency until the traffic cop created one.

         
      • palani

        November 9, 2013 at 9:37 PM

        @ Martens
        I craft my own remedy. Why do you not provide your own remedy for the situation discussed? How do you craft yours?

        Is 911 going to dispatch a sheriff? If they don’t and a criminal act occurs am I responsible because they didn’t choose to respond to a simple request? I can’t actually cause them to respond but if the request is made and they DON’T respond they really can’t come back later and make any claims as to their responsiveness.

        @ Alfred
        911 is to be used for emergency communications. The lights behind you proclaim an emergency. Seems fair to inquire as to what the emergency actually is if you are the focus. If they just want you to pull over so they can pass (i.e., someone elses emergency) I would propose doing just that.

         
      • Martens

        November 9, 2013 at 9:40 PM

        Sure, creating evidence to support your “non-emergency” argument is a good idea, though I would not expect using 911 for this purpose to go over well in court.

        The counter-argument will of course be that that you did have an emergency, whether you knew it or not. The emergency you had was the one you created by speeding. The cop who pulled you over was responding to, not creating, the emergency.

         
      • Martens

        November 9, 2013 at 9:50 PM

        palani:

        There is no remedy to getting pulled over. The entire population recognizes that allowing people to “craft a remedy” to obeying law enforcement acting in the line of duty would give the green light to criminals to simply disregard the police. Nobody except the disruptive element in society wants this to happen.

         
      • palani

        November 9, 2013 at 9:58 PM

        @ Martens “There is no remedy to getting pulled over.”

        Nonsense. When it comes to rights violated there is always going to be a remedy.

        REMEDY. The means employed to enforce a right or redress an injury.

        Now that remedy does not necessarily have to be IMMEDIATE. The remedy might come a week or two later or it might come years later. But if you actually had a right or an injury then there is going to be a remedy.

        If you desire to be proactive about the thing (and recognizing that most people do confuse remedy with monetary reimbursement) you might cause to be published a legal notice to law enforcement in general … the the effect that non-emergencies that cause your rights to be violated or cause you injury will be billed at a grand an hour. Go through the usual procedures of getting a publishers notarized statement, record it and provide an address for a response. Even send a copy to the local gendarmes and the state and federal boyz. See whether they choose to engage you in any counteroffers.

         
      • Martens

        November 9, 2013 at 10:15 PM

        “When it comes to rights violated there is always going to be a remedy.”

        You don’t have a right to not get pulled over. If you claim such a right, no court or jury will recognize it. The ability of the police to investigate with cause is universally recognized as essential to law enforcement.

        If they then proceed to beat you up for no reason, that’s a different story.

         
      • palani

        November 10, 2013 at 7:11 AM

        @ Martens “You don’t have a right to not get pulled over.”
        With all due respect I don’t believe I have assigned you as an agent to determine what my rights are. “So, if I my selfe shall be found here and there to dissent in opinion from other men, I desire that my good meaning be not evill interpreted, that my allegations and reasons be weighed indifferently, and that the respect of my person bring no prejudice to the thing in question.”

         
  9. Burt

    November 9, 2013 at 7:38 PM

    There’s some truth in all the comments here so far and in the main article, however the most important point here to address is “status”, political status that is. Everyone in this “United States” is either a subject or a subject manager. Everyone in these “states united” is free, the problem is that the “states” are vacant and populated with US Congress created persons.
    We discuss these issues and more
    http://www.onlyfreemen.com
    Burt

     
  10. Joe L'Amarca

    November 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM

    there is one word that they have left out !
    We The People allowed the insurance company to tell us any lie that they want ., and we belive them the word Emergency protect the window of the insurance company and it derived from hamilton , ask Arron Burr he shot hamilton because of admiralty law/insurance , on the mississippi river , he though that we should have insurance that if Burr shipping company lost his or anyone’s valuble cargo , the insurance company would pay for the loss does that sound familiar ? car insurance home insurace health , medical life INSURACE GEE WITH ALL OF THOSE INSURANCE THEY CAN CHARGE US FOREVER BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO DIE !! WHO NEEDS GOD ???? .
    the police power only does one thing and that is to protect the window of the insurance company ! now do the research on the W T C what did lloyd of england tell the port authoraty when they wanted a permit to remove the asbestos out of the world trade centresnope ? and a demolation permit nope ???? I am like you ! I dint know how far they would go to bribe our public servants to keep their yep shut or how many people they would kill !!!
    here is the math formula 1=bribery , 2 = murder , 3 = wars , 4 = lies , .5 = cover ups [.
    over what ? legalized counterfit debt notes ? how silly of you !!!
    Forget all the bull and wake up ! We The People need a few Grand Jury in each districtand court Jurisdiction and any politician’s currupted judges , Dr. and or public servants gets out of line hang the B’ds NEXT !!!

     
  11. Onlashuk

    November 9, 2013 at 9:02 PM

    “Similarly, when an “emergency vehicle” (ambulance or fire truck) is flashing its “emergency lights,” that vehicle is exempt from normal traffic laws and can speed, run traffic lights and stop signs or drive the wrong way up one-way streets. Again, a “state of emergency” can excuse people from obeying ordinary laws. So a “state of emergency” can effectively suspend ordinary laws.”

    ————————————–

    Why can’t we declare a STATE OF EMERGENCY when it comes to the PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS attempting to bring Us into a unilateral contract against our wishes, will and consent, and thus suspend their presumption that there has ever been any kind of agreement, (Meeting of the Minds) that we voluntarily agreed to perform to do any thing, or any kind of duty fiduciary or otherwise, in and under the jurisdiction of any policy and/or private for-profit corporations statutes and codes, for the benefit of that corporation ONLY, at the loss of my Right of Self-Determination, Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Why not turn the tables around on them and do the same thing right back at them using their own tactic?

    Why can’t this be done for any court case wherein one deposits an AFFIDAVIT AND DECLARATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF EMERGENCY based upon any and/or ALL presumptions that one has willingly given up and/or surrendered any and/or all of their God Given Rights including that of the Right of Self-Determination and especially their Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, as well as their Right to Define and Declare their Nationality as stipulated and protected by International Law and Treaties. Such a declared STATE OF EMERGENCY would also carry with it the power nullify all presumptions of any pledge to serve the laws of men before the laws of nature and natures God. In so doing, it would make it clearly known to whom one has pledged their Life; and therefore, to whom and whose law one has determined to serve under their own right of self determination. Furthermore, emphasize the fact that in making such declaration they are now present with the knowledge of their wish, will and intent, and are responsible for that knowledge not to violate it, because you have no intention of violating the maxim, “No man can serve two masters,” and do not give any consent to such an unconscionable act.

    Since it was in the interest of whomever to suspend the Laws that the people had ordained and blessed to protect all equally by and through declaring a STATE OF EMERGENCY, then why can’t any Living Soul do that to protect their interest when a privateer working for a for-profit corporation comes at them, firstly tempting them to testify against themselves, and secondly coercing them with threats of intimidation, incarceration, and using duress to achieve their unlawful and illegal objectives for personal gain at the expense of the private natural individuals rights, against all the laws of nature and natures God.

    Why not suspend THEIR so-called LAWS with our own declaration of the existence of a STATE OF EMERGENCY based upon the fact that the so-called public official is not acting under their oath of office as they are supposed to be, which can be interpreted as an act of treason against the Will of the people. If a CORPORATION can suspend the Laws ordained and blessed by the Will of the people by a declaration of a STATE OF EMERGENCY, then it is crystal clear that a Living Soul can do exactly the same thing, and even greater things, because a Living Soul will always be greater than any dead entity corporation private or not. Or, again, is it possible that I am completely wrong with this line of thinking?

    If I am correct, then the people can declare a STATE OF EMERGENCY based upon the fact that the STATE OF EMERGENCY declared by then PRESIDENT/COMMANDER IN CHIEF ABRAHAM LINCOLN has never been repealed, and the fact that it has not been repealed this long after it was declared is clear evidence of a criminal willful negligent attempt to suborn the Living Souls into voluntary servitude, involuntarily through false pretenses, while making it look like these choices were never manipulated and done of their own freewill act and deed, as this would allow for the criminals to escape the consequences for their unlawful and illegal actions. Is it possible that declaring a STATE OF EMERGENCY on our own behalf for any attempt by any corporate cloaked officer/official would indeed suspend their so-called laws, and allow us to bring in our own laws, or at least form a real and actual BI-LATERAL contract with benefits for all involved?

     
    • Adask

      November 9, 2013 at 10:18 PM

      I’m reading some case law on emergencies, and I see that some emergencies are within the context of “national security,” others are within the context of the “economy”. There are other examples. My point is that an emergency can probably be declared to exist in almost any context ranging from my bathroom all the way up to globe.

      So, let’s suppose I declared an “emergency” within the borders of “The State of Texas” or within “The United States of America”. Suppose that “emergency” was the existence of some sort of “private corporations” masquerading as governments of The State of Texas. Could my “declaration of an emergency” within “The State” work to somehow impede the emergency forces of “this state”? Could my own “emergency” somehow nullify any emergency declared by the gov-co of “this state”?

      I don’t mean that by declaring an emergency within “The State,” that I’d expect to stop the “police” of “this state” from giving me a ticket, arresting me, etc. But if I could subsequently demonstrate to a court that I’d declared my own emergency in in venue other than that of “this state,” would I be raising an issue that “this state” would not want to confront on the public record? Would “this state” be thereby inclined to drop any charges against me?

      In the alternative, what if–instead of declaring my own state of emergency–I instead declared a state of NO emergency? If I declared a a state of NO emergency under pains and penalties of perjury on an affidavit, and I presented that affidavit to the traffic cop or later introduced that affidavit into the court record–could the government produce one or more witnesses who would swear on oath on the record that a State of emergency really existed?

      What if I had my affidavit, and the affidavits of at least two others whereby we all swore that no general state of emergency existed within The State of Texas. Would the traffic cop be thereby compelled to produce evidence that a micro-state of emergency existed at the time and place where I was stopped and given a traffic ticket.

      These kinds of questions may be insightful or silly.

      But, the first order of business is to discover if the issuance of traffic tickets are actually dependent on the presence of a local, state-wide, or national “state of emergency”. Do I even need a drivers license outside of a “state of emergency”?

       
    • Yartap

      November 9, 2013 at 11:13 PM

      A “Declaration of a State of Emergency” as a legal document by We the People – I like it!

      But, right now, our remedy is the 1st Amendment’s Right to petition for a redress of grievances.

       
      • Yartap

        November 9, 2013 at 11:17 PM

        Al,

        The Right to Petition includes under its umbrella the right to SUE the government.

         
      • Anthony Clifton

        November 11, 2013 at 4:14 AM

        eventually the BLINDERS must be taken off….TO SEE..

        – VS – {NOTSEE}….get it ?

        http://biblehub.com/zephaniah/3-9.htm

        here is a little test…try to spot the TALMUDIC TERRORISTS in this “court”

        http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Prayeri

        remember what Jesus said in Matthew 13…

        http://rwainwright.com/images/Waco_SLIDESHOW_2_Int.mov

        “gnashing of teeth”….

         
      • Fritz

        January 31, 2015 at 5:18 AM

        Yartap,You say,
        @ > But, right now, our remedy is the 1st Amendment’s Right to petition for a redress of grievances.

        I agree we have the right to petition for a redress of grievance, but it appears they have the right or

        power or something not to hear, or ignore our petition. They just simply decide to hear or not hear

        our petitions. Am having a mental block but there is a phrase they use that “explains” this..NOT why

        they will or will not hear our petition, the phrase just says Petition denied, if I remember correctly.

        No reason is given, but, yeah, we can petition alright.We have a Constitutional right to petition, but

        we don’t seem to have a Constitutiona right that our petitions will be heard & adjudicated upon.

         
    • Jetlag

      November 9, 2013 at 11:35 PM

      “Why not suspend THEIR so-called LAWS with our own declaration of the existence of a STATE OF EMERGENCY based upon the fact that the so-called public official is not acting under their oath of office as they are supposed to be…”

      Who exactly would issue “our own” declaration of emergency, a mob rioting in the streets? Or would the mob elect someone to do it?

      The emergency we have already was declared by someone we elected to represent us. So we already have one out of control representative with a state of emergency.

      Before we put the future of our Constitution in doubt by stepping outside the rule of law to appoint additional representatives with additional states of emergency, perhaps we should learn to control the representatives we already have.

       
    • Onlashuk

      November 10, 2013 at 12:52 AM

      “Why not suspend THEIR so-called LAWS with your own declaration of the existence of a STATE OF EMERGENCY based upon the fact that the so-called public official is not acting under their oath of office as they are supposed to be, which can be interpreted as an act of treason against the Will of the people. If a CORPORATION can suspend the Laws ordained and blessed by the Will of the people by a declaration of a STATE OF EMERGENCY, then it is crystal clear that a Living Soul can do exactly the same thing, and even greater things, because a Living Soul will always be greater than any dead entity corporation private or not. Or, again, is it possible that I am completely wrong with this line of thinking?”

      If one does not speak for themselves in regards to the Rights that they have, thus recognizing, acknowledging and accepting said Rights and all duties and responsibilities associated with such, . . . then they have none. However, if it is deemed by some that they need to appoint a “representative” for themselves to perform such acts and deeds, then let them have what they want, and let the folly of such actions be revealed mercifully. As for me and my house . . . I will speak for it and stand upon the foundation of that which I know. To clarify my point, and what I think is the general direction of this excellent blog and comments, declaring a STATE OF EMERGENCY is a concept that should not be used by the neophyte, or taken and used haphazardly. Therefore, if one’s heart is prepared properly with a strength of knowledge bolstered by an unshakeable foundation of the truth of their identity, then by all means use this knowledge wisely, and not as a weapon to destroy the peace, but to establish and maintain the peace, for I have a vested interest in maintaining the peace of the PUBLIC TRUST regardless of those that are serving the PUBLIC TRUST who appear to be in the mist of a conflict of interest.

       
  12. Yartap

    November 9, 2013 at 11:18 PM

    Al, the emergency is that governments are broke and they need your money! Ha! Ha!.

    But really, all I have found in my state’s code is the reasons for using of audio and flashing lights. And one of those reasons is the pursuing of law violators. The authorized vehicles ,when flashing, are allowed to violate certain traffic laws. Emergency is not defined in our traffic codes.

    When one signs up for a driver’s license, he or she removes the Right to travel for the privilege to travel upon the roadways in a commercial capacity by contract (the driver’s license). Now, by contract, one allows the legal process of citation (complaint and notice) to proceed for possible trial or fine. Without a contract (driver’s license) or reciprocal agreement between states, the right of travel is returned and jurisdiction is denied.

     
  13. Damon

    November 9, 2013 at 11:27 PM

    Reblogged this on Awakestate.

     
  14. Jim on Oregon

    November 10, 2013 at 12:14 AM

    Very interesting, insightful, and intriguing post and replies by ALL! Some exciting strategies to pursue. Great work! This will be another Adask classic.

     
  15. Martens

    November 10, 2013 at 3:48 AM

    Actually, declaring your own counter-emergency sounds promising. It would be a battle of the emergencies.

    Whichever side has the bigger emergency, wins.

    There is precedence for this in traffic situations like the justified running of a red light, speeding out of necessity, etc. And it’s known to sometimes work.

    The strategy of BYOE (Bring Your Own Emergency) would be considered an affirmative defense.

     
    • palani

      November 10, 2013 at 10:15 AM

      @ Martens
      I believe there was just a case such as this in Missouri. A house on fire with a 3 year old trapped inside. The step father attempted to enter the house to save the child and got tazed 3x for his effort (twice while handcuffed). So perhaps it seems like declaring your own emergency is going to come with its own penalty.

       
  16. medicis

    November 10, 2013 at 1:20 PM

    one of the very best ‘Adasks’ I have read…

     
  17. Mladen

    November 10, 2013 at 2:21 PM

    In all due respect, the original topic of “Emergency” and most of the commentaries presume that individuals have some sort of right. What if individuals have no rights? What is individuals only have a merely false belief in some rights that actually do not exist? Consider the following. If the surname (which is opposite to the “Given” or FACT Christian name), and if the combined (merged and confused ) “Legal Name”, is/are NOT your property, would reason and logic dictate that you have NO RIGHTS over it? The “Strawman” (aka “Legal Name” or “Legal Fiction”, which is a legal LIE) is NOT you and it is NOT your property. You have no rights over it because it represents someone taking over the surety (guarantor, warrantor) position for some anonyumous stranger that owns the surname and the “Legal Name” under a feudal lord relationship. In the past people were under a feudal system with a feudal lord that rented the land to the feudal slaves/serfs/servants. Today the land, or property, has been replaced by the new property, which is the “Legal Name” that you do NOT own because it is the property of a stranger. To be clear, you only rent or least the “Legal name” because it belongs to another and that is why you must pay a fee, rent, lease, duty, custom, tax, licence, etc. for its use.
    —– Mladen ( EMAIL: child52of144@hotmail.com)
    [ for more greatly detailed information see ChristianRemedyInLaw channel on YouTube}
    —- Thanks for reading a different perspective.

     
  18. Adrian

    November 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM

    Is nice to practice your speech on the net but the fact remains the same: America is under military
    ocupation and the law of the land is Martial Law.It’s ben like this seence the end of the war between
    UNITED STATES and The South Cofederation Of America.
    The police force in every STATE is under US control.
    There is no Civil Governing body around here.You live under Law Martial.
    NWO got a good grip on America. Americans are very misinformed and divided.
    Without knowing,most of Americans are supporting the status quo.
    CHURCH=STATE and THEIR motto is: IN GOD WE TRUST.
    That GOD is your master,IT gave you no rights but privileges and duties.
    How do you like to live it’s up to you.
    We all were born free,the trap was set in front of us.

     
  19. Martens

    November 10, 2013 at 6:52 PM

    palani,

    I was interpreting Prof. Adask’s counter-emergency as an after-the-fact courtroom strategy. The tased man in Missouri would be a different situation.

    Declaring a counter-emergency would not be something I’d recommend for use in the field to preempt the police doing what they think is their job. Neither the police nor the jury are likely to sympathize if you try this type of coup.

    In the opinion of the common man, the social order, and the appointed guardians of that order, must be sustained at all costs, or anarchy’s law of the jungle will disrupt and shorten his life. This explains why he gives police and judges so much, and the disruptive elements in society so little, benefit of the doubt.

    If the disruptive elements in society presented a better case, things might be different. Such was the case in the 19th and 20th centuries, when they perpetrated a long series of revolutions. But the current manifestation of their pitch – what is humorously known as “free market” oligarchism – has come across as more flimsy and pompous than rigorous and compelling.

     
    • Adask

      November 10, 2013 at 7:15 PM

      I’m going to GUESS that the vast majority of current governmental emergency(ies) exist “in this state” (in the territory of the “United States”).

      If so, what if I were to declare that I was ticketed and/or arrested within the venue of “The State of Texas” and/or “The United States of America” and denied under oath that there was a governmentally-declared “emergency” within that venue?

      Would the gov-co be compelled to put someone on the stand to declare under oath that there was an “emergency” within The State of Texas or within The United States of America”? Could they do so? If they did, would they admit that the venue was within The State rather than “this state”? If they couldn’t testify that there was an emergency within “The State”, would they have to argue that there was, nevertheless, and emergency “in this state” and thereby admit the existence of two, overlapping venues?

       
      • palani

        November 10, 2013 at 8:47 PM

        Alfred

        No need to invent the wheel. Here is a document that ought to answer all your questions written in 1765 … State Necessity Considered as a Question of Law
        http://books.google.com/books?id=BupbAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=necessity&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UzaAUpCnGaaOyAGWxoG4Bw&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDg8#v=onepage&q=necessity&f=false

         
      • Martens

        November 10, 2013 at 9:21 PM

        If you can make “The State” vs. “this state” a central point of your defense, this might be enough to get the case thrown out as too hot to handle, since the court does not want to address the subject of these “emergencies” being extra-constitutional (i.e. territorial).

        It depends on whether the court can be compelled to consider “The State” claims. The judge will try to set such “dual venue” objections aside as irrelevant in a case brought to trial in “this state” according to the legal process of “this state”.

         
      • Fritz

        January 23, 2015 at 4:12 AM

        Saw a REAL TRUE, NO JOKE video yesterday re: a Traffic Stop & this “Sarge Cop” TOLD the occupant of the vehicle that HE, the occupant, WAS in a United States Territory.Very clear to hear this. The video was FUNNY in some aspects. Here’s another thing. The Sarge said he was ticketing the vehicle NOT the occupant. The “Occupant” was not asked for any ID Papers & the “Traffic Tickets” were not given to the Occupant. They were put under the windshield wiper.The Occupant did not sign anything. So there is no name, no address. The Occupant was advised that he would have to appear in Court & he was verbally given the date. It is a FIRST for me to see & hear ANYTHING like what transpired. The Occupant was a Negro.

         
      • Adask

        January 23, 2015 at 11:34 AM

        Do you have a link to that video?

         
      • Fritz

        January 23, 2015 at 4:55 PM

        LAPD 12 Squad cars and shotguns for a parking ticket #6
        Lost video. I typed in know your rights car ticketed, this brought up website.
        Video is 18:28 minutes long. Nothing interesting happens until 5:35 into video
        At 6:30 + is where you will hear, The Officer say, “Well the problem is, when you’re “on”
        “United States Territory” You are required to abide by all State & Federal laws.
        I sure hope you can bring this video up because it will make you laugh out loud !!!

        LAPD 12 Squad cars and shotguns for a parking ticket #6 …
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0NbnrLkAxQ
        By sovereignsash ·
        18 min ·
        677,032 views ·
        Added Mar 10, 2013
        Only videos #4- #6 will be uploaded. The ones with the Sgt. on scene. This is the final video, where the COPs let me go after harassing me for almost two …

         
  20. Zeke

    November 10, 2013 at 7:11 PM

    Regardless of whether the lights represent an emergency or not, your friends concern that the arrest is being made without a warrant is correct. In California, the remedy is a motion to suppress under penal code section 1538.5. This is not the only remedy, but if you end up having to fight the ticket, this is one of your best chances. The motion has to be in writing.

    This section says; (a)(1)A defendant may move for the return of property or to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained as a result of a search or seizure on either of the following grounds:

    (A)The search or seizure without a warrant was unreasonable.

    There are more subsections that deal with a search or seizure with a warrant, but they don’t apply here. This section starts with the presumption that the search or seizure is unreasonable just because it was made without a warrant. Now the prosecution has to rebut this presumption, and it can only be rebutted by presenting a warrant.

     
  21. Rahyah

    November 10, 2013 at 9:12 PM

    Simply put, in modern sense, what is occurring globally, from womb to tomb by every single geopolitical system on planet Earth, which is.nothing short of compelled contract.

    This is known as involuntary servitude.

    To avoid such servitude, demand liberty or death.

    The death I speak of to their law….Civilter Mortuus, operates either by force of public law or choice of free law (freedom=Meaning: Free Dominion, known as sovereign natural absolute unalienable rights). Your are free to decide. But remember, you must be prepared eternally, to assume the powers universally…..Period. And don’t think you can just trespass over any other created intellectual property rights. Be creative!

    Part of any compel contract, is being forced to use rules or otherwise, to enjoy your life, liberty and pursuit of Happiness, while seeking equal just measure as a good neighbor, your livelihood
    for whatever justifiable ends, naturally speaking.

    As history and others have stated so aptly; in 73 B.C., the Thracian gladiator Spartacus led one of the biggest slave revolts in the history of the world in what became known as the Third Servile War.

    By most accounts there were over 100,000 slaves fighting against the Romans for their freedom.

    This is a prodigious figure by comparison, uprisings of just a few dozen slaves in the American south during the 19th century were considered shockingly large.

    It took about two years but a Roman army led by Marcus Licinius Crassus, eventually put down the insurrection. Then brutally crucified thousands of slaves on the open roads and byways of the empire. Purposefully, to send a bone-chilling message of what would happen to anyone who crosses Rome. Or him.

    Crassus was an interesting and well documented historical figure. And, reasonably speaking very capable. Capable may be a misnomer respectively, depending on your juxtaposition, regarding either natural rights of all walks of life or so-called legal legislated & militarily forced rights of a few over the presumed rights of others to own Man as a slave, involuntary or otherwise.

    Why?

    Because at the time he was one of the wealthiest men in the world. DUH….!

    So it’s quite ironic to some, that a member of the ‘ultra-rich’ was responsible for crushing an army of slaves fighting for their freedom.

    We modern-day humans so to speak, like to think that we are far more enlightened. Now though, we can’t even begin to imagine a concept like public awareness of slavery anymore of any kind……, presumably.

    And yet it exists………………….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

    People are born into bondage by the millions every day… Many, if not all of them, without even knowing it. Or, with the cognitive skills to imagine such conditions being true.

    From the day we’re born, many people are considered ‘citizens’ of the place of their birth. This is a legal principle (not lawful via natural law) known as ‘jus soli’ and it’s the prevalent standard in the western hemisphere and has been so since the 1600s.

    In general, if you’re born in the United States, Canada, Brazil, etc….., you are automatically a citizen without accenting.

    It’s a complete accident when you think about it. Nobody has control over where he/she was born. It’s a total fluke.

    Yet in some countries citizenship carries lifelong obligations– for example: the requirement to serve in the military.

    No one actually volunteers for this (no matter the formality or otherwise), they just happen to be born on a piece of dirt as opposed to some other piece of dirt. Their particular piece of dirt comes with certain obligations forced upon them absent any ability to bargain for their life, liberty and pursuit of Happiness, to which all walks of life are equally entitle.

    In the so-called proverbial Land of the Free (via social engineering), one of the obligations that people are saddled with from their crowning nativity, is the requirement to pay taxes on their worldwide income. No matter where they are in the world.

    This concept is almost uniquely American (excepting the fact that the rest of the geopolitical world is adopting the same arbitrary schemes rapidly via treaty conventions). There are just a few places on the planet where taxation is based on ‘citizenship,’ rather than ‘residency.’

    In Italy for example, you pay steep taxes on your income if you live in the country. But if you leave Italy, you don’t owe the Italian government taxes anymore…PERIOD.

    It’s a sensible principle to some but completely unnatural to natural law that doesn’t follow the ‘take it or leave it’ approach. If you don’t like paying the taxes, then you can go live somewhere else. Now to me, this sounds like involuntary servitude. Meaning forced to be subjugated without right of bargaining otherwise. But either being publicly ostracized or force in such slavery against ones free law. (Life, liberty and pursuit of Happiness via Freedom naturally inherent in all walks of life).

    But in the Land of the Free, their government doesn’t allow this…………………………………………………………………………………………..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If you’re a US citizen, the government insists on being your silent partner, taking its ‘fair share’ as a ‘fair deal’ via the New Deal every time their government decides your livelihood belongs to them. No matter where you live or do business. And it’s nearly impossible to escape this yoke, even if you move away.

    Let’s be frank….lol.

    Most enter into this system of slavery from their crowning nativity, where we’re forced (by the ignorance of our fathers & mothers and the social role models who indoctrinate us into such programs in our formative years) to pay a substantial portion of our livelihood obtained by our property (energy exchange) via hard work, under threat of violence and imprisonment, without almost any way around this slavery.

    This is nothing more than a sophisticated form of slavery….PERIOD! At a minimum, it’s serfdom involuntarily. Thereby, unnatural, unlawful and immoral, yet perfidiously legal in every jurisdiction on planet Earth.

    Not to mention, that the remuneration received for such exchanges for our livelihood (so-called money) that your forced to pay, goes to finance war corruption violence graft terrorism and the debt, which no one may question…PERIOD. Just read section 4 of the Article of Amendment XIV (14), germane to the U.S. Constitution.

    If this isn’t serfdom or just outright involuntary slavery, then what the hell else could it be? Does this sound like freedom or equal justice for all? It can only be said to be force servitude, which is nothing, but forced legal slavery outright…PERIOD!

    Like the Romans before them, this same government (which is ultimately run by a wealthy banking elite) will squash any hint of a revolt.

    In my own opinion, just as Patrick Henry stated such sentiments, e.g., “Give me liberty or give me Death!”

    Why?

    Because I can not honorably recognize any trust (In God We Trust or otherwise, similarly created), accept or deny one individual, his or her inherent unalienable natural rights to bargain when entering any society of men, for the purposes of exercising their inherent natural absolute unalienable rights (for the purposes of seeking a just livelihood, in exchange for their property=labor) to exercise such rights via whatever just form of agreement, each is willing naturally to accent accordingly, when entering any society/compact of men for the purposes thereof.

    In the Land of the Free, they imprison people for failing to file disclosure forms. Even something as absurd as “attempted tax evasion” is a crime. And they routinely make examples out of people as a way of sending a message– ‘this is what will happen to you little people if you cross us.’ Whoever ‘us’ is…….? And if you think it’s the U.S. Congress, think otherwise, before accepting the social engineering respectively. Because, their just as confused! Don’t believe me? Just read the two attached congressional letters, proving this)…!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now they purport to legislate and pass laws but they themselves are confused?????????

    So, if this be their condition, touching upon such matters, how is it possible to put you the people, in prison for refusal of paying such nefarious (misleading) schemes, when relying on these people to know the law. Especially with all the help they have to answer such simple question!

    The only legitimate way out, is for people to completely divorce themselves from the United States government and renounce their citizenship……PERIOD!

    Given the steady digest of propaganda that most people receive throughout their lives, this move seems radical and fatalistic. And yet, it’s a rapidly growing trend.

    But sadly, people are learning that by jumping one statecraft (U.S. Or any other state) into another geopolitical system within the framework of the U.N., has already adopted these selfsame illicit and unnatural schemes to help the U.S., divest these people utterly, of every last farthing. Welcome to global slavery! That is, until you decide to seek self-determination otherwise.

    In the government figures, just released yesterday, 1130 individuals renounced their US citizenship in the 3rd quarter. Up from 254 in the 3rd quarter of 2012 and 161 in the 3rd quarter of 2009. All the while, not knowing that you can’t escape either your duty to all walks of life, to stop these perfidious inhonestus (unseemly) people, from destroying this planet or you and your children. If you don’t…………………..you will be the cause of their slavery and the continuing global slavery.

    Something I bet your eternal rest can’t wait to face,..Right?..lol

    Driven to the point of disgust and desperation more and more people are reaching their breaking points every day.

    There are many who would view these renunciants as traitors– cowards who ‘cut and run’ from the country. Of course, the U.S.A. Founding Fathers were viewed this way two centuries ago! And, would be most certainly put to death today, if present presently speaking, by the government presently existing that they had a hand in creating! Say it ain’t so…….lol.

    But when you think about it, one of the major reasons the government continues to thrive is that they have over 300 million oxen to abuse. YOU!!!!!!!

    The US is a wonderful place filled with unbelievable potential. But it has been corrupted by an interminable cycle of (Hamilton’s idea) debt consumption, excess, deceit and incompetence. Not to mention, leading to the deaths of millions of people (your young men and women & children) in arm confrontations foisted upon these people via the same practices mentioned herein.

    The U.S., has reached the point of no return long ago. And frankly, the fewer oxen they have to abuse, the faster it will hasten their demise. Only then will this Earth be able to rebuild.

    It’s certainly worth asking the question– what if they gave a tax and nobody came?

    There’s more than one way to reason with such absurdities. Facing down an army of legionaries is one way. But as radical as it may seem, divorcing oneself from the government is also another effective way to be reasonable, even with Sam’s Club….lol.

    The more people walk away, from lies, misrepresentation and outright murderous social engineering, which only evinces their total subjugation or worse, oblivion, the more it speeds up the collapse of the criminal elite in favor of a new renaissance.

    Our renaissance: http://www.seagov.net/.

    And remember, choosing to hide, run because of fear, to save his life, has already lost it!

    Most graciously,…..’In Honor We Trust.’

    P.S.: Please forgive any syntax or grammatical errors.

     
    • palani

      November 11, 2013 at 7:39 AM

      @Rahyad “It’s a complete accident when you think about it. Nobody has control over where he/she was born. It’s a total fluke. ”

      Actually you have ultimate control over the place of your birth. I agree that your programming leads you to believe in fictional entities that appear to you in the form of geographical places but with a bit of reasoning you may overcome this conditioning. There are little tidbits left from ancient times even in court paperwork. An example is ‘ss’ which most people take to mean ‘sworn and subscribed’ but which actually refers to scilicet. Scilicet in the English tongue refers to ‘to wit’. When used in the heading of a court document or in the notaries section the ‘ss’ will make reference to the political entity who has the place. ‘SS’ may be considered the warning of a snake before it strikes.

      But back to jus soli. Very few places in America were not once inhabited by indians. If jus soli is recognized in America as a valid Roman civil law citizenship principle then you merely have to assert which tribe you belong to. For example, if born in the Indiana region you might be Delaware or Lenape, Kickapoo, Mahican, Mascouten, Miami, Nanticoke, Ojibwa or Chippewa, Ottawa or Odawa, Piankeshaw, Potawatomi, Shawnee, Wea, Winnebago or Ho-Chunk or Wyandot. You have ultimate control over which group you claim.

       
      • palani

        November 11, 2013 at 7:45 AM

        In connection with that last paragraph I should have added … or you can claim that you were born in Indiana. ‘Course if you make this proclamation you would now be eligible for all the benefits of modern civilization instead of being hunted down and slaughtered as a member of an indian tribe.

         
  22. jbone

    November 10, 2013 at 9:33 PM

    this might be a good start…..

     
  23. pop de adam

    November 10, 2013 at 10:44 PM

    This is for every one:

    There are emerency lights on these “state” vehiciles, if your vehicile is pulled over, in the interest of officer safty isn’t it in our interest to activate the analogous of emergency lights, the hazard lights of a common vehicile. If you are being pulled over use your hazard lights.

    Just a thought.

     
  24. pop de adam

    November 10, 2013 at 11:02 PM

    There is a giant mistake made when considering “constitutions”, “We the people” may be the originators of said document, but the subjects contemplated therein are subjects by their own oath, never in any of the constitution is the party called “We the people”. The president, congress and the judiciary, take and accept oathes to this cult. The people are never contemplated. See you later 16th amendment, you can only apply to those subject to it. All oaths as far as i can tell have been perfectly voluntary.

    Who is going to make me with certainty believe?

    The opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty.

     
  25. Ugly Truth

    November 11, 2013 at 1:41 AM

    Bracton’s maxim: that which is otherwise not lawful is made lawful by necessity.

     
    • Adask

      November 11, 2013 at 2:01 AM

      Insofar as you imply that “necessity” and “emergency” are closely related concepts, you’re right.

       
  26. Jethro!

    November 11, 2013 at 2:18 PM

    It appears that the average “traffic stop” involves the following problems (assuming the traveler had previously reserved his rights and no one was actually harmed):
    1) The “officer” makes a false declaration of emergency, or creates the false appearance of an emergency, when no actual emergency exists, for the purpose of inducing the traveler to pull over in order to…
    2) Make a false arrest (no victim), for the purpose of…
    3) Initiating a fraudulent commercial collection process with threat of bodily harm under color of law (aka a “traffic ticket”) for his benefit and/or that of his employer.
    So how many torts do we have here? False arrest for sure. False declaration of emergency? (akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire?) False commercial process? Fraud? And who are these “officers” and what makes them an “officer”? A costume? A gun? A badge?
    Perhaps the best approach would be to determine the claims we would have against them and start suing. Removing the profitability of declaring false states of emergency will go a long way toward stopping them.
    I’ll do it.

     
    • Adask

      November 11, 2013 at 3:40 PM

      I think you’ve got the right idea. There must be limits on whatever can be called an emergency. If you can show that the police have exceeded those limits in your particular case–or as general policy–it must be something like hollering fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. It’s at least fraud.

       
  27. Zeke

    November 11, 2013 at 4:45 PM

    When a judge grants your motion to suppress based upon an unreasonable search or seizure, you now have shown that the police have exceeded their limits and can now bring a civil rights violation and an injunction.

     
  28. Cody

    November 11, 2013 at 6:53 PM

    Most states declare traffic and other related statutes to be “strict liability” laws. That’s where the ‘presumed’ authority for the stop is begins. Can anyone be held “strictly liable?” There is no man who can possibly know or should know at the precise moment in life they are being held liable for if they are “strictly liable.” So, I think without actual damages, a simple traffic stop is a prevarication of a debt.

     
    • Mladen

      November 11, 2013 at 7:08 PM

      Cody, what you and Alfred Adask and most people fail to realize is that the surname has debt attached to it and if you say or use the debtor surname there is what you call a prevarication of a debt.

      The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia defines PREVAARICATION as:
      n. The act of prevaricating or deviating, especially from truth, honesty, or plain-dealing; evasion of truth or duty; quibbling or shuffling in words or conduct.
      [ See http://www.wordnik.com/words/prevarication ]

      As the cliché says, ignorance of the law is no excuse! However, ignorance of the FACT that the surname is an error and that it is not your property and that only your Christian (given / FACT) name is real and proper, is an excuse based on ignorance of a FACT; and there is a remedy in equity (fairness) for an ignorance of a FACT.
      —– Mladen ( child52of144@hotmail.com )

       
  29. Cody

    November 13, 2013 at 12:05 PM

    Hey Mladen,
    Your point is not missed. I don’t think Al missed it either. I may be pretty dumb however, there are times when you don’t use “Christian” arguments in civil courts. In either case, I’m finding most judges and cops, I’ve encountered, are devoid of actual knowledge of law, beyond procedure.

    Black’s 4th defines “Prevarication” as “In civil law, the acting with unfaithfulness and want of probity; deceitful, crafty, or unfaithful conduct; particularly, such as manifested in concealing a crime.”

    My contention is the cop is the actual party committing the crime. When people obtain a driver’s license they are agreeing to “civilize” the cops actions prior to any encounter with them. When a ‘driver’ stops for the cops, and they get a ticket, they create another “person”/witness, to the crime. All the witnesses agree that the cop committed the crime, however the “driver” volunteers to be liable for the “prevarication.”

    I only state this, as a possible alternative, because an “appearance” is a fictional act. Also, in the civil courts, religion is excluded as a basis of objection to strict liability.

    Further clarity into my theory may be found by looking up the definitions of “civilization” and “discharge” in Black’s. After all, isn’t the cop simply “discharging” his duties? Moreover, I doubt wordnik would be accepted in one of their courts.

     
    • Mladen (aka Mark)

      November 13, 2013 at 2:55 PM

      Cody, I agree with you as my experience as an observer has been that most police officers, lawyers and lower level Justice of the Peace or lower level Judges appear to not even know their own law. Please NOTE, they do have an Authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible in their courts. They do recognize the supremacy of God in their man-made imaginary constitutions (even though they do not obey God’s law because they only pervert God’s laws from the Old Testament and man’s law is NOT the same in that man’s law is NOT based on grace, forgiveness or PARDON).

      Also, note the following statement: CHANGE YOUR GOD AND CHANGE YOUR LAW.

      If a man does not know WHO he is, and WHAT he is NOT, then that man is ignorant (i.e. lacks knowledge) and that ignorant man goes to a secular synagogue of Satan court to defend himself under a dead, artificial, pretend, mask or persona, more commonly known as the “Legal Name” for the “Legal Person”. But, that is NOT a Christian and it does NOT even identify a living individual according to the government’s own statements. I have numerous letters from the Registrar General of the Province of Ontario (Canada) that plainly states that the Office of the Registrar General does NOT register people. Did you get that? To be clear, the Registrar General and their BIRTH CERTIFICATE does not register or identify a living individual.

      We cannot expect anybody “Acting” for the fiction called “Government” to read our minds and we must tell them who we are and WHAT we are NOT. We cannot allow them to tell us who we are or who we must be. Unfortunately, when we accept their fictional (pretend, artificial, not real, LIES) government-created identity documents we enter into their pretend realm and their jurisdiction over their pretend realm, which is the world of “Legal” (artificial), and which is opposite to God’s world of grace and what is real. The difference of what is real and living, as opposed to what is a fiction (lie) and dead, is embodied in the two opposite names that make up the combined (merged and confused) “Legal Name”.

      When we as the real living man volunteer, apply or consent to “Act” for their dead fiction [i.e. the mask or person of their dead “Legal (artificial) Name” for their dead “Legal (artificial) Person”] we are the direct cause of our own misery. The Christian believer name (aka first, fore or given name) has no business being attached to the pagan unbeliever debtor surname. The combined (merged and confused) “Legal name” (aka “Name in full”) identifies a “Thing” which is artificial, pretend, and a man-made dead entity, which has NO COVENANTE WITH THE REAL GOD. Therefore, no man, and especially no true Christian man should be “Acting” under a dead name and the Holy Bible tells us at Job 32: 21-22 (KJV) not to accept the title (defined by STRONG’S Concordance as “surname”). The Holy Bible tells us that God is not a respecter of (artificial, dead) persons. And, the DICTIONARY OF CANADIAN LAW says, “The only legal person known to our law is the corporation — the body corporate”. As you may know, “Corporation” is derived from “Corpus” or “Corpse”, which is a DEAD BODY!

      I want to clarify two other points in my last reply to you in which I believe you misinterpreted. First, the link to WORDNIK that I provided for the word “Prevarication” quoted the CENTURY DICTIONARY, not WORDNIK, and an English dictionary has more power in any court than any legal dictionary if a man knows how to use it. By the way, the King James Holy Bible has the highest standing in any court. Secondly, the fact is that because people are ignorant to the fact that they are using a surname and a “Legal Name” which is NOT their property it makes them automatically guilty and there is no provision in the secular courts to plead innocent. Simply appearing for the dead legal fiction (lie) and “Acting” for it makes one automatically guilty. You not only appear guilty, you are guilty if you speak for property that does not belong to you! It’s called THEFT. It’s a tort (damage) in law and ignorance of the law is no excuse. There is no remedy in man’s pretend law, none whatsoever; the only options in man’s law and man’s courts are “Guilty” or “Guilty with an explanation, either way you are guilty if you use the surname or “Legal Name” that does NOT belong to you. In reality, the judges of man’s courts simply wait to see what ignorant living man will appear to defend the mask of the dead persona (“Person”) and the appearance of any dummy (defined by BLACK’S LAW as he who holds title for another) or any idiot or ignoramus is in truth, fact and reality the appearance of the guilty. No ifs, ands or buts about it. As the detective in the TV series “Dragnet” used to say, this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Ignorant people are ensnared by their own ignorance, and it is not the things that go into our mouths that convict us but rather the words that come out of our mouth that ensnare ourselves.
      —– Mladen [ child52of144@hotmail.com ]

       
  30. Adrian

    November 13, 2013 at 3:03 PM

    One quick point of view: when you the real man appear in the court of equity,THEY are taking you
    as the agent for the legal person.When THEY call the name of the legal person and you respond,
    you the real man accept the liability for the legal person.
    There is the contract.It is in conformity with the law.
    Now you cannot use the common law or claim your rights under the same.
    From this moment on you are dealing in private law.
    The best way to solve problems with THEIR courts is from outside the court.
    When you deal with COPS and identify yourself with a STATE ID the COP has authority over you.
    This is the root of all problems in dealing with COPS and courts.
    Is your status under the law.

     
  31. Cody

    November 13, 2013 at 11:56 PM

    Hey Mladin,
    I’d appreciate some authoritative sources to back up your claims about the KJV and Century Dictionary. Anyway, Black’s defines a “person” as a “man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.”

    Adrian,
    I agree those are the presumptions of the court. The funny thing about all presumptions, the “self-evident” and implied truths incorporated into the Declaration not withstanding, is they are rebuttable.
    So, for those who may have failed to successfully object to the cops prevarication, rebuttals to the presumptions of the prevarication can be incorporated into a counter-claim.

    Sincerely,
    Cody

     
    • palani

      November 14, 2013 at 7:21 AM

      @ Cody “Black’s defines a “person” as a “man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.””

      Black has proved himself with all his editions to have a distorted view of words. Hobbes in his piece Leviathan makes the concept of person perfectly clear.

      http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-c.html#CHAPTERXVI

      A person is a word, an action or representation and it is going to be the person who is punished or rewarded yet they are entirely invisible and you have never actually seen one in your life. Likewise you cannot taste them, cannot smell them, cannot feel them and they make no sound (even if words are considered to be persons). Man ventures into creationism when he authors a word or produces an action or hires a congressman because he then has become the author of a person.

       
  32. Cody

    November 14, 2013 at 9:50 AM

    Palani,
    I’m not defending Black’s per se. Nor am I ignorant of some of the various meanings of the word “person.” I’m questioning the veracity of Mladin’s comment:

    “(“Person”) and the appearance of any dummy (defined by BLACK’S LAW as he who holds title for another) or any idiot or ignoramus is in truth, fact and reality the appearance of the guilty.”

    Mladin appears to misrepresent the written definition of the word “person” in Black’s. Further, I’m still waiting to see some authority for his statements regarding the KJV and the Century Dictionary.

    I have no doubt all men are guilty before God. It does not help matters when they are confused by insertions of extraneous “information” which may or may not be true.

    Thanks,
    Cody

     
    • Mladen (aka Mark)

      November 14, 2013 at 1:32 PM

      Cody,

      Please do not take this the wrong way because my intent it not to insult or demean you in any way whatsoever. You are questioning the veracity (truthfulness) of my comment about the Authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible being the highest authority, and an English dictionary being of the second-highest authority, in a court. That is interesting in light of the fact that it was Alfred Adask who actually read the law under which he was being charged, and his simple reading caused him to realize that he was being charged under a law defining man to be an animal. All Alfred Adask had to do was to rebut that false presumption in order to have the charges against him abandoned or vacated, right?

      Using what you have already stated to Adrian, it is true that all FALSE presumptions are rebuttable. The law is based on FACT, not on hearsay, not on mere false beliefs, and not on mere false accusations or false allegations. The primary rebuttable false assumption is the FACT that the surname part of the name is NOT YOUR PROPERTY! The fact is that only the Christian part of the name is your property. These two opposite names do not belong together and there is no provision in law to put them together! The whole thing is a fatal and false assumption!

      It would be impossible for me in this short blog to provide scans of dictionary definitions which can be used in any court of law to rebut false presumptions. But, if you or anybody else wants to send me an email directly to child52of144@hotmail.com I would be happy to explain and to send scanned dictionary definitions to back up the veracity (truthfulness) of my previous statements.

      After all, the dictionary is simply the LAW OF LANGUAGE. It is true that the legal dictionaries are written to confuse and deceive and they do re-define ordinary English words to have meanings different from ordinary English dictionaries. Legalese is designed to deceive, confuse and snare ignorant people and the devil’s advocates are grammarians who use language to attorn (to turn over, or to betray) people. The Law Society is a self-governing unincorporated association that fools everybody into believing that they are the highest authority, which they are NOT. They are so smug that they even put the “Key of Knowledge” on BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY to show that they have taken the key of knowledge away from the people. But, fortunately you can use an ordinary English dictionary (the law of language) to rebut the false presumption(s) that is/are based on legal definitions which re-define words to the lying lawyer devil’s advocates advantage.

      You should look up what God had to say about the evil lawyers in the Authorized 1611 King James Holy Bible, which is authorized to be used in every court and every church:

      Luke 11:46 (KJV)
      And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

      Luke 11:52
      Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

      In good faith,
      —– Mladen (aka Mark),
      —– EMAIL: child52of144@hotmail.com

       
  33. palani

    November 14, 2013 at 12:56 PM

    Jethro suggested in another forum that traffic stops are for drug purposes (because of the nasty habits coppicemen have picked up of searching nether regions for drugs) and therefore the blue flashing light may be ignored because the purpose is a drug stop rather than a traffic stop. This ties in with the ‘man or other animal’ defense then as all drug laws stem from the 1906 Food Purity Act.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22116/

    Possibly a quick call to 911 to determine if the emergency lights are for a traffic stop or if you can expect to be violated if you pull over? Who knows what a coppiceman is going to visualize? Walk away from them the wrong way and these perv’s will be eying your rump whether you are a male or a not-male (female).

     
  34. Adrian

    November 14, 2013 at 2:04 PM

    Guys Black Dictionary is politically motivated.It does not reflect the true reality.
    A person or persona is an approximation of reality,is a creature of the mind.
    Human mind is not perfect.Remember Plato.
    When you deal with the legal system,THEY are after the artificial person and hold you,the natural person liable for that artificial person.
    All you have to do state your position by saying: this corporation(STRAWMAN) does not exist.
    Now,the burden is on THEM to prove you wrong.
    Remember,you cannot be forced to enter a contract against your will.
    As for a COP, he is acting under the Law Martial.Your identity thru a license gives him cause for action against you.
    Traffic stops are military check points under Law Martial.

     
    • Mladen (aka Mark)

      November 14, 2013 at 3:20 PM

      I completely agree with you, Adrian. The government structure is a “STRATOCRACY”, which BLACK’S LAW defines as, “A military government; government by military chiefs of an army”.

      At the tope of the military pyramid is the “Commander-In-Chief”, which is the US President or “Her Majesty” Queen Elisabeth II for the British Colonies, which also still includes the United States. Then you have a myriad of other military chiefs under terms such as the following: Governor GENERAL, Attorney GENERAL, LIEUTENANT Governor, etc. .

      The public STRATOCRACY is bankrupt and there is a higher power above them called the private TIMOCRACY, which is an incredibly small group of people who really rule man’s world for a limited period of time, and God has given them a limited period of time to rule, which is quickly running out, to prove whether man could do things better than God. In my humble opinion I believe that man has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that man cannot rule better than God and man has completed screwed everything up.

      There is a remedy to the problem of the legal fiction (lie) for those that want to learn and implement it. Like everything else, it is all a matter of faith, or lack thereof.
      —- Mladen [ child52of144@hotmail.com ]

       
  35. Mladen (aka Mark)

    November 14, 2013 at 2:26 PM

    Palani,

    You are right that all traffic stops are for drug purposes, but you may not realize that the drug is the surname and the legal name that people are addicted to, which is not their property.

    The HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT is all about “TRAFFIC”, which means to be in commerce, or to buy and sell for private gain/profit —– which is against the Law of God.

    To be in commerce you need to use a “Legal Name”, which consists of a fiction (lie) surname attached to your God-given inalienable Christian (aka first name or fore name), and there is no provision in any law to transfer the given name(s) to any person, corporation of trust. To be clear, the BIRTH CERTIFICATE and the CITIZENSHIP CERTIFICATE have a rebuttable “Legal Name” and these pieces of paper or plastic wrongly combine two opposite names that do not belong together and so they are complete FRAUD, which we can rebut with FACT.

    Everything in man’s world is based on fiction, and a fiction is a lie. In man’s world the word “PERSON” is some “Thing” that is not living because it is just a mask or persona which you can chose to act behind. The DICTIONARY OF CANADIAN LAW makes it clear that a “PERSON” is NOT a living individual because it defines “PERSON” as, “The only legal person known to our law is the corporation — the body corporate”. The word corporation comes from corpus, which is the same as corpse, and it is a dead body. To be clear, the combined “Legal Name” only applies to the dead “Legal Person”. So, the relevant questions to ask yourself are these:

    – What proof do you have that the dead “Legal Name” for the dead “Legal Person” belongs to you?

    – What makes you believe that you were entitled to steal from the owner of the dead legal name for the dead legal person?

    – If you have no proof that it is your property, then why are you acting and trafficking in the dead legal name of the deal legal person?

    – Did you make one or more false and rebuttable presumptions based on mere false beliefs that misrepresented the truth and facts in law?

    It is unfortunate that most of us made false assumptions and we all know what happens when we ASSUME —- we make an ASS out of U and ME!

    God is NOT a respecter of persons. God tells us at Job 32: 21-22 NOT to take the title (surname) of man (i.e. a surname is a flattering title and God tells us NOT to take it). But, God also gave us free will and we have the option to believe in truth or lies. God’s creations are real. Man’s world is all based on fiction, which are lies, counterfeit and FRAUD. We must differentiate between FACT and fiction (LIES) and we must rebut the lies. That is part of God’s remedy which has been there all along for everybody and all we must do is to read, learn and accept God’s free graced pardon. Of course, you have the free will to reject God also.
    —– Mladen [ child52of144@hotmail.com ]

     
  36. Adrian

    November 15, 2013 at 1:52 PM

    I have seem for so many yrs. that so many people rely heavy on words like: GOD,God,god,gods etc. I always wondered,what do they mean by that?
    And another thing:if you accept or use fraud you are part of it.
    The STRAWMAN is a corporation,it is dead,so is the one who use it.

    Just a thought.

     
  37. Mladen (aka Mark)

    November 15, 2013 at 3:07 PM

    Adrian, I can only speak for myself. I have hear and read many different interpretations of who or what God is and the number of interpretations is mind boggling. With approximately 7 billion people on earth we may have as many as 7 billion interpretations of who or what God is. But, that would make no sense since it is unreasonable and illogical that there could be 7 billion different truths. There must be only one truth, but people cannot seem to argue on that one truth.

    For me God is the Creator, Maker and true Father of every one and every thing. He was here for all time and He is the only One who can make something out of nothing. That does not make God the Federal Reserve though. The nature of God is based on true unconditional love, peace, patience and charity. Those are qualities that are very difficult, if not impossible, to find in most of the 7 billion people on this earth. All the mere man can do is to strive to be like Christ, God’s only begotten Son, who is from the same source as God, as is the Holy Spirit —- three different manifestations of the same source.

    I do not believe in the quite entertaining “Theory” of evolution. Scientists still cannot even explain where the spark of life comes from. The honest scientists see that there had to be an intelligent designer behind everything and that is God. Only God can make something out of nothing. It is laughable that so many people believe the ridiculous theory that nothing exploded into a something that became a “Primordial soup” out of which some creature walked out of water unto land and evolved from a monkey into a man. I humbly believe that one would have to be a monkey to believe such nonsense. The Holy Bible says that God created man in His image, not in the image of a monkey or a rock or primordial soup.

    God also did not create robots and He endowed us with free will to choose between fact and fiction. From simple observance I believe that most people believe in fiction and few believe in fact. People will argue over the meaning of a word so that in man’s world there is no black and white, no right and wrong, and no separation of fact from fiction —– and so anything and everything goes in man’s world of fiction. But, none of it is real.

    Law has to follow the truth and facts, and truth has to be free from fiction. But, the problem is that most people have no idea of what the truth is and what is fiction and so they cannot separate these two opposites. Most people are ignorant, which simply means that they lack knowledge. Most people follow the crowd so that they have a sense of not rocking the boat so that they fit in with what the critical masses of secular society believe, which is mostly fiction. Yes, in man’s world the truth is far stranger than fiction. The deception starts on the very first piece of paper whenever a new child is born. The birth of the child is an Act of God. God provides a spark of life. But, man only turns what is real into something artificial (not real) and the child that the state (government) births is a fiction (lie), it is not a living being.

    What’s worse is that even those calling themselves Christians are misrepresenting the ways of Christ because they attach themselves to one of over forty-thousand secularly registered and licenced denominations, which are simply secular money religions that have nothing to do with God, Christ Jesus, or the Holy Bible. Most people that do not believe in God have not even read the Holy Bible, but they certainly like to misquote and criticize it when they are not busy picking and choosing which parts of the Bible they like and which parts they reject. It is an all or nothing proposition. At least those that believe they are atheists are a little more honest, but their belief is that they do not believe in God, and it is just another secular religion.

    It is so funny when we question God, but men put into men’s man-made imaginary constitutions statements that “Recognize the supremacy of God”. And, men put the Holy Bible in their secular courts. And, men swear on the Holy Bible. What a whacky world when we pretend to believe in something for the sake of convenience and expedience and we build up man’s fictional world upon pretended claims that God allowed the Roman Catholic Pope to claim that He is God on earth, or that He is the “Vicar” (replacement) of Christ on earth. And, then we argue over man-made words and man-made laws, all of which are based on man’s imaginations, its’ all pretend, none of it is real. Even the laws of man are based on the laws of God. And even though man concedes the obvious fact that God’s laws are anterior (before) and superior to all of man’s laws, most men prefer to believe in the pretend made-up constitutions of man and the pretend made-up laws of man —– which man as a whole cannot even agree upon.

    Case in point —- this is about the 70th comment on the blog with respect to Alfred Adask’s post about police emergencies and we have not come to any agreed upon resolution on just this one point. Likewise, men will never come to agreement on any other man-made ideas, theories, beliefs or pretend constitutions and pretend laws stemming from the pretend constitutions. Man certainly loves to pretend that he can be his own god; but, is not doing a very good job of being anything like the real God, the Creator, Maker and Father of all. The created simply cannot be the Creator —– no matter how hard they try. It’s all very entertaining isn’t it?
    —- Mladen [ child52of144@hotmail.com ]

     
    • Adask

      November 16, 2013 at 2:13 AM

      It seems certain that fools and wise men will never agree to much. That failure to agree doesn’t prove the wise men are fools or the fools are wise.

      It is by means of our disagreements that we learn to think, reason and independently perceive. Our disagreements strip us of our conformity and sharpen our minds.

      The created can’t ever be the Creator–but they can still seek to partially understand the Creator. Disagreements will pave the way towards that understanding.

       
      • Cody

        November 17, 2013 at 12:21 AM

        As iron sharpens iron, so does one man sharpen another.

         
  38. Adrian

    November 16, 2013 at 3:58 PM

    Creation and evolution are two practical concepts.They do not deny each other the compement each other.
    The problem with many who think about these two concepts is the fact that they want to prove
    one against the other.
    The creator is one that creates,makes come true.
    Evolution means to change towards some direction in space and time.
    Many people are cocerned with the nature of the creator.A better thing would be to realize the purpose and use it as apractical means.
    Evolution serves a better practical purpose.
    What happens to us every day is more important than to know the riddle of: what was first,the chicken or the egg.
    Man is a creator among others.
    As man,he is the measure of all things.
    GOD is man’s creation.
    Religion is the means by which man controls men.

     
    • Adask

      November 16, 2013 at 5:24 PM

      If what you say is true, there’s no reason why I can’t assault you or kill you, or assault/kill your wife and your kids–except that I might get caught or shot myself. Your belief system is conducive to murder, robbery, and treating people like animals. Survival of the fittest and death to all competitors. Genocide.

      Some gods are man’s creation. The God is man’s Creator.

      Your philosophy is pretty much identical to that of the psychopaths who’ve seized control of our government and our world. For them, it’s all about themselves. Get all you can, while you can. Each would agree that “man is the measure of all things”. And each would insist that HE, alone, is that measure.

      I don’t understand how anyone can embrace the philosophy you advocate and hold onto their sanity.

       
  39. Mladen

    November 16, 2013 at 6:08 PM

    Alfred, I agree with your assessment of what Adrian states if you take it to its extreme logical conclusion.

    Those that believe in God are known as “Creationists” and they believe that only God can create somethign out of nothing. More and more mainstream scientists are coming around to conceding that there is an “Intelligent Designer” behind everything and they are coming around to believe in God as the Creator of everything.

    On the other hand, those that do not believe that God is the first-cause of all that is created believe in the “Theory” (something unproven) that some “Thing” randomly exploded and out of nothing came a primordial soup, rocks and eventually living beings —– a first-cause theory that is just preposterous and silly! There are great volumes of fact and evidence to show the fallacy of Darwin’s theory of evolution, which started with Darwin doubting himself. In fact, scientist Stephen Meyer recently published a book titled, “Darwin’s Doubt” about this very topic.

    Alfred, in support of your comments to Adrian, I would ask that everybody reading this comment consider that God gave man the “Ten Commandmants” at Mount Sinai, also known as the Mosaic covenant, and all ten laws are based on love. If we loved our God, the Creator, Maker and Father of all, and if we loved ourselves and our fellow man, then we would not steal or rape or kill each other. Unfortunately, not everybody beleives in God and not everybody follows God’s simple laws based on love. Unfortunately, the evolutionist theorists cannot explain why most men lack morals and conscience and faith in God; but, the reason is quite simple and it is pure selfishness and man wanting to be his own god. Thanks for reading, that’s my two cents.

     
  40. Adrian

    November 17, 2013 at 5:17 PM

    Addiction is a hard thing to overcome.Reality is our only truth.

     
  41. Californian

    February 2, 2014 at 11:07 PM

    Amazing words you guys share. Thank you for putting your thoughts into words. Seems many of you have all studied very deeply and Love the Lord.
    Ken.

     
  42. Californian

    January 27, 2015 at 2:00 PM

    I don’t think that turning on emergency lights has anything to do with the police pulling you over. They see you break a vehicle code, they have an obligation to the People to see who is breaking the code.
    They do not know who is driving or traveling. If the one in control is an alien or guest/resident, then they pay a fine for driving and violating a code. This is not rocket science.
    Acting like a complete dope and claiming to be a sovereign citizen and refusing to identify yourself is just plain lunacy and you may just lose your life acting like a criminal.
    I like that my car is registered. If it is stolen, they will look for it and try to get it back to me. That’s a small price to pay, especially if you can’t fully insure and older expensive car.
    Not to mention, if i injure someone, I have insurance, good idea no? Or put up 30 thousand dollars cash for a bond? I would prefer to carry insurance.
    Also, if someone hits me, the CHP rolls up, while I am mangled in my car. He looks out for me. He gets info of the man who hit me. Takes a report to help me. Calls an ambulance and tow truck, all at no cost to me. Benefit of registering my car. Nice…
    BTW, who cares who thinks they own my car, I drive it and if stolen the state may find it and they don’t seem to want it, even tho some claim they own it. Heck, they are happy to return it.
    If I am stopped, it is my responsibility to say I am not operating under a license at this time. Say I waive no rights to speak and show the officer my California ID card. In California the police must accept satisfactory ID over a driver lic which admits I was driving. So I only show an ID card.
    If the officer still wants to have me sign a notice to appear, which would be perjury on my part, I would inform the officer that he is suborning perjury. I would write perjury under duress and the next day file a claim against the suborner.
    I may also ask the officer if he is a US officer, as they seem to glorify the US flag on their costumes. If he says no, has he not committed perjury? Is he impersonating a US officer by displaying a US flag in a state of the Union?

     
  43. noone

    November 11, 2015 at 12:08 PM

    Black’s 9th.

    emergency doctrine. (1929)
    3. The principle that a police officer may conduct
    a search without a warrant if the officer has probable
    cause and reasonably believes that immediate action
    is needed to protect life or property. Also termed
    emergency exception. See exigent circumstances under
    CIRCUMSTANCE.

    exigent circumstances. (1906) 1. A situation that
    demands unusual or immediate action and that may
    allow people to circumvent usual procedures, as when
    a neighbor breaks through a window of a burning
    house to save someone inside. 2. A situation in which
    a police officer must take immediate action to effec­tively
    make an arrest, search, or seizure for which
    probable cause exists, and thus may do so without
    first obtaining a warrant. – Exigent circumstances
    may exist if (1) a person’s life or safety is threatened,
    (2) a suspect’s escape is imminent, or (3) evidence is
    about to be removed or destroyed. – Also termed
    emergency circumstances; special circumstances.

    special circumstances. See exigent circumstances.

    “Exigent circumstances may exist if (2) a suspect’s escape is imminent,”

    I think that covers it. If you are not stopped now for speeding or some other traffic related issue you will get away. With this doctrine in place I do not see how the blue lights legally signify anything beyond giving you a warning that you are about to have a bad day.

     
  44. Cindy Oxox

    April 22, 2016 at 3:02 PM

    You are absolutely RIGHT about declaring if it’s an EMERGENCY!!! I’m going after this corrupt ILLEGAL GOVERNMENT!!!
    YOU may like this…

    REAL AMERICAN PARTY!!! 

    2016 ” REAL AMERICAN ” REVOLUTION!!!

    Are YOU an AMERICAN CITIZEN or US CITIZEN?!?

    In 1933 AMERICA went BANKRUPT again! The AMERICAN CITIZENS were SOLD as SLAVES to a foreign Nazi Corporation, Called the: 

    UNITED STATES of AMERICA, INCORPORATION!

    In 1933 BIRTH CERTIFICATES were REQUIRED for TWO reasons:  SLAVE ENTRAPMENT and BOND CREATION!

    When a parent SIGNS their CHILD’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE, they are signing the RIGHTS of their CHILD over TO this foreign CORPORATION; the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, INCORPORATION!  This CHANGES one’s CITIZENSHIP STATUS, from AMERICAN CITIZEN to US CITIZEN.  US CITIZENS are SLAVES to the USA, INCORPORATION.  We are LISTED as ASSETS; as CATTLE on their FINANCIAL STATEMENTS!  Now they want to MICROCHIP us!  NOT ME!!!

    The BIRTH CERTIFICATE is also a BOND, issued for 1 MILLION dollars at the time of birth. The CURRENT VALUE accrues over your LIFETIME, and can be CHECKED on the NY STOCK EXCHANGE by the BIRTH CERTIFICATE NUMBER, listed on the bottom of the bond.

    IF YOU HAVE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, YOUR WORTH…..???  MILLIONS, BILLIONS  ??? check your value!

    We are RICH SLAVES!

    LET MY PEOPLE GO, is a NON PROFIT ORGANIZATION, waiting to form with the RIGHT people to HELP start it!

    It’s to FREE the US CITIZEN SLAVES, from the ILLUMINATI; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INCORPORATION !!!

    WE THE PEOPLE can LEGALLY OVERTHROW the SATANIC ILLUMINATI GOVERNMENT, if we:

    FREEZE and SEIZE the ILLUMINATI ASSETS, BOTH:  USA CORPORATION ASSETS and PERSONAL ASSETS!

    FILE a UCC -1, CLAIMING TITLE of our Bodies, Birth Certificate Bonds, Children, Land, Stocks and Bonds, Whole Life, etc.  This TRANSFERS ASSET OWNERSHIP, OFF the ILLUMINATI Balance Sheet, and BACK into the HANDS of the AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!

    We need DONALD TRUMP to ORCHESTRATE everybody around the WORLD to DUMP all their STOCKS and BONDS, CRASHING the ILLUMINATI STOCK MARKETS; and creating a NEW STOCK MARKET; REINVESTING in REAL PROPERTY, in “UNIVERSAL BUSINESS CITIES”, around America and the World!  Creating our “TEMPLE of TRUTH SCHOOLS!”  All of the UNIVERSAL BUSINESS CITY PROFITS, would go to the COMMUNITY, and helping people around the WORLD!  ONLY, DONALD TRUMP is a HIGHLY RESPECTED BUSINESS MAN recognized around the World, that can gain the TRUST and CONFIDENCE of other COUNTRIES to DUMP their STOCKS and BONDS, and to REINVEST in and BACKUP a FREE AMERICA!  By FILING a UCC-1, HILLARY CLINTON CAN’T SELL our LAND out from UNDERNEATH of us, to RUSSIA, ANYMORE! The BUSH’S won’t be able to PLAN anymore 911 MURDEROUS ATTACKS on AMERICAN CITIZENS, on HOME SOIL or ELSEWHERE!!!  The entire WORLD would be LET GO of the ILLUMINATI STRANGLEHOLD!!! 

    This plan of “LET MY PEOPLE GO”, of FREEING the SLAVES, developed into the 2016 “REAL AMERICAN” REVOLUTION, which is now forming into the “REAL AMERICAN PARTY!”  

    The “2016 REAL AMERICAN REVOLUTION” calls for our MILITARY to COMMANDEER all MILITARY bases, FEMA concentration camps, all UNDERGROUND bases and CITIES of the ILLUMINATI!  ROUNDING up and taking CONTROL of all the ILLUMINATI, and BRINGING them all to one CONCENTRATION CAMP!

     The PLAN calls for a DULL blade guillotine placed in the CENTER of the TOWN SQUARE! Because We may have to do it TWICE, not just for FUN, but in REMEMBRANCE of all the 9/11 VICTIMS, all over the world!  This way the ILLUMINATI and the WORLD will KNOW…

    WHEN you MESS with the BEST, you DIE like the REST; EXPOSED to the WORLD for your SATANIC MURDEROUS SINS!!!

    The POLICE are to be DISARMED by our MILITARY, for our NATIONAL SECURITY; they are OUT of CONTROL, and a THREAT, and DANGER to every AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!

    BLOCK PARTIES with our MILITARY shooting down the SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS on every street corner, while the POLICE try to REDEEM themselves by CLEANING up the mess.

    ALEX JONES is NAMED as our new MILITARY LEADER until new ELECTIONS!  ALEX is highly RESPECTED and REVERED by our MILITARY!  His FAMILY fought in the ALAMO, he is well PREPARED to LEAD us, as he has been doing!  ALEX JONES is also highly RESPECTED for his UNDERCOVER video of “BOHEMIAN GROVE”, the ILLUMINATI Satanic ritual!  He has been bringing REAL AMERICANS the TRUTH about the ILLUMINATI for years and years!

    ALEX and DONALD are trying to get OTHERS to STAND UP and FIGHT, however, WTF GUYS, AMERICA NEEDS YOU to STAND UP and FIGHT now too!!!  TIME is of the EXTREME ESSENCE, planet Nibiru is HERE!

    “REAL AMERICANS”, make ALEX JONES and DONALD TRUMP STAND UP for AMERICA, to HELP form the “REAL AMERICAN PARTY, and start the 2016 “REAL AMERICAN” REVOLUTION!!!  CALL THEM OUT!!!  We need them, and their GOD given skills!!!

    If you want to become a “REAL AMERICAN”, be a part of, and help CREATE the “2016 “REAL AMERICAN” REVOLUTION plan ; and CREATE the “REAL AMERICAN PARTY!”

    CALL DONALD TRUMP and ALEX JONES to do the job; they KNOW the CORRECT people, and they KNOW how to get things done, RIGHT and with RESPECT!

    IT’S TIME FOR AMERICA TO TAKE A STAND!!!
    ILLUMINATI  or  NO ILLUMINAT ?!?
    YOU DECIDE!!!

    All these ORGANIZATIONS need to be STARTED.  I COULD do it, however, I will NOT.  This MUST be FORMED by the PEOPLE, not by one PERSON!!!

    “2016 ” REAL AMERICAN ” REVOLUTION!!!”
    “REAL AMERICAN PARTY!!!”
    “LET MY PEOPLE GO!!!”

    “REAL AMERICANS” are FEARLESS, we TAKE the SHIT of the INJUST, and SMEAR it all over their FACE, and EXPOSE them to the WORLD for their SATANIC SINS!

    EMAIL me, groups starting or I can meet you.

    FULL 2016 “REAL AMERICAN” REVOLUTION, posted on my Facebook. 

    Cindy 8081111

    Cindy8081111@yahoo.com 
    Facebook: Cindy Oxox, BLOOD MOON picture

    Posted on Facebook: 

    FULL VERSION
    2016 ” REAL AMERICAN ” REVOLUTION!  you help WRITE the REST!

     
  45. ken johnson

    April 23, 2016 at 11:11 AM

    What a bunch of complete non sense. . You are just confusing your readers who are impressed with all your words.
    Hang a white flag sticker on your bumper to show the you are peaceful. That’s a crock.
    The police are doing what the citizens ask for. Keep the peace.
    Also, they are just collecting money. It’s all about money, not rights. I doubt they get many residents stopping by to donate.
    If you don’t like police stopping you, then learn who you are and who they believe you are.
    They presume you are a person as found in the vehicle code. Yes it is as simple as that.
    It has nothing what so ever to do with rights, laws, common law, driver, emergencies. Emergency lights, conspiracy…
    God did not create person’s. He created man.
    If you are seeking truth. Then 1st you have to believe you are the image of God, a man.
    All men, not persons are free an independent…
    Start with Genesis 1, 26 thru 28 and forget about all this non sense. Only God knows what is True…
    If you don’t believe you are the image of God, then you are a person bound and must submit to the government.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s