Going to Court

[girlgye]

Ok I'm going to a4V my DVLA demand on my license.
I'm going to quickly prepare my NOUI CoR and give it to all applicable parties.

No doubt they will just ignore my letters as seems to be happening with everything else and I will lose my license. I'm not quite sure on this argument that it is a returnable negotiable instrument. If someone could clarify this I'd be most grateful.


I have one shot at court so....

I just wanted to clarify some things I'm still confused about.

It's harder to argue for Sovereignty than it is for Secured Party Creditor - why?

If argue as the secured party creditor I plead guilty to the facts ie my strawman is guilty but I the living flesh and soul isn't?

They've been notified that if I turn up at court I will be filming it and have written back to me saying this is unlawful in the UK. Does that make me in dishonour if I do turn up with a film crew? As far as I'm concerned they dishonoured my notice by failing to respond to the contents of it. In fact all they did respond to was the filming issue.

[bsmurph83]

Ok I'm going to a4V my DVLA demand on my license.
I'm going to quickly prepare my NOUI CoR and give it to all applicable parties.

No doubt they will just ignore my letters as seems to be happening with everything else and I will lose my license. I'm not quite sure on this argument that it is a returnable negotiable instrument. If someone could clarify this I'd be most grateful.


I have one shot at court so....

I just wanted to clarify some things I'm still confused about.

It's harder to argue for Sovereignty than it is for Secured Party Creditor - why?

If argue as the secured party creditor I plead guilty to the facts ie my strawman is guilty but I the living flesh and soul isn't?

They've been notified that if I turn up at court I will be filming it and have written back to me saying this is unlawful in the UK. Does that make me in dishonour if I do turn up with a film crew? As far as I'm concerned they dishonoured my notice by failing to respond to the contents of it. In fact all they did respond to was the filming issue.

i'm surprised noone's responded to this, gye...

one thing i'd like someone to elaborate on is the 'pleading guilty to the facts' thing. i'm under the impression that this strategy is used because generally you are the only one who has any firsthand personal knowledge of the charge, but i'm not sure how it might work in your situation where it's just about A4Ving license? i'm not sure about my comments here at all actually... where's chesterd when you need him?

i'd ask them to show you the law stating you CAN'T film proceedings. i'd also consider something like "ok, i won't film it if as long as you don't (insert condition)..."

responding with conditional acceptance seems to be the way according to some. i'd also consider noticing them of their dishonour... maybe you can send a Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure...which they will no doubt dishonour as well. Follow that with a Notice of Default and then after that a notice of Judgement. the end (supposedly).

where are you at with all this at the moment anyway?

[girlgye]

i'm surprised noone's responded to this, gye...

one thing i'd like someone to elaborate on is the 'pleading guilty to the facts' thing. i'm under the impression that this strategy is used because generally you are the only one who has any firsthand personal knowledge of the charge, but i'm not sure how it might work in your situation where it's just about A4Ving license? i'm not sure about my comments here at all actually... where's chesterd when you need him?

i'd ask them to show you the law stating you CAN'T film proceedings. i'd also consider something like "ok, i won't film it if as long as you don't (insert condition)..."

responding with conditional acceptance seems to be the way according to some. i'd also consider noticing them of their dishonour... maybe you can send a Notice of Fault and Opportunity to Cure...which they will no doubt dishonour as well. Follow that with a Notice of Default and then after that a notice of Judgement. the end (supposedly).

where are you at with all this at the moment anyway?

I have I'm on my third letter to them. I'll post it if someone tells me how to download images on here. They just keep ignoring it saying they can do what ever they like and firing statutes at me that say so. I'm wanting to get them on the wet signature thing.

So that was going to be my next question.

When they say we don't need to sign this. We don't need to say who we are. We don't need to tell you who the judge was. We don't need to tell you what the judges bar number is.. What is the response. What they are doing is sending me mail wet signed from a junior member of staff. Shall I make them responsible? We cannot be done for harassment, we are the court and we can harrass you neah type letters
I know it is a default with opportunity to cure and I will send it.

[yozhik]

Have some fun :)
Search online for "spy pen"
You can pick up a pen, that has a 8GB camera and recorder for about 30 quid.
They can't stop you taking in a pen, can they?

:D

Yes - plead "guilty to the facts."
The facts have to be presented and proven.
No - you do not plead "guilty as charged."
Be sure to inform the court prior to the case being heard that you intend to attend "by special appearance".
As was pointed out on another thread, you are lawfully and legally able to have a "McKenzie Friend" with you.
Ask the judge if he has an oath. (should say yes)
Ask the judge if the oath is present in the court today. (will probably fart around and eventually admit it isn't)
Get his oath on the record and in the courtroom. This means he is obligated to preside as a judge. Without his oath, he is working for the court. It will shut him down as much as possible and hold him to be as impartial as you are likely to get it.
Ask to see the penal sum. (if you do not know what it is ... research it :) )

Have fun.

[Ian2day]

Ok I'm going to a4V my DVLA demand on my license.
I'm going to quickly prepare my NOUI CoR and give it to all applicable parties.

No doubt they will just ignore my letters as seems to be happening with everything else and I will lose my license. I'm not quite sure on this argument that it is a returnable negotiable instrument. If someone could clarify this I'd be most grateful.


I have one shot at court so....

I just wanted to clarify some things I'm still confused about.

It's harder to argue for Sovereignty than it is for Secured Party Creditor - why?

If argue as the secured party creditor I plead guilty to the facts ie my strawman is guilty but I the living flesh and soul isn't?

They've been notified that if I turn up at court I will be filming it and have written back to me saying this is unlawful in the UK. Does that make me in dishonour if I do turn up with a film crew? As far as I'm concerned they dishonoured my notice by failing to respond to the contents of it. In fact all they did respond to was the filming issue.

Is the hearing going to be held in a common law court or something else. Under what jurisdiction is this Court. Is it a county court, a royal court, a crown court, a civil court, admiralty, commercial. Dont be fooled by the buildings name or location. Check the PASSENGER LIST attached to an external wall by the entrance to see if your strawman is listed and what vessal is listed and if the captain and the name of the company is listed. If the strawman is being challenged about an incident that occurred on land and not water. Then your Strawman was not a sailor or passenger of a vessal, then there is no charge to answer. Ask for a dismissal on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction due to you not being a vessal on the high sea. If asked to take an oath. Use this time to declare yourself a freeman on the land with God given rights and not under the jurisdiction of a maritime admiralty court. Is the flag embrodied with a gold fringe. It wouldn't hurt to have it written down and rehearse what you're going to say. Dont be scared by the costumes they are wearing. It is all an act. A stage with you being one of the actors. Now you can either go along with their script or adlib as you see fit. Take a McKenzie friend with you if you can. It helps to have someone else there to remind you of anything that you forget about.

The above is not advice for you to follow. It is merely my view and opinion. Good luck!

[number_6]

Ask the judge if he has an oath. (should say yes)
Ask the judge if the oath is present in the court today. (will probably fart around and eventually admit it isn't)
.

I have to ask, have you personally done this in a UK Court, yozhik?

[number_6]

Is the flag embrodied with a gold fringe.


Not that old chestnut? That has been tried and failed.

[yozhik]

I have to ask, have you personally done this in a UK Court, yozhik?

Personally done it in a UK court?
No.

Know of it being done in a UK court?
Yes.

http://www.tpuc.org/node/368

[number_6]

Know of it being done in a UK court?
Yes.

http://www.tpuc.org/node/368

Forgive me if I have mis-read that link, but it only describes an imaginary scenario, not an actual Court hearing.

[yozhik]

Forgive me if I have mis-read that link, but it only describes an imaginary scenario, not an actual Court hearing.

Correct.
I posted it so the theoretical process is available.

I am aware of it being done in the UK.
Not in theory. In practical terms.

There is also testimony available of it being done In Australia, which operates under a similar court system, given it is an offspring of the UK system.

[number_6]

But girlgye is in a real life situation here, and caution is advised. In my experience a Judge would not respond in the way intimated.

[yozhik]

But girlgye is in a real life situation here, and caution is advised. In my experience a Judge would not respond in the way intimated.

It has been used in the UK.
The judge, begrudgingly, put his oath on the record.

As with anything, there is choice.
I know it has been done and if in a similar position, would do it myself; without question.

With the oath on the record, the judge is held to it and must act impartially.
Without it, the judge can act on behalf of the court.
Those would be odds I would not want to play against.

However, back to the key point; it is a matter of choice.
If unsure; don't do it.
As with anything being done pro se/sui juris ... it needs to be approached with both caution and confidence. (if that makes sense)

[number_6]

Well, if she follows this path, I wish her (I assume girlgye's a she) the best of luck.

[darryl84]

They've been notified that if I turn up at court I will be filming it and have written back to me saying this is unlawful in the UK. Does that make me in dishonour if I do turn up with a film crew? As far as I'm concerned they dishonoured my notice by failing to respond to the contents of it. In fact all they did respond to was the filming issue.

Dishonour only occurs when promissory notes are not paid.

[merlincove]

can i just sabotage this thread for a wee aside....

in a civil court, county court, do the same rules apply to the judge, ask him if he has an oath etc, speacial appearance, guilty to the facts?

best

lee

[bsmurph83]

Dishonour only occurs when promissory notes are not paid.

dishonour applies to more than promissory notes.

in admiralty/commerce, dishonour occurs with:

silence to presentments/offers, and

argument.

that applies to pretty much anything to do with commerce. honourable responses are:

full acceptance, and

CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

[alisa2]

girlgye wrote: It's harder to argue for Sovereignty than it is for Secured Party Creditor - why?


It's harder to argue for sovereignty because there's more information available out there about the commercial process and becoming a secured party and literally none about common law and sovereignty. No one knows how to be sovereign because common law is not taught anymore. Common law is the thinking man's law vs. code and statute is the non-thinking man's law. Common law will challenge your thinking like it's never been challenged before.

There's only one man that teaches common law and sovereignty that I know of, and that man is Bill Thornton. His website is 1215.org. The best way to learn is by going to one of his workshops but of course that isn't going to help you if live in the U.K.

[girlgye]

No.1 I don't much consider anything anyone says on here to be responsible for any shape or form of the outcome on this day.

No2. I am going in for my own amusement and dedication to study which has been treacherous and difficult to say the least.

No-one is going to be responsible for what happens on that day.

I've heard in a UK court (and I know the guy) that he went in asking if he had an oath (up to that point the judge was actually quite prepared to go along with it) but then just got really riled. In any event, the JPs are members of the public (are they not) would they have an oath? Do they fall into these messianic partitions of what constitutes arbitration?

What frustrates me about this article (and thank you for posting it btw) is right at the crucial bit a bit that so EASILY could have been included, regarding the BOND he says gotta go too much to write about here! Like this is soooooh hard to explain isn't it? Im sure Mcattack used the principals of it in Ireland but it took four goes and prison threats as well as being forced to contract. So I can't really see how getting them to swear their oath is gonna protect me. Please feel free to elaborate on the point further if you think I'm wrong. This article smacks of soundbite freebie, check my youtube site and come to my seminar type of warm up.

[darryl84]

dishonour applies to more than promissory notes.

in admiralty/commerce, dishonour occurs with:

silence to presentments/offers, and

argument.

that applies to pretty much anything to do with commerce. honourable responses are:

full acceptance, and

CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE


You just confirmed my original statement, there HAS to be a promissory note involved for dishonour to occur, that was my point, this includes silence to negotiations of payment of promissory note. If no promissory note is involved in a negotiation then dishonour does NOT occur.

I am merely using the legal dictionary, please show me an official source of legalese that suggests dishonour can occur without any promissory note being involved, otherwise my archetype post on dishonour was CORRECT.

[pri01]

can i just sabotage this thread for a wee aside....

in a civil court, county court, do the same rules apply to the judge, ask him if he has an oath etc, speacial appearance, guilty to the facts?

best

lee

I've been to court, least I think I had. On reflection, it was just another building within the vicinity of the magistrates court. It had all the fear factor present. Security, auhority and all the other theatrical drama you would expect. What was I doing there? Claiming my right to pay for my electricity bill in the way I wanted to. Looking back, I was very much being COURTED to play the game, the act on stage. That's all it is, an act a courtship no matter which court you're in.

[bsmurph83]

dunno if this will be of any use to anyone but enjoy regardless.

Mark P's Court Appearance

Mr Borleis:
Sir, I am not the defendant but am appearing here as 3rd party intervener, unrepresented, and from now on, here only by special appearance, under injury, with a real interest in this matter and reserving all rights powers and privileges. I am here with limited jurisdiction in this court and I am here to assist the court to settle and close all real issues and find out the nature and cause of this action if there be any today and to stop and correct and leave all parties commercially whole. (If you get interrupted WALK STRAIGHT TO THE BENCH and hand B.C.) Are you not employed by the party that has legal title to this supersedeas bond, I therefore instruct you to do whatever it takes close and dismiss this matter with prejudice and release the order of the court to me immediately. Thank you Sir! (memorialize it)

You are not Mr Borleis? I conditionally accept your offer to address me as Mr Borleis on proof of claim to answer to that name doe not give me any disability and on proof of claim I am not a man. (if he is silent) Let the court records show I am a spirit within a man and as 3rd party intervener here by special appearance under limited jurisdiction and reserving all rights

Sir, I wish to make a statement if I may. It has come to my attention that I have unintentionally committed a grave dishonour. (the court sees this as the strawman apologising) It is my intention only to stop and correct and settle and close matters and to make any and all parties with any real interest in these matters who believe and can verify same, that they have been damaged, that I can make them commercially whole again. Therefore I humbly and sincerely repent and seek forgiveness of all parties with a real interest in these proceedings and the court for such unintentional and mistaken dishonours and will do my best that such dishonours do not occur again. I also wish to apologise for not tendering the supersedeas bond on the last occasion to enable you Sir to do whatever you are required to do to dismiss this matter and will do my best not to make this error again.
I respectfully wish to inform the court that all outstanding matters have administratively been dealt with and settled privately and are recorded on the papers… before you Sir (if not there rush up and give to him) …. & as there are no real outstanding issues as verified by this certificate of Dishonour and third party witness I seek dismissal of the matter.. (if silent memorialise it) …. (wait few secs then…If he rejects it)
1. I conditionally accept your claim that…(whatever he said) upon proof of claim that has any effect upon the already settled and closed matter attested to by this Certificate of Dishonour and upon proof of claim you are not able to dismiss the matter now in the absence of controversy, and that if you do not dismiss it, that you are now not raising another controversy and injuring me
(any other question answer with above)
(if silent) Thank you Sir, for and on the record, let the court record show through your silence that you have agreed there is no controversy. I humbly move the court to dismiss the matter immediately with prejudice.

(silence) For & on the record…. (if says he cannot)
Fair enough, Sir may I ask you are you paid to uphold the integrity of this honourable court and to tell the whole truth? (Yes, of course)
Thank you Sir, and do you have an Oath of Office or operate under an Oath of Office? (yes I do) Fine and would you have that here right now Sir? (no, no) That’s ok but you say you do have an Oath of Office right? (Yes) Great, thank you Sir and I accept your Oath of Office as your Bond and I have now bonded you and require the court to take judicial notice of this fact, will you do that for me Sir? (Yes or no?) (silence) Thank you for taking judicial notice sir.
So, in the absence of controversy, are you NOT now able to dismiss this matter with prejudice Sir? (no I am not able or silence…..) I conditionally accept Y.H. is not able to dismiss the matter immediately on proof of claim that the honourable magistrate would not be in breach of his Oath of Office to dismiss the matter and that you are now not raising a controversy right now and injuring me. (if silent – memorialise)
(If he now refuses, ‘no I cannot do that?)
Why is the Court denying me due process of law, injuring me and denying me my remedy?
Where/what is my remedy? He (point to Prosecutor) is making the claim so where is my remedy? (if he is silent or says he is not denying you a remedy)
Good, the I take you have dismissed the matter with prejudice, thank you? By the way where’s my cheque?
Who are you?

Sir, I conditionally accept your offer to ask who I am on proof of claim that the you that you are referring to is not a sheep (‘ewe’) and it has anything to do with the matter having already been settled and closed in the private as attested to by this Certificate of Dishonour. For and on the record, let the record show your silence as your agreement the matter is already settled and closed. I require the order of the court immediately reflecting the matter has been dismissed with prejudice. When may I have that order Sir?

Other pointers when in a pickle:

1. Where is my remedy then? The prosecutor is making the claim so does he not have to provide the remedy, so where is my cheque and when can I collect it?
Then what is it Mr Prosecutor that you are offering the Defendant that I may claim from you?
(If at any time the Magistrate sums up to make a ruling against the defendant…
Eg. ‘the Order of the Court that the defendant be charged with blab la and will be issued award damages of ‘’’’ against the defendant.)

I conditionally accept the Order of the Court that defendant is found guilty and is required to pay $X on proof of claim the magistrate has not right now raised a controversy and injured me and that the decision has any relevance when the matter has already been settled in the private between the parties and upon proof of claim a third party can lawfully intervene in a private agreement without the consent of the parties concerned.
(you have just nullified the court order NOW memorialize it into the court record)

Let the court record show through your silence the Magistrate has accepted he has no authority other than to ratify the matter has already been settled in the private and will now issue me Orders of the Court to that effect, thank you. When may I have them Sir?
(If now doesn’t give it)

Fair enough, show you are NOT in breach of your Oath of Office, step down immediately to face a judicial review before your piers, step down immediately!.

I conditionally accept your offer of contempt U.P.O.C. to reply to you or ask a question is contemptuous and has anything to do with the mater already been settled and closed in the private and on P.O.C. you are not attempting tom intimidate and injure me. (memorialize his silence into the record)

[alisa2]

Here in the United States, (and now all over the world) our monetary problems stem from the fact that our Founders gave Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value. Congress never had that power before in the Articles of Confederation- they acquired it with the new Constitution.

The power to coin money and regulate its value is a sovereign power. The Preamble of the Constitution states that We The People created the Constitution, therefore that makes We the People the Sovereign over the Government--not Sovereign over the Government in some areas, but Sovereign over ALL Government that We the People created. The Founders were no fools, however, We the People- the dupes.

Bankers are not interested in governments that do not have sovereign money power. Here in the United States, money was the primary reason for the Constitution. We the People did not create a Consititution because we wanted give Government power over us. The resources on this planet are first God's, then the people's, then the Government's, in that order. We the People did not give the earth's resources to the Government. The robber class government stole it from We the People and gave it to themselves-- We the people have been stuggling for freedom ever since.

[Ian2day]

I'm beginning to think that a revolution like France had will be required. I hope I'm wrong but I don't know any more.

[yozhik]

Here in the United States, (and now all over the world) our monetary problems stem from the fact that our Founders gave Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value. Congress never had that power before in the Articles of Confederation- they acquired it with the new Constitution.

The power to coin money and regulate its value is a sovereign power. The Preamble of the Constitution states that We The People created the Constitution, therefore that makes We the People the Sovereign over the Government--not Sovereign over the Government in some areas, but Sovereign over ALL Government that We the People created. The Founders were no fools, however, We the People- the dupes.

Bankers are not interested in governments that do not have sovereign money power. Here in the United States, money was the primary reason for the Constitution. We the People did not create a Consititution because we wanted give Government power over us. The resources on this planet are first God's, then the people's, then the Government's, in that order. We the People did not give the earth's resources to the Government. The robber class government stole it from We the People and gave it to themselves-- We the people have been stuggling for freedom ever since.

You need to reread the constitution, for what it is and who it is for.
"We the people" was never intended to be you, the people.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1030933&postcount=2

and

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1030942&postcount=3

[alisa2]

The word People meant whatever it meant back in 1787. I can assure you the word People was not a legal word or term. Superior Court judges are not supposed to ‘interpret’ (define) the words in the Constitution any way they want. They have to look for ‘original intent’ which means they have to find the definition of a word found in the Constitution in dictionaries they used in 1787- what did the word mean back then is what the word means in the Constitution today- the same as it meant back then.

[yozhik]

The word People meant whatever it meant back in 1787. I can assure you the word People was not a legal word or term. Superior Court judges are not supposed to ‘interpret’ (define) the words in the Constitution any way they want. They have to look for ‘original intent’ which means they have to find the definition of a word found in the Constitution in dictionaries they used in 1787- what did the word mean back then is what the word means in the Constitution today- the same as it meant back then.

It would be nice to think so.
Some do not agree with your view;

The Ultimate Delusion by Stephen Ames (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/ultimate_delusion.htm)

On September 17, 1787 twelve State delegates approve the Constitution. The States have now become Constitutors. Constitutor: In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed.
The States were now liable for the debt owed to the King, but the people of America were not because they were not a party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote.

[nonfictionalentity]

The word People meant whatever it meant back in 1787. I can assure you the word People was not a legal word or term. Superior Court judges are not supposed to ‘interpret’ (define) the words in the Constitution any way they want. They have to look for ‘original intent’ which means they have to find the definition of a word found in the Constitution in dictionaries they used in 1787- what did the word mean back then is what the word means in the Constitution today- the same as it meant back then.

Why do you think they never refer to 'People', instead all legislature is aimed at 'Persons'. Is this just bad english? Is the plural of Person in the english language 'Persons'? I think not.

[alisa2]

Yozkin wrote:
It would be nice to think so.
Some do not agree with your view;

The Ultimate Delusion by Stephen Ames

I don't see anything in that document where he has a bone of contention with what I said. Would you care to point to the bone you are referring to in that document? I agree with him for the most part.

The Preamble states that We the People of the United States ordained and established this Constitution for the United States of America (USA located in Washington, DC). That means We the People created it FOR The United States of America. They are not party to the Constitution- they are the Creators of it, which means they are ABOVE it. Citizens, on the other hand, would be parties because the Article III courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving citizens of different states (diversity).

[yozhik]

Yozkin wrote:


I don't see anything in that document where he has a bone of contention with what I said. Would you care to point to the bone you are referring to in that document? I agree with him for the most part.

The Preamble states that We the People of the United States ordained and established this Constitution for the United States of America (USA located in Washington, DC). That means We the People created it FOR The United States of America. They are not party to the Constitution- they are the Creators of it, which means they are ABOVE it. Citizens, on the other hand, would be parties because the Article III courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving citizens of different states (diversity).

From "that document";

The United States belongs to the founding fathers, their posterity and Great Britain. America is nothing more than a Plantation. It always has been. How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells him he can't. It is because you are not a party to it.


If you don't believe read Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520 which states " But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."

It is total and relentless mind control, people are taught to believe in things that do not exist. Private International Law, which is commercial law, only deals with fictions, known as persons. A person is a fictional entity at law, not a living being. See UCC 1-201. Now before you scream that the UCC is unconstitutional I'm sorry people, you are not a party to any constitution. Read the case cite below.

"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520 You have to understand that Great Britain, (Article six Section one) the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you. Let me try to explain. If I buy an automobile from a man and that automobile has a warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says case dismissed. Why? Because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract (Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the fact that you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user of your Masters property!

the united States of America = country.
the United States of America = corporation.

The Constitution of the United States of America = corporate policy ... policies of (belonging to) the United States of America (corporation)

[alisa2]

Why do you think they never refer to 'People', instead all legislature is aimed at 'Persons'. Is this just bad english? Is the plural of Person in the english language 'Persons'? I think not.

The word persons in 1787 meant the same as the word people: Men, or persons in general.

The word person had no other definition until Congress started making laws called statutes.

The word person today has two meanings- (1) statutory (legislative) and (2) standard dictionary definition.

[alisa2]

From "that document";

the united States of America = country.
the United States of America = corporation.

The Constitution of the United States of America = corporate policy ... policies of (belonging to) the United States of America (corporation)


Sorry but I still don't see anything in what you quoted that refers to what I said, which was: The word People in the preamble meant what the word People meant in 1787. It meant:



Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755)


People. 1. Persons of a particular class. What is the city but the people?

2. The vulgar.

3. The commonality; not the princes or nobles.

4. Men, or persons in general. In this sense the word people is used indefinitely, like ou in French.

[yozhik]

Sorry but I still don't see anything in what you quoted that refers to what I said, which was: The word People in the preamble meant what the word People meant in 1787. It meant:



Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755)


People. 1. Persons of a particular class. What is the city but the people?

2. The vulgar.

3. The commonality; not the princes or nobles.

4. Men, or persons in general. In this sense the word people is used indefinitely, like ou in French.

The reason you introduced this debate about "people" versus "persons", was to refute or rebut the opinion (of Stephen Ames) that the Constitution was not meant for any private person. To substantiate this he uses the following legal citation;

If you don't believe read Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520 which states " But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."

You then stated that a citizen (voter) was party to it, however, Stephen Ames also explains that the citizens did not vote on it.

It is also very important to note the style of the country versus the corporation.

It is called the "Constitution of the United States of America".
"Of" in this respect determines ownership of a corporation.

There is a massive distinction to be made between "the united States of America" and "the United States of America".

The former British colonies first used the country's modern name in the Declaration of Independence, which was the "unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" adopted by the "Representatives of the united States of America" on July 4, 1776. The current name was finalized on November 15, 1777, when the Second Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, the first of which states, "The Stile of this Confederacy shall be 'The United States of America.'

[alisa2]

yozhik
The reason you introduced this debate about "people" versus "persons", was to refute or rebut the opinion (of Stephen Ames) that the Constitution was not meant for any private person.

That's right. It is not meant for any private person.

But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520

The court is correct because to be a party to the Constitution you would have to be a citizen or at least call yourself a citizen. If you sue the government as a 'private person' or 'private individual' the Constitution would not apply to you and you would not have any standing to sue the government for breach of the Constitution. You've got to have some sort of relationship to the person you are suing and a private person or private individual would not have standing unless he can has a contract with the government- and if he did have a contract with the government, it would not be the Constitution.



You then stated that a citizen (voter) was party to it, however, Stephen Ames also explains that the citizens did not vote on it.

The citizens didn't vote on it, but the states had their own Constitutions, and they allegedly sent their State representatives to the Convention to vote on the Constitution.

It is also very important to note the style of the country versus the corporation. It is called the "Constitution of the United States of America".
"Of" in this respect determines ownership of a corporation.There is a massive distinction to be made between "the united States of America" and "the United States of America".


Yes, The United States of America is a corporation. It has a President, a Vice President and a Secretary of Treasury. That's a corporation.

[alisa2]

Stephen Ames wrote: How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells him he can't. It is because you are not a party to it. We are SLAVES!!!!!!!

If you don't believe read Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520 which states " But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."


The court isn't saying that a Citizen isn't a party to the Constitution-- It is saying that a private person is not a party to the Constitution. Did Stephen Ames read Mr. Padleford's pleadings to see WHO Mr. Padleford said he was? He probably claimed he was private person and not a citizen of the United States.

[alisa2]

I'm beginning to think that a revolution like France had will be required. I hope I'm wrong but I don't know any more.


I agree, but it is not likely to happen because people do not have the information they need to get mad enough to start a revolution. Whatever started the French revolution had to have been information that made the French people, hell of mad. The media controls most information in the U.S. and around the world today, so the likelihood of any information that would make the people mad enough to want a revolution is slim to none.

[girlgye]

dunno if this will be of any use to anyone but enjoy regardless.

Mark P's Court Appearance

Mr Borleis:
Sir, I am not the defendant but am appearing here as 3rd party intervener, unrepresented, and from now on, here only by special appearance, under injury, with a real interest in this matter and reserving all rights powers and privileges. I am here with limited jurisdiction in this court and I am here to assist the court to settle and close all real issues and find out the nature and cause of this action if there be any today and to stop and correct and leave all parties commercially whole. (If you get interrupted WALK STRAIGHT TO THE BENCH and hand B.C.) Are you not employed by the party that has legal title to this supersedeas bond, I therefore instruct you to do whatever it takes close and dismiss this matter with prejudice and release the order of the court to me immediately. Thank you Sir! (memorialize it)

You are not Mr Borleis? I conditionally accept your offer to address me as Mr Borleis on proof of claim to answer to that name doe not give me any disability and on proof of claim I am not a man. (if he is silent) Let the court records show I am a spirit within a man and as 3rd party intervener here by special appearance under limited jurisdiction and reserving all rights

Sir, I wish to make a statement if I may. It has come to my attention that I have unintentionally committed a grave dishonour. (the court sees this as the strawman apologising) It is my intention only to stop and correct and settle and close matters and to make any and all parties with any real interest in these matters who believe and can verify same, that they have been damaged, that I can make them commercially whole again. Therefore I humbly and sincerely repent and seek forgiveness of all parties with a real interest in these proceedings and the court for such unintentional and mistaken dishonours and will do my best that such dishonours do not occur again. I also wish to apologise for not tendering the supersedeas bond on the last occasion to enable you Sir to do whatever you are required to do to dismiss this matter and will do my best not to make this error again.
I respectfully wish to inform the court that all outstanding matters have administratively been dealt with and settled privately and are recorded on the papers… before you Sir (if not there rush up and give to him) …. & as there are no real outstanding issues as verified by this certificate of Dishonour and third party witness I seek dismissal of the matter.. (if silent memorialise it) …. (wait few secs then…If he rejects it)
1. I conditionally accept your claim that…(whatever he said) upon proof of claim that has any effect upon the already settled and closed matter attested to by this Certificate of Dishonour and upon proof of claim you are not able to dismiss the matter now in the absence of controversy, and that if you do not dismiss it, that you are now not raising another controversy and injuring me
(any other question answer with above)
(if silent) Thank you Sir, for and on the record, let the court record show through your silence that you have agreed there is no controversy. I humbly move the court to dismiss the matter immediately with prejudice.

(silence) For & on the record…. (if says he cannot)
Fair enough, Sir may I ask you are you paid to uphold the integrity of this honourable court and to tell the whole truth? (Yes, of course)
Thank you Sir, and do you have an Oath of Office or operate under an Oath of Office? (yes I do) Fine and would you have that here right now Sir? (no, no) That’s ok but you say you do have an Oath of Office right? (Yes) Great, thank you Sir and I accept your Oath of Office as your Bond and I have now bonded you and require the court to take judicial notice of this fact, will you do that for me Sir? (Yes or no?) (silence) Thank you for taking judicial notice sir.
So, in the absence of controversy, are you NOT now able to dismiss this matter with prejudice Sir? (no I am not able or silence…..) I conditionally accept Y.H. is not able to dismiss the matter immediately on proof of claim that the honourable magistrate would not be in breach of his Oath of Office to dismiss the matter and that you are now not raising a controversy right now and injuring me. (if silent – memorialise)
(If he now refuses, ‘no I cannot do that?)
Why is the Court denying me due process of law, injuring me and denying me my remedy?
Where/what is my remedy? He (point to Prosecutor) is making the claim so where is my remedy? (if he is silent or says he is not denying you a remedy)
Good, the I take you have dismissed the matter with prejudice, thank you? By the way where’s my cheque?
Who are you?

Sir, I conditionally accept your offer to ask who I am on proof of claim that the you that you are referring to is not a sheep (‘ewe’) and it has anything to do with the matter having already been settled and closed in the private as attested to by this Certificate of Dishonour. For and on the record, let the record show your silence as your agreement the matter is already settled and closed. I require the order of the court immediately reflecting the matter has been dismissed with prejudice. When may I have that order Sir?

Other pointers when in a pickle:

1. Where is my remedy then? The prosecutor is making the claim so does he not have to provide the remedy, so where is my cheque and when can I collect it?
Then what is it Mr Prosecutor that you are offering the Defendant that I may claim from you?
(If at any time the Magistrate sums up to make a ruling against the defendant…
Eg. ‘the Order of the Court that the defendant be charged with blab la and will be issued award damages of ‘’’’ against the defendant.)

I conditionally accept the Order of the Court that defendant is found guilty and is required to pay $X on proof of claim the magistrate has not right now raised a controversy and injured me and that the decision has any relevance when the matter has already been settled in the private between the parties and upon proof of claim a third party can lawfully intervene in a private agreement without the consent of the parties concerned.
(you have just nullified the court order NOW memorialize it into the court record)

Let the court record show through your silence the Magistrate has accepted he has no authority other than to ratify the matter has already been settled in the private and will now issue me Orders of the Court to that effect, thank you. When may I have them Sir?
(If now doesn’t give it)

Fair enough, show you are NOT in breach of your Oath of Office, step down immediately to face a judicial review before your piers, step down immediately!.

I conditionally accept your offer of contempt U.P.O.C. to reply to you or ask a question is contemptuous and has anything to do with the mater already been settled and closed in the private and on P.O.C. you are not attempting tom intimidate and injure me. (memorialize his silence into the record)

Tanx. BM83. This post of yours eems to be getting a stony silence from the spooks.

[georgefree]

i haven't read the whole thread so, i hope this helps:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76ZEBq66gzg&feature=PlayList&p=CE196D31E8875265&index=0&playnext=1

[girlgye]

i haven't read the whole thread so, i hope this helps:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76ZEBq66gzg&feature=PlayList&p=CE196D31E8875265&index=0&playnext=1

Yeah I endorse this but it only deals with the preliminaries nothing else. It does say part 1. Maybe he is waiting to see what happens to the rest of us before he compiles his research for the next part.

[yozhik]

Yeah I endorse this but it only deals with the preliminaries nothing else. It does say part 1. Maybe he is waiting to see what happens to the rest of us before he compiles his research for the next part.

Parts 2 and 3 give more detail

[georgefree]

my bad for not listing all 3 parts.

[miked]

Hi everyone

I have great respect for the antiterrorist and have alot to thank him for as I have just had a 20min engagement with a district judge at a Possession Hearing in Preston.

It was almost exactly the same as the antiterrorist vid! My firends and I even left laughing satying the judge was the antiterrorist!

I am trying to get a copy of the audio from the case for you all to have a listen. I have just submitted a request for the transcripts so as soon as I get copies I will post it here!

The man completely lost it!! The only thing I forgot to say was my favourite bit from the vid - " Are you all right sir? You've gone red, and foaming at the mouth! Are you having a physical or a mental problem, Sir?" lol

We got it all

" This is my court!"
"I will have you in contempt of court"

He even said at one point when a new piece of evidence was pulled out of nowhere, I asked to see it and he wouldn't let me saying " No,no. You don't need to see that!"

It was a complete load of bollox but very inlightening for those present! The one who looked most shocked was the prety young girl of a solicitor that had obviously drawn a short straw. She said no more than a couple of sentences the whole time and when it had finished walked out with a shocked look on her face!

Peace to you all

Mike

[yozhik]

He even said at one point when a new piece of evidence was pulled out of nowhere, I asked to see it and he wouldn't let me saying " No,no. You don't need to see that!"

Ummm ... WTF???

And he said this with his oath present and on the record?
What about disclosure of evidence?

I guess its irrelevant, because you weren't making legal arguments ... you would still have been locked in the name game and establishing non-jurisdiction ... but still - what a crock of shit.

[miked]

Ummm ... WTF???

And he said this with his oath present and on the record?
What about disclosure of evidence?

I guess its irrelevant, because you weren't making legal arguments ... you would still have been locked in the name game and establishing non-jurisdiction ... but still - what a crock of shit.

WTF in deed my friend!

Yes, he had been well questioned on his oath and it was just like the AT vid!!!

The name game started at the beginning. After nearly 5mins of "Are you Mr.Dobson?", etc. I was shaking like a shitting dog but I managed to stay composed until the judge sat back in his chair puffing his chest and belly out saying " Do you understand what contempt of court is?" My reply was simple, "Is that civial or criminal contempt, sir?"

He very quickly lost it at what insued was unfuckingbelievable!!
I could sit here all night writting all night on this one! The stuff that came out his mouth was unbelievable! If I do by some grace of God manage to get an audio copy of the hearing it will be priceless.

When I asked for a copy at the court they asked me why I needed it and I said it was evidence in my case against District Judge Turner! "What case?" they asked

I replied "The one I will be presenting to the court on Monday morning!"

Will keep you informed!

Peace all

Mike

[yozhik]

If I do by some grace of God manage to get an audio copy of the hearing it will be priceless.


Can you not request a transcript?
I thought this was your right as an interested party to the matter. :)

[rosix]

god I cannot wait for a chance to do this
also
cannot wait for a chance to 'earn a living' off of the judge's bonds :P

[deem]

Yeah I endorse this but it only deals with the preliminaries nothing else. It does say part 1. Maybe he is waiting to see what happens to the rest of us before he compiles his research for the next part.

Here you go..pt2..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf5ZrUVL0gU ....pt3...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpnL48Beqk...Enjoy:D

[biblegirl]

Hi everyone

I have great respect for the antiterrorist and have alot to thank him for as I have just had a 20min engagement with a district judge at a Possession Hearing in Preston.

It was almost exactly the same as the antiterrorist vid! My firends and I even left laughing satying the judge was the antiterrorist!

I am trying to get a copy of the audio from the case for you all to have a listen. I have just submitted a request for the transcripts so as soon as I get copies I will post it here!

The man completely lost it!! The only thing I forgot to say was my favourite bit from the vid - " Are you all right sir? You've gone red, and foaming at the mouth! Are you having a physical or a mental problem, Sir?" lol

We got it all

" This is my court!"
"I will have you in contempt of court"

He even said at one point when a new piece of evidence was pulled out of nowhere, I asked to see it and he wouldn't let me saying " No,no. You don't need to see that!"

It was a complete load of bollox but very inlightening for those present! The one who looked most shocked was the prety young girl of a solicitor that had obviously drawn a short straw. She said no more than a couple of sentences the whole time and when it had finished walked out with a shocked look on her face!

Peace to you all

Mike

thanks Miked, your story made me smile :D

[deem]

I have I'm on my third letter to them. I'll post it if someone tells me how to download images on here.

Hi girlgye, here's the lowdown on uploading images.
First scan the image onto your computers " My Pictures" file,
Once you're back on the Forum, go to your 'User Profile' and click on 'Albums'
On this page click on 'Upload Pictures'
Click on 'Browes', a window opens up the contents of your pc. Select 'My Pictures' click on the image to highlight it then press 'Open' and the window will close.
Now press 'Upload Picture'. when the image appears next to the box, press 'Save Changes' repeat 3 to 5 till you've uploaded all the images you want off your pc.
Now you're back to the initial Upload page click on one of the desired images, now a bigger version of the image appears. On the image 'Right' click and 'Left click on 'Properties'. Write down the Address (URL) taking care to get it accurately. repeat until you've got the URLs of all the images you need. Then make your way back to the Thread you want to post it on.
Click on a reply icon. Above the reply box click on 'Insert Image' a smaller box opens and you type in the Address (URL) which should look something like; http:/www.davidicke,com/forum/picture.php?albumid=(your number)&pictureid=(image number). then press 'Ok.'
If you want to insert more than one image, repeat 7 & 8. when your ready, cross your fingers and press 'Submit Reply'.

[deem]

Hi everyone

I have great respect for the antiterrorist and have alot to thank him for as I have just had a 20min engagement with a district judge at a Possession Hearing in Preston.

It was almost exactly the same as the antiterrorist vid! My firends and I even left laughing satying the judge was the antiterrorist!

I am trying to get a copy of the audio from the case for you all to have a listen. I have just submitted a request for the transcripts so as soon as I get copies I will post it here!

The man completely lost it!! The only thing I forgot to say was my favourite bit from the vid - " Are you all right sir? You've gone red, and foaming at the mouth! Are you having a physical or a mental problem, Sir?" lol

We got it all

" This is my court!"
"I will have you in contempt of court"

He even said at one point when a new piece of evidence was pulled out of nowhere, I asked to see it and he wouldn't let me saying " No,no. You don't need to see that!"

It was a complete load of bollox but very inlightening for those present! The one who looked most shocked was the prety young girl of a solicitor that had obviously drawn a short straw. She said no more than a couple of sentences the whole time and when it had finished walked out with a shocked look on her face!

Peace to you all

Mike
Wow! good on you sticking it to that jumped up shit. Ive posted loads of links of the antiterrorist, big up that man. May i also recomend the book by Mary Elizabeth Croft - ' How I Clobbered Every Cash Conficatory Agency Known To Man'. 90 pages long but a cracking read. It aint in the shops, she cant get a publisher but you can read it here... http://freedom-school.com/mary_elizabeth_croft.pdf[LEFT]She gives permission at the end of the book for you to download and pass around.

[girlgye]

Have some fun :)
Search online for "spy pen"
You can pick up a pen, that has a 8GB camera and recorder for about 30 quid.
They can't stop you taking in a pen, can they?

:D

Yes - plead "guilty to the facts."
The facts have to be presented and proven.
No - you do not plead "guilty as charged."
Be sure to inform the court prior to the case being heard that you intend to attend "by special appearance".
As was pointed out on another thread, you are lawfully and legally able to have a "McKenzie Friend" with you.
Ask the judge if he has an oath. (should say yes)
Ask the judge if the oath is present in the court today. (will probably fart around and eventually admit it isn't)
Get his oath on the record and in the courtroom. This means he is obligated to preside as a judge. Without his oath, he is working for the court. It will shut him down as much as possible and hold him to be as impartial as you are likely to get it.
Ask to see the penal sum. (if you do not know what it is ... research it :) )

Have fun.

I'm going in and will feed back. I just want to say how can a bunch of citizens who are acting on behalf of a corporation (magistrates court) have an oath of office - they don't.

[girlgye]

WTF in deed my friend!

Yes, he had been well questioned on his oath and it was just like the AT vid!!!

The name game started at the beginning. After nearly 5mins of "Are you Mr.Dobson?", etc. I was shaking like a shitting dog but I managed to stay composed until the judge sat back in his chair puffing his chest and belly out saying " Do you understand what contempt of court is?" My reply was simple, "Is that civial or criminal contempt, sir?"

He very quickly lost it at what insued was unfuckingbelievable!!
I could sit here all night writting all night on this one! The stuff that came out his mouth was unbelievable! If I do by some grace of God manage to get an audio copy of the hearing it will be priceless.

When I asked for a copy at the court they asked me why I needed it and I said it was evidence in my case against District Judge Turner! "What case?" they asked

I replied "The one I will be presenting to the court on Monday morning!"

Will keep you informed!

Peace all

Mike

I'm all ears Mike. Since this was over a month ago. I doubt we'll be hearing anything in time for my case. So...
Can someone else enlighten me on what EXACTLY is meant by asking the Clerk to the Justices 'will that be civil or criminal proceedings sir?'

[girlgye]

Not that old chestnut? That has been tried and failed.

What has been tried and failed? Reference please.
Saying that you are not a vessel?

[miked]

Hi there guys

Been off line for a while, long story!

Went to the corporate place of business known as Leyland Magistrates on 1st July to engage in a hearing for a claim of council tax against against my former legal fiction!

I promptly ended up in the police holding cells next door on contempt of court!!

No, no, it was "a potential breech of the peace!?!"

No, thats not right, it was a breech of the peace!

Oh, come on guys! Make your minds up!!

It was a freak show!!!

I had about 15 friends and family with me in the public gallery. One friend, who cant be named fro lawful reasons;), was there to participate in the proceedings with me.

Never even got to hear my case, they where going through DVLA crap when well all filed in, they all looked at us as if to say "WTF!?!"

We all sat. Me and a few others started getting books out, note pads etc, and during this there was a bit of whispering between us! They didn't fucking like that!

We were asked to be quiet so we asked if it was an order! With 5 mins the police had been called and thats when it started!!!

Too much detail to write here, but if my memory serves me correctly that day ended with me be dragged back into court from a police cell , cuffed, by about 6-7 police officers, the one who took my cuffs off was physically shaking and couldn't get my cuffs off!

We were kicked out in the confussion, no one knew what was going on, the police were trying to leave!! They just wanted to get away

When we got outside it just got bizarre!!

We had the police HOLDING all the court officials in the court and were not letting them come outside! Why? There was a group of 15 witnesses all wanting to report the courts to the police for criminal activity and the Srgt in charge said he was waiting to find out if he had the authority to do so!?!

He was asking the criminals if they would mind if the police arrest them!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, liability order no 6 was granted and at 8.30 the next day I get a very round looking gent in a shirt and tie at my front window!

I shout at him as he waves a blank envelope at me, " Are you from Jacobs Bailifs?

"Yeah, i have a liability.....

" Sorry but you are tresspassing! I served your company a Notice of Removal Of Implied Right of Access."

" I havent seen that!!"

" Not my problem, it was served on your company Special Delivery and a copy has been sent to the courts. Now I am politely asking you to leave. If you do not do so within 30secs I shall have to call the police"

" I will just put this through your letter box!"

"Sir, if you litter my property I will sue you!"

Guy walks off back to his car, Notice- Not Served!

Peace yall;)

[biblegirl]

LOL Miked that was awesome, thanks for the update!!

Too bad you couldn't get that scene on youtube :D. I'm glad you're alright though :).

[number_6]

What has been tried and failed? Reference please.
Saying that you are not a vessel?

Try this:

http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss4.asp#fringe

[yozhik]

Try this:

http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss4.asp#fringe

number_6 ... please ... PLEASE do not make me look like an idiot.
I have supported your views many times ... and now you post a link to the ADL to rebut an argument?

The ADL ??????????

FFS man ... huge dip in the credibility level, by that one, thoughtless act.
The ADL as a credible source??? ... fuck me.

Not only is the article from a source with ZERO credibility; it is also wrong.
You can state that you are not a UK vessel.
It has been done in a Court in the UK.
No - there is no case to cite.
The judge accepted the important distinction being made, that being; the woman was a living breathing soul, not a UK vessel.

I know you won't accept it because of there being no case citation.
That's fine.

I have been told this by a very reliable source who has first hand knowledge of the matter.
Quite frankly, I will take their testimony over ADL propaganda, any day of the week.

[number_6]

yozhik, whilst I fully agree with your opinions of the ADL, the actual Court cases listed may provide some information, rather than any information from the ADL.
I would never set out to make you look like an idiot!
I cannot accept any information regarding a UK Court without case number and Court location so that I may check it myself. After all a Court case is a public matter and there can be no reason for hiding it. Third hand info can be very unreliable. It's not that I disbelieve yourself, however your informant I cannot vouch for.

[yozhik]

I cannot accept any information regarding a UK Court without case number and Court location so that I may check it myself. After all a Court case is a public matter and there can be no reason for hiding it. Third hand info can be very unreliable. It's not that I disbelieve yourself, however your informant I cannot vouch for.

So the judge can not have the case sealed?
You've never heard of this?
So that the record is NOT made public?

It's a private corporation.
While we would like to believe that everything that goes on in a court room is "public", we know damn well it isn't. If they believe any findings, rulings, or any testimony recorded is "damaging", they can pull it, erase it, seal it ... do whatever they want.

If its not true, how do court transcripts get altered?
Surely if the "record" was public record rather than private record, then it couldn't be altered before being made available to "the public".

The infamous R. Kelly child pornography trial has taken another twist after the judge presiding over the case refused to release sealed court records and transcripts

[tien an]

Hi there guys

Been off line for a while, long story!

Went to the corporate place of business known as Leyland Magistrates on 1st July to engage in a hearing for a claim of council tax against against my former legal fiction!


Too much detail to write here, but if my memory serves me correctly that day ended with me be dragged back into court from a police cell , cuffed, by about 6-7 police officers, the one who took my cuffs off was physically shaking and couldn't get my cuffs off!

We were kicked out in the confussion, no one knew what was going on, the police were trying to leave!! They just wanted to get away

When we got outside it just got bizarre!!

We had the police HOLDING all the court officials in the court and were not letting them come outside! Why? There was a group of 15 witnesses all wanting to report the courts to the police for criminal activity and the Srgt in charge said he was waiting to find out if he had the authority to do so!?!

He was asking the criminals if they would mind if the police arrest them!!!!!!!!!!



Hi miked; you simply have to find out what happened here!
The policeman was shaking because he knew what was about to happen...
Something obviously happened whilst you were in the cells...or perhaps because of your being in the cells...
Please; try and find out what happened there!


Anyway, liability order no 6 was granted and at 8.30 the next day I get a very round looking gent in a shirt and tie at my front window!

I shout at him as he waves a blank envelope at me, " Are you from Jacobs Bailifs?

"Yeah, i have a liability.....

" Sorry but you are tresspassing! I served your company a Notice of Removal Of Implied Right of Access."

" I havent seen that!!"

" Not my problem, it was served on your company Special Delivery and a copy has been sent to the courts. Now I am politely asking you to leave. If you do not do so within 30secs I shall have to call the police"

" I will just put this through your letter box!"

"Sir, if you litter my property I will sue you!"

Guy walks off back to his car, Notice- Not Served!

Peace yall;)

*note to self: draft template for "Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access".

Wonderful, wonderful news.
BTW How far are you along the road miked? Have you taken control of your Bond? Did you enter the courthouse bonded?

FFS; this has made my (very bad) week!

gaun yersel' pal!

tien an.

PS Watch your back from now on...won't you? (tee hee!)

[girlgye]

Humm. Looks like a very good PR job again not to go into court. Can't think why that could be.

What it shows me is how NOT to do it and WHAT TO DO to make sure the record is set straight before commencing proceedings. I shall be taking in witnesses and material to record as it has been stated in the legal notice they have been provided with.

Anyone got any idea how to prepare a habeus corpus? :D

[number_6]

So the judge can not have the case sealed?
You've never heard of this?
So that the record is NOT made public?

It's a private corporation.


Ahh, that word often bandied about here: "Corporation".
I disagree. A Corporation has directors and also would submit accounts to Companies House. As far as I can find out a Court is neither a corporation or a company. A listing on Dunn and Bradstreet is proof of neither. I find it interesting that such bodies are always described here as a corporation as opposed to a company. The reason that I see behind it is to sublimally implant the suggestion that if a body is indeed a corporation that their motives are more sinister than if they were a company. A corporation sounds much more menaceing than just a mere company. But that is all bollocks. When John Harris was asked the question "What is the difference between a company and a corporation?" I cringed and was embarresed for him as he mumbled his answer and was clearly out of his depth.

[yozhik]

Ahh, that word often bandied about here: "Corporation".
I disagree. A Corporation has directors and also would submit accounts to Companies House. As far as I can find out a Court is neither a corporation or a company. A listing on Dunn and Bradstreet is proof of neither. I find it interesting that such bodies are always described here as a corporation as opposed to a company. The reason that I see behind it is to sublimally implant the suggestion that if a body is indeed a corporation that their motives are more sinister than if they were a company. A corporation sounds much more menaceing than just a mere company. But that is all bollocks. When John Harris was asked the question "What is the difference between a company and a corporation?" I cringed and was embarresed for him as he mumbled his answer and was clearly out of his depth.

The key word is not "corporation" in this issue.
John Harris also has nothing to do with this issue.
The distinction to make is "private" versus "public".

Also, the matter of a judge sealing documents, records and testimony has not been touched by your answer.

So, for the sake of gaining clarity, let's assume I full agree with your stance on "corporation".
For the sake of narrowing this down to the real issues and to assist us in killing all diversionary and obfuscating red herrings; can we disperse with side issues such as the definition of "corporation", the discrediting or defending of John Harris and let us, for clarity's sake, even ignore "public versus private".

Can we accept that case citations and using specific court procedures or testimony are hampered by the ability of a judge to seal matters and alter court transcripts?

Because if we focus on that simple issue, the rest doesn't matter, does it?


The infamous R. Kelly child pornography trial has taken another twist after the judge presiding over the case refused to release sealed court records and transcripts

[number_6]

OK, yozhik, let us focus on the issue you describe. So, are you saying that in the incident you have been told about a Judge in a UK Court accepted the fact that the defendant was not a vessel and then announced the hearing and transcripts of the hearing were not to be made public?

[yozhik]

OK, yozhik, let us focus on the issue you describe. So, are you saying that in the incident you have been told about a Judge in a UK Court accepted the fact that the defendant was not a vessel and then announced the hearing and transcripts of the hearing were not to be made public?

I am saying that in a UK court, a judge acknowledged that the women appearing was "(her name), a flesh and blood woman and not (her name), a UK vessel)". He then commented that it was a very important distinction to make and that upon her confirming this, he allowed proceedings to continue with this being accepted.

Now ... since this recent appearance, a transcript HAS been requested.
Once it is received, those that were present will be able to determine whether the transcript has been altered.

Which again takes us to the REAL issue.
If ... if the records and transcripts are "public" property, then how can they be sealed and/or altered?

Not logical.

[girlgye]

Which is probably why there is a movement saying 'don't go into court'. It would seem that it is important to get his oath of office first and get him to commit on record to not alter the transcripts before we proceed. How far do you think I'm gonna get? I've just been in cops frigging every where. Like nothing I've ever seen. My case is not being heard til this avvo. So will keep you posted.

Please explain No6 why the court I'm appearing at appears to have made a profit over the past 12 months. Lets just rule out mumbo jumbo words you clearly don't subscribe to like Corporation and Company. Lets just cut to the chase. Is the Court a place to do business to make money on behalf of those that mediate for the puppet masters. See No6 for someone who purports to be on my side all I can see is you doing is your level best to dissuade me from taking action to defend my rights to freedom.

As you are so are so learned could you please suggest EXACTLY HOW I CAN PREVENT CORRUPTION OF THE RECORDS? I'm putting in bold so that you address the question and am not being rude, aggressive or impolite. Although you may choose to see my consternation as such but that is your prerogative. Of course I only need the records so that you can be convinced. See I doubt you will have an answer as it is likely to start an avalance of those freefone commercials you get on the radio telling you how to get out of situations for a fee.

[girlgye]

Hi everyone

I have great respect for the antiterrorist and have alot to thank him for as I have just had a 20min engagement with a district judge at a Possession Hearing in Preston.

It was almost exactly the same as the antiterrorist vid! My firends and I even left laughing satying the judge was the antiterrorist!

I am trying to get a copy of the audio from the case for you all to have a listen. I have just submitted a request for the transcripts so as soon as I get copies I will post it here!

The man completely lost it!! The only thing I forgot to say was my favourite bit from the vid - " Are you all right sir? You've gone red, and foaming at the mouth! Are you having a physical or a mental problem, Sir?" lol

We got it all

" This is my court!"
"I will have you in contempt of court"

He even said at one point when a new piece of evidence was pulled out of nowhere, I asked to see it and he wouldn't let me saying " No,no. You don't need to see that!"

It was a complete load of bollox but very inlightening for those present! The one who looked most shocked was the prety young girl of a solicitor that had obviously drawn a short straw. She said no more than a couple of sentences the whole time and when it had finished walked out with a shocked look on her face!

Peace to you all

Mike

Where's the copy Mike?

[number_6]

Which is probably why there is a movement saying 'don't go into court'. It would seem that it is important to get his oath of office first and get him to commit on record to not alter the transcripts before we proceed. How far do you think I'm gonna get? I've just been in cops frigging every where. Like nothing I've ever seen. My case is not being heard til this avvo. So will keep you posted.

Please explain No6 why the court I'm appearing at appears to have made a profit over the past 12 months. Lets just rule out mumbo jumbo words you clearly don't subscribe to like Corporation and Company. Lets just cut to the chase. Is the Court a place to do business to make money on behalf of those that mediate for the puppet masters. See No6 for someone who purports to be on my side all I can see is you doing is your level best to dissuade me from taking action to defend my rights to freedom.

As you are so are so learned could you please suggest EXACTLY HOW I CAN PREVENT CORRUPTION OF THE RECORDS? I'm putting in bold so that you address the question and am not being rude, aggressive or impolite. Although you may choose to see my consternation as such but that is your prerogative. Of course I only need the records so that you can be convinced. See I doubt you will have an answer as it is likely to start an avalance of those freefone commercials you get on the radio telling you how to get out of situations for a fee.

You say the Court you are appearing in has posted profits? Could you give evidence of that? Where have the profits been posted, and do they include income, expenditure, and a balance sheet? I agree that Courts are there to enforce collection of some fines, but such money goes direct to the treasury.
I don't believe that Courts are there to make money. Some trials cost millions. Now I am aware that the taxpayer ultimately foots the bill in such situations, but the Court will not be making a profit.
Why do you assume that Court records will be corrupted?

[yozhik]

You say the Court you are appearing in has posted profits? Could you give evidence of that? Where have the profits been posted, and do they include income, expenditure, and a balance sheet? I agree that Courts are there to enforce collection of some fines, but such money goes direct to the treasury.
I don't believe that Courts are there to make money. Some trials cost millions. Now I am aware that the taxpayer ultimately foots the bill in such situations, but the Court will not be making a profit.
Why do you assume that Court records will be corrupted?

number_6 ... just turning your questioning around for one moment ...

Is it safe to assume that you believe the courts are;
a) non-profit "organisations" in nature?
b) are free of corruption?
c) pure in practice ... i.e. they exist purely for the administration of Lady Justice and see no favour, are not influenced by profit nor motivated by seeking commercial satisfaction?

Can we also assume from your previous posts it is your contention that all court records are transparent and for the benefit of the public?

I'm simply trying to comprehend from which stance your questions come from.

[number_6]

number_6 ... just turning your questioning around for one moment ...

Is it safe to assume that you believe the courts are;
a) non-profit "organisations" in nature?
b) are free of corruption?
c) pure in practice ... i.e. they exist purely for the administration of Lady Justice and see no favour, are not influenced by profit nor motivated by seeking commercial satisfaction?

Can we also assume from your previous posts it is your contention that all court records are transparent and for the benefit of the public?

I'm simply trying to comprehend from which stance your questions come from.

To answer your questions:
a: Yes
b: No
c: No, but not motivated in making wrong decisions purely from a money making exercise.

[yozhik]

To answer your questions:
a: Yes
b: No
c: No, but not motivated in making wrong decisions purely from a money making exercise.

Just playing Devil's Advocate, to open up the discussion :) ...

Re: a: non-profit
The Court Funds Office (CFO) provides a banking and administration service for the courts throughout England and Wales, including the High Court. We account for money being paid into and out of court and, as directed by the court, look after any investments made with that money.
Investments?
Profits of any investments for the benefit of who?

[girlgye]

No6 go to dun and bradstreet and look up liverpool magistrates court yourself. So you don't think they are here to make money out of me huh? If so why wouldn't he give me his oath, why did he refuse the court record when I asked for it?

Well. Perhaps the rest of you can shed some light on this. Unfortunately nerves got the better of me and whilst i thought i pressed the record button i hadn't. I have two witnesses who took transcripts as best they could.

What transpired was they wouldn't let me in unless i said i was ms gye.

So eventually after much two and frowing and telephone advice I walked in uninvited. Asked to be seen. other liars were present and he tried to shunt me to the back. I needed to go so I insisted. Gave him the speel I'm here by special appearance to represent the strawman title. The mistake I made was I didn't have my bc. Any way he wouldn't give me his oath until I gave him the title ms Gye!!!!!!!!!! I refused give him the same response I am of the gye family etc and this went on with the name and then he sat there smugly saying he would give me his oath when I told him who I was and he kept insisting I was ms. I said no and then he turned round and held the case infront of me and called in guards to throw me out. 4 more points on the licence just to ensure the ban goes ahead and stupid amounts of cash.
So I got the forms, his name and the appeal forms.
As far as I am concerned he denied me rights to representation and behaved criminally but smugly said there's nothing you can do about it because this is not a court of record.
Any suggestions as to how to proceed would be most appreciated.

(You think one of those liars present would stand witness to this event - dont think so.

[merlincove]

ms gys :rolleyes:, did you ask him if he was an imposter, as if he had an oath then he has a duty to declare it in a public arena when asked?

i know it is better in hind sight etc, but asking him if he can not declare his oath then is he an imposter? might have got you in contempt then tho.

They can not give you points / fine / anything if you have not agreed to being strawman vessel surely? A corporate body can not give an order to a flesh and blood human being who exists under the judgement of god alone?

And in response to previous, is a corporation a single entity, or groups of single entities, and a company many entities existing under the same umbrella?

[number_6]

And in response to previous, is a corporation a single entity, or groups of single entities, and a company many entities existing under the same umbrella?

A corporation seeks to sell shares to investors and is treated as a separate legal entity. Liability for taxes on profits rests on the corporation, not the owners. With a limited liability company, the profits are passed on to shareholders depending on their size of shareholding. The taxation for both entities is different.
I fail to see how an organisation such as the DVLA is described as a corporaton, it simply isn't. (Although it does sound good) But, DVLA could be described as a "trading entity".

[yozhik]

A corporation seeks to sell shares to investors and is treated as a separate legal entity.

That sure does shed a whole different light onto the legal definition of a "person". :rolleyes:

[girlgye]

ms gys :rolleyes:, did you ask him if he was an imposter, as if he had an oath then he has a duty to declare it in a public arena when asked?

i know it is better in hind sight etc, but asking him if he can not declare his oath then is he an imposter? might have got you in contempt then tho.

They can not give you points / fine / anything if you have not agreed to being strawman vessel surely? A corporate body can not give an order to a flesh and blood human being who exists under the judgement of god alone?

And in response to previous, is a corporation a single entity, or groups of single entities, and a company many entities existing under the same umbrella?


I did all that he said 'I'll give you my oath when you give me your name'. I said I am Mary of the Gye family and he kept saying so you are Mary Gye then I said no I am and it went on and on. I asked for it to be recorded on the record that he refused to give me his oath of office and he refused to instruct the court record to record it saying it was not a court of record and called security to escort me out. There were several witnesses including my own. All now to scared to make a statement.

The situation is. I cannot claim benefits. I now cannot in my strawman terms use my ride and officially then cannot work. So now I'm faced with lock down and the inevitable shoot out. eff em. I couldn't give a toss either. I read that 55,000 in the UK have swine flu now and the number of dead is gonna total that in the winter. blah de bloody blah. Prison or death by swine flu those are my choices. Bring it on.

Can someone if they know and have a understanding on this tell me why I must Notice the Secretary of Transport regarding de registration. The way I say it that fuckwit broke all the laws yesterday and enjoyed doing so. I did it totally by the book. He lied and he denied me my rights. End of. I DID NOT CONTRACT.

If writing to the DVLA does no good in the UK what exactly makes you think writing to a psychopath in charge is gonna do any good either?

[merlincove]

Well girlgye, it certainly looks like the judicial system is getting wise to the methods and that perhaps you managed by dint of your own bravery to get short shrift.

i'm not sure whether a judge is bound to honour his oath in the arena or not, but i imagine that having an oath is testament in itself to allowing that oath to be said when asked?

i'm sure that other more learned fellows than i can throw some light over your quandry.

But at the end of the day you walked into the lions den willing to fight. And when you are fighting guys with guards and handcuffs at their disposal then you can expect them to use such, which they did.

i guess in the interim there is no reason why you can not 'use your ride' as getting to point B is a necesity in keeping yourself fed and employed.

When i wrote to the dvla i asked them if registering a vehicle was entering into contract with them and they said no, so by their own testamony you are not bound by their laws. Notice them that you are not a member of the society they deem to oppress with law / statute and declare that you have a right to travel the queens highways without tendering to their legislate. Notice them that you are a free human being going peacefulkly about your business and causing no harm to any other person or human being and as such you wil not be bound by any statute that the law society deem fit to govern the general public with in order to collate revenue.

I know this doesn't help your situation at all, i know that you have been bludgeoned with a blunt stick and refused what is naturally your right to a fair hearing. I know it doesn't help any of that.

And i guess you are pipping mad at the moment, and i really can't blame you for being so if you are. But i just want to say that i respect your stand and your honour for fighting your corner, and i wish i could help further.

it mnight not have gone the way you (or any of us) would have liked and hoped but you made a stand.

1st things 1st, appeal. And there must be a body that you can complain to in respect of the judge refusing the record, refusing to give his oath, refusing to accept you as a human being and then hitting you with points and fines when it was not clearly asserted that you were the 'person'?

[girlgye]

someone has asked me on thinkfree if I've written an Affadavit in response to what happened in court. Does anyone know what he means as he has gone off site?

[bsmurph83]

Definitions of affidavit on the Web:

written declaration made under oath; a written statement sworn to be true before someone legally authorized to administer an oath
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

An affidavit is a formal sworn statement of fact, signed by the declarant (who is called the affiant or deponent) and witnessed (as to the ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affidavit

A signed document wherein an affiant makes a sworn statement
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/affidavit

A written or printed declaration or statement of facts, made voluntarily, and confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, taken before a person having authority to administer such oath or affirmation.
www.coj.net/Departments/Sheriffs+Office/Civil+Process+Unit/Glossary+of+Terms.htm

a sworn or affirmed statement made in writing and signed; if sworn, it is notarized
www.accidentattorneys.com/glossary.cfm

A written statement made under oath before a notary public.
dcf.wisconsin.gov/publications/dwsc_16136_p.htm

A written statement, signed before a notary, in which the person swears to the notary that the statement is true.
sos.mt.gov/notary/handbook/glossary.asp

Sworn proof that an advertisers message ran as scheduled.
www.broadsign.com/digital-signage/glossary.html

Document signed by the commissioners for oaths with the official seal of the commissioners for oaths of Ontario that states officially that a notice was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on a specific date. ...
canadagazette.gc.ca/glossary-e.html

a declaration in writing on oath, made before a person legally qualified for the purpose.
www.smallbiz.nsw.gov.au/smallbusiness/Resources/Business+Tools/Glossary+of+Business+Terms/

A signed statement (filed with the patent office) putting appropriate facts or opinions on record.
www.delphion.com/help/glossary

A sworn, written statement executed under oath in front of a witness or witnesses.
www.diyestateplanning.com/estate-planning-glossary.html

A statement in writing and sworn on oath sworn, which may be used as evidence in court.
diamond.boisestate.edu/GaS/iolanthe/html/iol_glos.html

a document containing information the person swears to be true. Usually sworn to in the presence of a Notary Public.
www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/courts/meck/disk01/glossary.html

a written statement whereby the signer swears to its truth before a notary or other judicial officer. A witness affidavit may be accepted in place of testimony in court.
www.mesotheliomahelp.net/mesothelioma_glossary.html


now if someone can just be arsed posting examples... (i confess, at this very second i really am not up to editing and posting my own samples of affidavits...)

[boots]

Hi ya girlgye.

You've done well so far.

Sounds like a real smartarse this "judge". Have they asked you to "appear" on court again?

!. Forget the points they are only for debtors. I know it's hard to get our heads around, the fact that we have to have a licsense. Soveriegns dont need a mummy to tell them how to act with commonsense. So ultimately fuck it. But you must send in doc's to treasuray telling them to access your bond in case of an injured party. Their vassel must have a remedy.;)

From what I gather this bloke doesn't want to contract with a sovereign and wants you to deny you your right's.

MAybe it can go like this next time.

Very first word is... Do I have rights. and why are you denying me those rights? Why is the court denying me due process of law, injuring me and denying me my remedy.

Sir may I ask, are you not paid to uphold the intergrity of this honourable court and to tell the whole truth? Wait for answer. Of course.

Do you have an Oath of office or operate under an oath of office. I take it that you do. (talk over the C**t.)

Great, thank you Sir and I accept your oath of Offices as your bond and I have now bonded you and require the court to take judicial notice of this fact, will you do that for me sir?

I know that these statements are irrelevent now, but it might be something to think about in future, as it will happen again.

Concern this "judge" I would talk to the relevent authorities about this guy's conduct. ie the minister and what ever is the highest legal authority there.

.

[bsmurph83]

also, i've read somewhere (can't recall where) of a couple interesting things:

never forget the phrase, "i don't consent to that, your honour" - even as he tries to issue court orders and say you owe this or that or you're gonna have to do x,y,z, don't give him permission.

i think elsewhere in this forum it might have been mentioned (actually yeh it was on the forum, i just can't remember who) to say to maggotstrate BEFORE you walk in the doors - "if i enter this court will all of my inalienable rights remain in tact?" (think there was something more to this but i can't remember. went to bed at 4am last 'night' and am off my head now...)

apparently someone did this recently and the case was thrown out before it began. judge wouldn't let them in - case dismissed. may not be of any use to ya now, i dunno.

i don't envy you. i don't look forward to the first time i get hauled into court for travelling without a license or some such rubbish...

keep on keeping on, gye. chin up.

[aryan57]

Ms Gye,

I get the impression that you do not know really where to start with an Affidavit so please permit me to post on this and see if I can help you move forward.

AFFIDAVIT OF MS GYE (Heading in bold) followed by

I, Ms Gye, currently sojourning at (ADDRESS) I use the word sojourning instead of RESIDING or LIVING because these words, IMO, tie you to the system. Besides, we have no permanent place here as we die and move on to somewhere else eventually, so I prefer the word sojourning.

Then you can say, Having first hand knowledge of the facts stated below,

MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

Then write down your facts and truth about what happened to you in court. Number the points you are making, 1, 2,3, etc.

Finish off with the following statement:

Any man or women wishing to contest the content of this Affidavit, should do so within (7, 14, 28, ) etc. days by counter Affidavit, sworn or attested as true, correct and complete, under penalty of perjury and under full comercial liability and delivered to me at (Address)

Get it sworn by a solicitor or Notary (about £5.00) and send it either Recorded Delivery or Registered mail. Normally, solicitors do it while you wait. You are in and out within 5 mins.

Dont expect dramatic results. All you have done is make a record admissable in a court of what happened. If they dont rebutt it, then the weight swings your way. You acted in an honourable fashion and were dishonoured. In my own case, my Affidavit was ignored completely, not rebutted.

Good fortune to you It often favours the brave.

[girlgye]

Busy trying to get through to police re darren but here's what I drafted earlier;)
AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH


DATE: 20 JULY 09


ATTN: ANDREW WORKMAN CLERK TO THE JUSTICES, LIVERPOOL MAGISTRATES COURT FILE FOR AND ON THE PUBLIC RECORD

This is a response to my personal appearance in Court over the case that you presided over. Enclosed you will find a copy of it. This Affidavit of Truth is hereby declared that:


1. I swear, under PENELTY OF PERJURY that I have met you on the 16 July 09 whereupon I asked you for your oath of office of which you refused pending I give you a fictional representation of a name held before you, that of Ms Mary Gye.
2. I swear, under PENLETY OF PERJURY, that on this date I stated no contract with you and expressed to you in full terms this fact on a number of occasions in various ways whereupon you dismissed my plea, refused to hold it on record and held the case in front of me as though I had not appeared in court. This was in front of several witnesses and solicitors.

3. I swear under PENELTY OF PERJURY that I have no contract with you.

4. I hereby NOTICE you that since you took the plea in court, in front of several witnesses, you are now the DEFENDANT as it is you who has entered the PLEA.




Please respond within three (3) business days from the date you receive this notice to rebut all points here, with fact, under PENELTY OF PERJURY and UNDER FULL COMMERCIAL LIABILITY. Your silence or failure to reply within the timeframe noted, will be deemed as a DEFAULT JUDGEMENT in this matter. Your non-response is admission to all stated herein. This will be recorded in Public Record at the Maricopa County Public Recorder’s Office.



ALL RIGHTS RESERVED



X: Date: .

Signed Mary of the Gye Family

[boots]

when ya name is called　 you go to the bar and say
I am here on that matter, as Principal and creditor and I am here for 4 reasons
1. to apologize that this matter has come this far when it has been my intent all along to settle it privately but the bank appears to wish to raise controversies and I see no evidence before me to the contrary
2. to make sure all parties at this court hearing do NOT confuse me with the defendant so that if anyone after　today's hearing wishes to pursue my body as surety for the defendant is noticed now that I am not surety for the defendant and that I will hold any party liable that injuries me when pursuing the defendant and I suggest Sir instruct your underlings, as a duty of care to them in order to prevent them from injuring themselves, to make sure I am left alone so that you do not fail your duty in protecting my property, my body.
3. That as I believe I do not have the standing to address this court as a free man unless proven otherwise, that Sir, as the representative for the Crown and state - who are the title holders of the trust are they not,　 please do whatever you need to do to settle and close this matter promptly
4. I have come here also to collect a cheque from the party/ies that have/are trying to　rape, assault, kidnap or otherwise injure me and that I require the cheque immediately. (get an invoice handed up by the prosecutor to the judge with your certificate of Protest/dishonour). Sir, I require a cheque right now, please order the other party to issue one to the value of the damages agreed by all claimant parties in and to this matter. Thank you
　
now, if the Judge doesn't issue immediately the order or asks a question or makes a claim then you have to reply with a conditional acceptance or question -that's what creditors do.
　
SIR why is the bank raising a controversy here today with intent to injure me. The matter is settled already and here’s the agreement (wave it).
May I see the plaintiff's proof of claim, their affidavit in support of the claim. Am I not permitted to have the claim verified? Where is it? If it isn't produced within　10 seconds then I take it that the claim is a fraudulent one. 1, 2, 3 ,4 I am counting, 5 , 6 etc　　　 8,9,10　　 SIR, MAY i HAVE THE ORDER OF　 the court please, there is no verification of claim.
(if they say　 statement of claim)
sir　does a statement of claim have the same commercial energy as an affidavit?　 I take it that it does not
Ok, please with all due respect, may I have the order of the court now.
(if you don't get it now then judgy is obstructing justice)
Sir, why are you now obstructing justice and preventing my remedy?　 Are you working for the banks or are you going to act neutrally and provide me my remedy. Please make the order out now thank you.
　

[boots]

EXAMPLE 1

What to say in court when Defendant
Mag: Mr (Name)
You: Sir, I humbly wish to plead guilty to the facts. (this may be sufficient, if
not continue)
I wish to apologise for any dishonours caused by me as a
result of this matter and I wish to tender payment in order to
keep all parties commercially whole, but I have no money, so
I tender my exemption and authorize the court to do whatever
it needs to do to settle and close this matter with prejudice
I also require a full accounting of ALL the Bonds in this
particular matter
(what this says is you want the Bonds so you can settle and close the Bonds once in you
possession but they will do it for you)
Should the Magistrate ask any Q at this point it is ONLY a TEST to see if ya really know who you are if you testify (99% do!) then you will slip back as debtor/slave but if you answer with a –ve averment you will show you are truly the creditor and pass the test. So answer:
Sir, I am happy to answer you Q that blab la bla as long as you can show that it would not be giving me any disability to testify and that you are not now testing me on my standing as a free man on the land and that your intent is not to test nor to injure me by attempting to possibly create a controversy where none exists
You may also say: …… as long as you can show I haven’t already shown my intent to the court to honourably settle and close this matter and give permission to offset the debt and zero the account.
　

[boots]

A big thank you to Mark Pytellek for these 3 posts.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to help everyone.:)


Court case against Police Re: speeding and the guy won.
(I have added some of my material to this)
Judge: Mr Violafed. How do you plead?
V: I am appearing especially, NOT generally and I am reserving my rights, unrepresented, and here to stop and correct and settle this matter and ensure all parties with a real interest in this mater and have been harmed and can verify same are made commercially whole.
Sir is this a court of record?
J: I don’t have the recorder going, but yes it is.
V: Sir, I wish to apologise that this matter is before the court and for any dishonours I may have caused in regards to this matter and I will do my best not to make those errors again. Please forgive me for any errors made by me.
Thankyou.
Sir, do you NOT have an oath of public office?
J: Yes, I do. Why do you ask? (MUST BOND the Judge to get a Melchizedik Judge or you get a delinquent Levite Judge).
V: Sir, are you not sworn to uphold the law and to tell the truth and protect people and to maintain the peace and swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the 2nd, Queen of England, Ireland and her dominions?
J: Yes, what is your point?
V: Sir, do you have your oath with you? May I see it?
J: No
V: Ok, but you say you do have one.
J: Yes.
V: Fine, Sir, I am BONDING you to your oath of public office. Will you and this court take judicial notice of that fact, YES or NO? (silence) I take it by your silence that you and the court does take notice, so for and on the court record let the court records show, you are now bonded to your oath of public office. Thankyou.
Sir, I am reserving all my rights including to any un-revealed contracts. (License is a contract)
I would like to see right now a verified complaint filed by the complainant under penalty of perjury that there is a crime I have committed and I would like to see the witness/complainant. Am I NOT entitled to face my accuser? Do the scriptures NOT evidence that the accused is permitted to face their accuser? I need to see the accuser/complainant and the verified complaint. Do you have one for me to see right now Sir(to prosecutor?).
J: NO, er we do not.
V: Well Sir, therefore there is no valid and lawful claim without a verified complaint. I move for a summary judgment that the matter is dismissed or vacated with prejudice
Immediately, for lack of complaint and claim. (NO COMPLAINT = COURT has NO JURISDICTION)
J: No, I cannot do that?
V: Sir, who filed the complaint?
J: The police officer did.
V: Fine, based on what?
J: He gave you a ticket, Notice to Appear, Undertaking as to Bail, etc
V: Well, I appeared! So what’s the problem? I don’t see any crime over here. If there was a crime, who is the damaged party? Who has been harmed here?
J: Case adjourned for 2 weeks.
(V comes back to court)
J: Come to the bench… (So V went to bench)
Do you see the attorney? Do we have a verified claim for the gentleman?
Prosecutor: Yes, we do…
V: (I was very surprised, couldn’t believe they would have such a document. So I looked at the document and its not signed!)
Sir, this document isn’t valid because it is NOT signed, it bears no commercial liability on the complainant and no-one is taking responsibility for it.
J: Mr V, you are wasting the courts time…
V: You know what, I’ve come over here and I’m NOT getting paid and you guys are and I’m asking for the complainant’s signature to verify their claim…
Attorney: (Laugh’s) I have no problem signing it.
V: (That is a big surprise as he wants to bear commercial liability!). Great, so you have first hand personal knowledge that the facts are true, correct, certain, complete and NOT misleading ey and you don’t mind signing under penalty of perjury. Please do or be quiet and sit down and by the way, what did you say your name was????
Sir, how can HE (point vigorously at Prosecutor) sign as a witness on an alleged crime if he has no 1st hand personal knowledge, is that NOT perjury? Does this court accept hear say as evidence? (silence…….) I thought not.
Ok, so who is pressing this claim?
J: Mr V, do you confirm you have received the verified complaint?
V: Can I read it first before acknowledging it? (so I started to read it, but am thinking, what am I supposed to do now? The first two sentences I read, it clicked.)
‘The attorney testifies that the City of California was damaged by Mr V’s speeding’.
Sir, I want to schedule for a probable cause hearing. (I would have said ‘Sir am I NOT entitled to meet my accuser, please summons City of California to the witness box so I can face my accuser’)
J: No, I cannot do that.
V: Well, if you cannot do that, you will need to dismiss the case(matter is better).
J: Mr V…, were you not going 70mph?
V: Well errr, I don’t understand the charges Sir (see, you don’t have to answer the question’s, I said I don’t understand the charges. If you don’t understand the charges then they can NOT proceed and MUST explain them to you).
J: Why do you not understand the charges, were you going 70mph or not?
V: Well, I don’t know if this a is civil or criminal charge Sir?
J: (angrily) Well this is usually, a traffic citation is criminal (they cannot say civil because it’s the wrong court)
V: Well, if its criminal, as far as I understand, there are two types of criminal charges, one is violating a contract and the other is having a damaged party.
J: and by the way are you an attorney?
V: No, I’m not an attorney, but I am studying various laws.
J: Well, I’m going to assign you an attorney.
V: I object.
J: Over ruled.
V: Exceptions (There are some words that one can use that protect your rights to appeal or prevent judge from over riding you. When Judge says ‘Over ruled’ he is saying ‘are you sure about it, when you have objected. When you say ‘exceptions’ it means I am darn sure about it. So they cannot go forwards but they will try trickery and the Judge told me..)
J: Now you understand that YOU are waiving your right to an attorney.
V: I said ‘I am reserving my right to NOT have an attorney (so I want to make it clear to the court where I am coming from – a sovereign man. It’s NOT a privilege having an attorney. The legal effect is an admission to your incompetency!(my addition) I want to reserve my right NOT to have one because if I have one then I’m DONE! I ca NOT even discuss court jurisdiction. Attorneys are officers of the court and that’s the end of it.
J: I plead NOT GUILTY for you.
V: I object.
J: I over rule.
V: Exceptions.
J: Ok, you objected to my ruling so why don’t you come back…
V: (I waited outside. I wasted 5 hours but was a good experience. It showed that despite all their guns, attorneys, trickery etc if you know what you’re doing, you can stop them and even win. Basically you do everything from there with affidavits). (my reply would have been, ‘Sir, I am happy to accept your offer to come back on the basis you can prove your claim right now that you are not able to settle this matter today and that if you cannot prove that you are unable to settle the matter right now then show you cannot right now dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction, and lack of verifiable complaint and claim, with prejudice.’)
(V came back) Sir I will put a stop to this and have affidavits for criminal charges to file against the Judge, Bailiff and everyone pressing an unsubstantiated claim in this matter including the prosecutor if I walk BACK into this court and there is no verifiable complaint signed by complainant showing their unlimited commercial liability and penalty of perjury, showing they have been harmed by my travelling in a car without a license. I will file criminal charges against all parties in this matter.
J: Dismissed.
V: I said ‘why?’
J: (The judge looked at me with a dirty look and said ‘cops didn’t show up’.
V: Wow, wasn’t the right time for the cops (Judge didn’t have jurisdiction, - no-one admitted to being harmed)
Now, if one has the administrative process done, one can bypass all this and have a legal aid
lawyer or court clerk hand up the mediation certificate for sealing. Your
notary/trustee/arbitrator/prosecutor should be there as the one pressing your four fold counter
claim.
Trustee: Sir, the mediation certificate has been attained, there is no controversy and I do not know why this matter is before the court. I am witness to the dishonour of the counter defendant party and move the private judgment attained is sealed by the court and that the counter defendant is ordered to correct their records. Thank you.
(If any questions)
Trustee: The process is self explanatory. My client, the injured party went privately to the other party with intent to settle the matter privately and that was achieved by writing to them to settle their differences. The other party refused to reply so I was asked to arbitrate and mediate a solution and that was accomplished by providing the other party two further opportunities to correct their dishonour which they chose NOT to do. Is it NOT dishonourable for the respondent party to refuse an offer by the offering party to join in the mutual attempt to mediate a private settlement of a controversy?
Thankyou Sir, my client’s actions show his honourable intent to settle the matter privately. Therefore I move for the sealing of the private judgment attained by mutual agreement and seek the award under the laws of equity for four fold counter claim when a complainant fails to verify their complaint when asked to do so. Is my client NOT entitled to a four fold counter claim for award under the laws of equity Sir?
Say yes when they ask are you Mr Joe Bloggs　 I simply said, 'I am here over that matter, reserving my rights by special appearance ........　 it went ok
　
When appropriate put in your apology and also add the apology for going unwittingly into contract and you are going to　correct the record etc　 yup
Then say 　I move the court to take judicial note that I am here by special appearance etc....... I am the party know as ....... I waive all the benefits.and reserve all my rights
Next say Would the court - complainant/plaintiff is better because we wanna leave the court neutral please provide me with the sworn evidence it relies upon to support the charges against the entity ......
J: We dont have sworn evidence but we will get it for you.
You: Since there is no sworn evidence before the court to support the charges I move to have the matter dismissed with prejudice.
　
In my matter I asked for the sworn evidence at the first mention and they were going adjourn to get it but I did not know all the above to have had it dismissed.
　　　 Sir, I am happy to accept your offer to adjourn on the basis you will sign an affidavit showing you cannot settle the matter today when the plaintiff/complainant has no verifiable complaint and therefore no claim and you can show they have NOT already had sufficient time to provide that information and that by their failure to provide verification of claim, it is NOT their intent to raise a controversy and commit a fraud and perjury. Sir if I have to come back and the complainant has NOT signed an affidavit stating they have been harmed by me then I will have affidavits and application to pursue a claim against all parties that are involved in this matter that are attempting to pursue a fraudulent claim. Are you a party to this or are you now dismissing this matter?
　
Furthermore we need to investigate ways of getting around adjournments as they will adjourn and ask us to agree.　see above 　If we have comeback we can object and move to dismiss. Object = do not consent
　
Rajendra
　

[judy101]

when ya name is called　 you go to the bar and say
I am here on that matter, as Principal and creditor and I am here for 4 reasons
1. to apologize that this matter has come this far when it has been my intent all along to settle it privately but the bank appears to wish to raise controversies and I see no evidence before me to the contrary
2. to make sure all parties at this court hearing do NOT confuse me with the defendant so that if anyone after　today's hearing wishes to pursue my body as surety for the defendant is noticed now that I am not surety for the defendant and that I will hold any party liable that injuries me when pursuing the defendant and I suggest Sir instruct your underlings, as a duty of care to them in order to prevent them from injuring themselves, to make sure I am left alone so that you do not fail your duty in protecting my property, my body.
3. That as I believe I do not have the standing to address this court as a free man unless proven otherwise, that Sir, as the representative for the Crown and state - who are the title holders of the trust are they not,　 please do whatever you need to do to settle and close this matter promptly
4. I have come here also to collect a cheque from the party/ies that have/are trying to　rape, assault, kidnap or otherwise injure me and that I require the cheque immediately. (get an invoice handed up by the prosecutor to the judge with your certificate of Protest/dishonour). Sir, I require a cheque right now, please order the other party to issue one to the value of the damages agreed by all claimant parties in and to this matter. Thank you
　
now, if the Judge doesn't issue immediately the order or asks a question or makes a claim then you have to reply with a conditional acceptance or question -that's what creditors do.
　
SIR why is the bank raising a controversy here today with intent to injure me. The matter is settled already and here’s the agreement (wave it).
May I see the plaintiff's proof of claim, their affidavit in support of the claim. Am I not permitted to have the claim verified? Where is it? If it isn't produced within　10 seconds then I take it that the claim is a fraudulent one. 1, 2, 3 ,4 I am counting, 5 , 6 etc　　　 8,9,10　　 SIR, MAY i HAVE THE ORDER OF　 the court please, there is no verification of claim.
(if they say　 statement of claim)
sir　does a statement of claim have the same commercial energy as an affidavit?　 I take it that it does not
Ok, please with all due respect, may I have the order of the court now.
(if you don't get it now then judgy is obstructing justice)
Sir, why are you now obstructing justice and preventing my remedy?　 Are you working for the banks or are you going to act neutrally and provide me my remedy. Please make the order out now thank you.
　


courts only listen to lawyers, if you represent yourself and talk in a manor they don't like then they refuse to listen to you, trust me I know.

As a mother of 4, RAISING MY CHILDREN IN MY HOME I've been ordered by courts to pay a deadbeat child support for the same children living in my home. YOu would think child support is an easy law to follow and get right but our courts are so corrupt they can't receive information.

it's through holodynamics that explains why our court systems can't achieve justice and it's holodynamics that could collapse the entire court systems.

our courts require new information before you can appeal. holodynamics is new scientific evidence that can be introduced in any matter. I think the only way it will work is if everyone in jail started their own appeals and fill up our court systems - flood them up so they can't function anymore.

after what I've witnessed in our court systems, I trust without doubt most people in jail are innocent as they claim to be. Until it happens to you, you will never see it that way. How would you feel and act if you were accused of a crime you didn't commit? How would you feel and act if your life was taken away from you? Anger and frustration = injustice some place down the line and yet we treat victims as criminals

just my opinion

[girlgye]

THIS IS THE POST I POSTED TODAY ON THINKFREE THIS GUY THINKS THERE'S NOTHING MORE I CAN DO. I'VE KINDA GONE INTO MELTDOWN SO I REALLY HOPE SOMEONE CAN PULL ME OUT OF THE WATER.
Freeman Zeitgeist wrote:
the magistrates is not a court of record, so the facts need to be established by sending the appropriate notices to the clerk to the justices, which is the exact reason why my STRAWMAN'S speeding fine was discharged in my absence.

in my humble opinion, the papertrail that you have created with whoever is bringing the claim into the court (the notices you have sent in relation to the matter and/or the correspondence received, otherwise known as exhausting all available administrative remedies) must be served on the clerk to the justices - the only way to establish the facts in the magistrates court.

the only issue is who is paying the charges Mary, and the magistrates are betting that their best chance of getting paid is your STRAWMAN. unless you establish a solid counterclaim with a dishonoured conditional acceptance, opportunity to cure and a notice of dishonour, and an un-rebutted affidavit of the facts, i am sorry to say that there is little chance that you will turn the case around in your favour.

respectfully, you really need to do a lot more research. revisiting winston's kelowna series might be of some help. i also believe that you are engaging in actions that you do not fully comprehend, which is an extremely risky course of action, borne out of a desperate situation, so i'm not criticising you. nevertheless, if you really want to obtain the remedy you must first know the correct procedures and protocols. there is no short cut or silver bullet.

THIS IS MY RESPONSE TO HIM
They did not get an Affadavit of Facts.

They got their paperwork A4v and sent to the chancellor for payment.
They got a Notice of Clarification stating that if I were to turn up in court it was under common law juristiction, that I was a free man on the land etc.
They sent five invitations to go to court. I ignored them all except the last. (too busy looking up and studying how to de-register my vehicle) for you see I do have other remedies which I have chosen and lo and behold Richards remedy (he claims hasn't worked because he sent it to the wrong guy)
At the end of the day there will always be some excuse to weezle out of why it got wrong.

This is the second appearance after the defendent went down before me.

I have the witness statement and my own notes in front of me-
My first words Would it be alright with you if I enter these proceedings with a full reservation of my unalienable rights. For and on the Record. As there is no objection from the court and no record I will be entering and engaging in these proceedings under my own terms and condidtions and with a full reservation of unalienable rights.

Miss Gye please come here (gestures to the dock)

No sir as I have stated for and on the record (repeat of the above)

I am here to plead guilty to the facts not to the controversy and make amends to the injured parties.

For the record I claim common law Juristiction I waive all benefits and I release the court from its duty to perform as consideration.

Are you going to record

This is not a court of record

Are you denying my rights I object.

They then call security.

I make a phonecall

I repeat that I waive all benefits as instructed. He gets real arsey about my phone on display and threatens me with contempt I ask civil or amiralty. He shuts up and calls security

and calls a summary judgement.

So Michael no doubt you will no doubt have something to say about what I did wrong there.

Fact is I did nothing wrong and my case is different to yours as you sent in your licence and I didn't. You have sent in an Affadavit that does not mean that I am on my knees and well and truely screwed as you suggest.

The fact of the matter is I could not afford an Affadvavit to be Noterised which was what was required.

I CAN ASSURE YOU I AIN'T GONNA SIT DOWN AND TAKE IT UP THE REAR. THERE ARE SEVERAL OPTIONS OPEN TO ME AND MY PURPOSE FOR POSTING THIS THREAD IS NOT TO BE TOLD I HAVE NO OPTIONS OPEN TO ME BECAUSE I'M SOME KIND OF IDIOT. I may be thick, and in your opinion I may have done the wrong thing but so did that wanker end of. He denied me rights to a fair and just hearing. End of. Even though after countless occasions I had asked him to write it. Just because there isn't an affadavit does not mean he was not informed of the facts. FOR AND ON THE PUBLIC RECORD.


I had one idea which was to serve the Affadavit on him personally with a view to serving a commercial lien. You say I can't as he is not the plaintiff.
Is anyone else reading this?

I can take it to crown and appeal again, making sure the paper work is correct. However, I still have the problem of not being able to afford a notary.

I can de-register my vehicle (wheels so to speak are in motion)

I can send the Fines Notice back A4v again but I don't think that's a good idea from what i understand from Kelowna then I'm doubling paying the account. Wrong. Can anyone who understands Kelowna a little better than me shed some light on this?

I can conditionally accept their offer providing they prove I am who they say I am when DVLA ask for their licence back. As Michael has suggested.

My original question now and I'm going back to the question so that I can CoR what I understand in US and Canadian Law but what I do not understand is transerferable in UK law.

Michael thanks for your support and kindness but respectfully I disagree. I believe that tosser blow me out in the water just like the tossers did Mark Pytellek, now Darren Pollard and a host of others. End of.

[girlgye]

Amazing how Gods grace works when Mans fail you. Can any of you experienced eager beavers comment or pass to those in the know cheers.

I'm gonna go ahead and appeal and send the fracking Notice and Collection of Fine Order back REFUSED FOR COURSE.

Here is the affadavit for the court files.

Right I have a fine and order here that is unsigned and doesn't state that I attended at court. Here is my appeal motion to the court. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE FEEDBACK AND POINT OUT ANYTHING THEY SEE IN ERROR thanks.

AFFADAVIT OF TRUTH

The Defence in the above matter has been ‘noted’ the document dated 20th July 2009 and its content and assertions. The court is asked to note this on record to go alongside the Notice of Clarification placed on the court record regarding case number 050900105166

The offer / invitation for MS MARY GYE to pay as in having been ‘summoned’ at the ‘request’ of Clerk to the Justices Mr Andrew Workman is rejected for the following reasons and points of law:-

Reasons:-

1 The Document does not have the stamped seal of the court upon it, and is therefore rejected as being of and having no lawful authority.

2 If the document was a lawful document then it must give the person MARY GYE – a court record as she requested in front of several witnesses included members of the Law Profession.

3 All drawings orders and instructions made and asserted by A Workman “after” the defence lawfully walked out of the “application hearing” at the start of the day (16 July 2009) and prior to the ‘trial’ starting are a nullity, null and void at law, and at Common law as is explained clearly and sensibly below.

4 By the Courts own hand and doing the court in the name of A Workman has directly brought itself into disrepute and contempt of the very laws that it purports to uphold. Practice what you preach.

5 From the outset of the Application hearing and that the application was rejected out of hand and without any proper reasons at law being given in any particularised, clarified or qualified form – is itself a breach of the procedures of acting In Accordance With the Law.

6 However when the Defence as part of the ‘stated case’ moved and motioned to ‘appeal’ against the judge’s decision the judge refused not only the move to appeal but also the motion to take the matter to a judicial review and behaved in a threatening manner by calling court security when no breach of law had occurred.

7 The representative then categorically and clearly told the judge that he Mr Workman acting as the court had denied the defendent their rights in his ruling.

8 The Clerk to the Justice, Andrew Workman refused to recognise what had been put to him and adamantly insisted that he was going to bring on the trial no matter what.

9. The Defence stated a number of points of law and established jurisdiction before proceeding whereupon the Clerk of Justice refused to offer his oath and record on the public records that his oath of office had been requested.

10.At that point the Defence stated [050999105166] that the Defence therefore was left with no option other than to cite the inalienable right to walk out and refuse to take part in the trial. The Clerk to the Justice ignored this remark and incited security to remove the defence.

11 The judicial process actually ceased from the moment in time when the Clerk to the Justices refused the Defence motions for Court Record of the Facts before him when specifically requested to do so by the Defence.

12 The Jurisprudence / Court /A Workman acceded to and recognised the inalienable right of the defence to walk out of the court – and DID NOT assert ‘contempt of court’ and DID NOT attempt to have the Defence arrested for walking out.

13 If the Defence had been wrong at law in its assertion that the judge had ‘misdirected’ himself then the judge was duty bound to have the Defence arrested there and then for contempt of court and to prevent the Defence from leaving.

14 It is therefore stated that because the Clerk to the Justice, DID NOT call a contempt of court on the assertion of his ‘misdirection’ that he‘knew’ very well that he had in fact deliberately, wilfully, intentionally or otherwise unlawfully breached the law in refusing the Defence to be heard and recorded.

15 The Clerk to the Justice, Andrew Workman, was ‘overtly adamant’ that he was going to bring the case to summary on the day and he therefore attempted to ‘leapfrog’ over the Defence’s lawful right of justice.

16 The Clerk to the Justice, Andrew Workman attitude, demeanour and conduct toward the Defence from the outset was unfair, biased, not impartial and he DID NOT in any way shape or form conduct himself as a fair arbiter in the matter. In fact of matter, he refused to do so.

17 The Clerk to the Justice, Andrew Workam attempted to hurry and rush the Defence from the outset as should have been noted as part of the record of the stated case. A transcript of the application hearing was flatly refused and Andrew Workman expressly instructed the Court Recorder not to record stating the Court was not a Court of record even though it had been expressly asked that it become a court of record for the purpose of judicial privilege and right.

18 The attempt to ‘leapfrog’ over the right of appeal displays that the judge had it in his mind from the outset to rush for a judgment at the trial.

19 As stated above it was from the point of refusal of the appeal and of the stated ‘misdirection’ whether deliberate or otherwise that the judicial process of law ended by which all drawings, doings, orders, directions etc by the judge became null and void.

20 By shouting ‘contempt of court’ to the Defence’s citing of ‘misdirection’ and allowing the defence to leave the judge has inadvertently or subconsciously recognised that he had ‘misdirected himself’ on the right of the defence to record the matter as stated in the Notice which was provided un-rebutted under common law and placed in the Court Records.

21 Put another way the Defence was correct in its assertion that the Clerk to the Justice did ‘misdirect’ himself whether deliberate or otherwise and therefore the judge ‘erred in law’ in failing to act in accordance with the law.





22As stated throughout the above paragraphs it is the court itself which is in contempt for failing to act in accordance with the law as well as failing to conduct itself in a fair, unbiased, and impartial manner.

23 The court has brought itself into disrepute by its own actions and inactions.

24 It is asserted by the Defence that the “Summons 050900105166 issued at the request of His honourable Clerk to the Justices Andrew Workman – is not a properly formed legal nor lawful document and that by his own misdirection there can be no force nor authority levelled at Common law nor under statutory law by that document. The Notice and Fines Order is returned and signed REFUSED FOR CAUSE.

25. It is asserted by the Defence that the Notice of Fine and Collection is not a properly formed legal nor lawful document as it is unsigned in the wet hand of Andrew Workman the Clerk to the Justice who directed the Magistrates in Court 1 on 16 July.

26. Again the invitation / offer to attend was rejected as all rights were reserved under common law during the application hearing a Notice of Clarification has been filed stating this and is noted on the Court record.

27Furthermore proof is demanded of the court that it has authority to breach the Magna Carta 1297 section 29.

Cited: Magna Carta 1297 S.29

28 It is also stated that any trial that did ensue – was conducted as a falsity and was conducted unlawfully and not on equitable grounds in respect of the courts attempt to ‘leapfrog’ over its own erring in law.

29 Any trial that did ensue is therefore also considered to have been a ‘legal fiction’

30 The document from the court dated 20th July 2009 has no force or authority in law whatsoever whilst the defence seeks a Judicial Review of the whole matter.

31 No officer especially of Merseyside (whilst those involved in this matter have not been absolved of their failures under the PACE Act
1984) thus have any lawful authority or legal authority whatsoever to act upon the directions of the court or A Workman and they will be challenged if they dare to approach the Defence / so called accused.

[humansayno]

The full (4 part) story so far.....of Darren Pollards arrest is now available for viewing on youtube!

http://www.youtube.com/user/HumanSayNo

Please support Darren Pollard in any way you can!:rolleyes:

[merlincove]

Mary, are you aware that you dont need to have anything notarised by a notary public. Your notice / afidavit can be notarisd by three members of the public, i'm not sure if they have to know you, soliciters charge something like £20 to scribble their sig on a doc, i believe, altho that figure may well be higher now.

Three members of the public is all that you will require.

Perhaps you will have to read it out and get them all to sign at thre point of your sig.

Payment. hm. i know that yuou have been heavily engrossed in this for some time and are far more up to speed with things than i. But, have you asked them how you are to pay?

£ is promisary, end of, you can not pay a debt with a debt.

if they do not accept you 4v then ask them how can you pay with a promisary notage?

Are they taking your licence?

it is your licence, you passed a test to obtain it, they can not endorse it if you declkine their offer of points. They can niot take it, it is rightfully yours, you paid fior lessons to obtain it. As a noticed freeman on the land, they can only retain your licence with your concent as you have opted out of their little gang.

You are not contracted to them, your licence bears your sig alone and not theirs, any contract they feel that you have with them, anything that you signed (application data etc) bears a single sig, it is not contractual. And any terms that you agreed to in that doc (licence application) are applicable only to memebers of their little gang. The moment you say nah, i don't wanna play, keep ya silly gang is the moment they lose control of what you do and say.

am i on the right ball here?

best

lee

[girlgye]

Are they taking your licence?

it is your licence, you passed a test to obtain it, they can not endorse it if you declkine their offer of points. They can niot take it, it is rightfully yours, you paid fior lessons to obtain it. As a noticed freeman on the land, they can only retain your licence with your concent as you have opted out of their little gang.

You are not contracted to them, your licence bears your sig alone and not theirs, any contract they feel that you have with them, anything that you signed (application data etc) bears a single sig, it is not contractual. And any terms that you agreed to in that doc (licence application) are applicable only to memebers of their little gang. The moment you say nah, i don't wanna play, keep ya silly gang is the moment they lose control of what you do and say.

am i on the right ball here?

best

lee

Yeah you could be I believe now after much head space and running around on a computer ferris wheel all day with 1.5 hours for a little space that conditional acceptance upon proof of claim is the way to go.

Erm if I get your lingo you are saying this is mine not yours i paid for it and I ain't giving it back. Erm don't think I agree there coz if that is the case then I may as well keep my number plates on my car etc.

What do others think?

[tien an]

Yeah you could be I believe now after much head space and running around on a computer ferris wheel all day with 1.5 hours for a little space that conditional acceptance upon proof of claim is the way to go.

Erm if I get your lingo you are saying this is mine not yours i paid for it and I ain't giving it back. Erm don't think I agree there coz if that is the case then I may as well keep my number plates on my car etc.

What do others think?

I think that unless you are engaging in commerce by driving a vehicle on the highways, (as opposed to riding in your car, about your private business, which is bugger-all concern of theirs unless they have probable cause to ask you questions...)
"You're sozzled, madam...no wonder you were driving all over the road...would you mind stepping out of the car?" *catches giggling woman as she falls out of the car.

If you deliver stuff for a living (or even if you wanted to do it in your spare time), you are engaging in commerce on the highways (or however they put it), and if they revoke your licence...then I guess they could have you every time you were working....'losing' your licence in that situation would, it seems to me, a real pain in the bum.
But please correct me, anyone, if I've got that wrong...it can only be positive.

I'm not sure about the validity of my logic...but that's how I see it at the moment.

tien an.

[merlincove]

Yeah you could be I believe now after much head space and running around on a computer ferris wheel all day with 1.5 hours for a little space that conditional acceptance upon proof of claim is the way to go.

Erm if I get your lingo you are saying this is mine not yours i paid for it and I ain't giving it back. Erm don't think I agree there coz if that is the case then I may as well keep my number plates on my car etc.

What do others think?

yeah, i know what you mean, the plates and the v5 itself are the property of dvla, who offer us the privilage of using them on the mode of transport we bought. But in the same token, i asked the dvla if we were entering into a contract when we register the vehicle and they said no, no contract. Their answer surprised me, but i have it in writting. And the letter states thatr the 'team leader' who wrote the mail, referred from the ceo, was speaking for the transport minister.

But as for your actual driving licence, well that is yours, you achieved that, earnt it (in more ways than one) and so they have no right taking it away becuase you broke their rules. Having noticed them that their rules are not your rules your licence and the ability to remove / endorse it is removed also.

But as a human being i don't think they have any cause to detain your ability to travel through removal of licence. Noticing them of the validity of your claim to the motorised transportation unit that you purchased lawfully through sale of goods and choose to use in order to express your inalienable right for movement from point a to b at your own liesure, returning to them their paperwork and mark (v5 & plate) should see you right.

The only hurdle, and this is the only thing that is holding me at the mo, is the whole biz about insurance. It is all well and good talking about bonds, A4V and NI, but to a certain extent it remains unproven. Looking at an extended third party insurance cover to cover the mode of transport, speaking to loyds maybe, or their brokers, hmph, i haven't got anywhere on all that yet.

But yeah, back to the ball. Conditional acceptance is the only way through this, as you remain in honour, and that is key. They don't take to lightly to proof of claim, perhaps because they can not prove what you are asking. Remain a human being, devoid of contract, 'prove that i am named of ther named familly etc. Expect a fuss, perhaps they'll harp on about unreasonable claims, (asking for proof of their claim is apparently unreasonable, i have been told this) inapropriate use of the US legal system, (i have been told this also - i'm not sure where common law fits into their understanding of us law systems?) an insistance on persona blah blah blah. They will not make it an easy ride. But at the end of the day you are a just and honourable human being with rights and they can not judge against that.

if they insist that you pay, ask them what with? What can i pay with that is of value? if they ask you to pay in money then how can you suffice a debt with a debt? Letter write though, i know you have been to court (braver than i) but letter write, because a court is a judgement, wrap them up in a paper chase.