View Full Version : Why bother going to court at all (noob question)
the maestro
06-11-2009, 05:45 PM
I've read and listened to quite a lot of material about jurisdiction, legislation/statue and consent and in light of this I don't understand what the purpose is of attending courts at all. Everyone 'in the know' seems to recommend attending court in the case of a summons, making a special appearance and avoiding at all costs contracting with them - but why? I understand that not responding at all is dishonorable but why is a conditional acceptance not sufficient? Why put yourself in the lion's den? Obviously this doesn't apply if you have broken any real law, e.g. murder or watched X-Factor.
Answers on a postcard please.
burnttoast
06-11-2009, 06:16 PM
I've read and listened to quite a lot of material about jurisdiction, legislation/statue and consent and in light of this I don't understand what the purpose is of attending courts at all. Everyone 'in the know' seems to recommend attending court in the case of a summons, making a special appearance and avoiding at all costs contracting with them - but why? I understand that not responding at all is dishonorable but why is a conditional acceptance not sufficient? Why put yourself in the lion's den? Obviously this doesn't apply if you have broken any real law, e.g. murder or watched X-Factor.
Answers on a postcard please.
Who said a conditional acceptance wasn't?
Peace
the maestro
06-11-2009, 07:37 PM
Who said a conditional acceptance wasn't?
Peace
Ok then, if it is, why do people end up in court at all? Why do so many people (e.g. theantiterrorist), have information about what to do in court? How do you end up there if you decline to contract with then via their postal/phone communications? Seems like the last thing you would want to do. People aren't being dragged to Magistrates or county court by the police in the most part are they?
merlincove
06-11-2009, 07:50 PM
Ok then, if it is, why do people end up in court at all? Why do so many people (e.g. theantiterrorist), have information about what to do in court? How do you end up there if you decline to contract with then via their postal/phone communications? Seems like the last thing you would want to do. People aren't being dragged to Magistrates or county court by the police in the most part are they?
because one could always be arrested for some trumped up nonesense and hauled before the beak without consenting, as has happened.
take a look at the darren pollard info here on the freeman threads:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72261&highlight=darren+pollard
As freemen we can decline the offer (summons = invitation) to court but once arrested things are different.
rosix
07-11-2009, 09:53 AM
very intelligent questions from a 'noob' :)
because one could always be arrested for some trumped up nonesense and hauled before the beak without consenting, as has happened.
take a look at the darren pollard info here on the freeman threads:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72261&highlight=darren+pollard
As freemen we can decline the offer (summons = invitation) to court but once arrested things are different.
But then a freeman would not contract with da police and still get dragged to court (or released). The freeman would then not contract with the court. So why go to court in the first place when summons arrives. If all you have to do is put up with being arrested (at worse).
Why not throw the (summons = invitation) away as it in no way applies to the living soul. It's spam mail like the pizza take away menus.
I have wondered the same as the OP.:confused:
danster82
07-11-2009, 10:30 AM
I've read and listened to quite a lot of material about jurisdiction, legislation/statue and consent and in light of this I don't understand what the purpose is of attending courts at all. Everyone 'in the know' seems to recommend attending court in the case of a summons, making a special appearance and avoiding at all costs contracting with them - but why? I understand that not responding at all is dishonorable but why is a conditional acceptance not sufficient? Why put yourself in the lion's den? Obviously this doesn't apply if you have broken any real law, e.g. murder or watched X-Factor.
Answers on a postcard please.
Yea it makes sense, because if whats being claimed is true then you wouldnt be obliged to send a conditional offer to someone you are not in contract to, let them come and arrest you and take you to "their court" under duress in which case they have broken common law.
So most conditionals offers state the condition that they can prove you are in contract to them, but really you should not be obliged to make this offer to any joe who makes a demand on you.
burnttoast
07-11-2009, 01:02 PM
Ok then, if it is, why do people end up in court at all?
Because they never PRIVATELY settled a particular matter and now it's brought to the PUBLIC forefront for settlement.
Why do so many people (e.g. theantiterrorist), have information about what to do in court?
Perhaps because they've done their due diligence to learn the system?!?
How do you end up there if you decline to contract with then via their postal/phone communications?
Depends on your administrative process...
If you dishonor the request....your cooked.
You can accept (honor)
Conditionally accept (honor)..this ones a dozey!!
Argue (dishonor)
Not do anything (Depends on what's asked, but your accepting the offer via your silence)
People aren't being dragged to Magistrates or county court by the police in the most part are they?
Actually they are doing it voluntarily....ignorance of the law is no excuse....everything is an offer...EVERYTHING.
Peace
rosix
07-11-2009, 01:02 PM
But then a freeman would not contract with da police and still get dragged to court (or released). The freeman would then not contract with the court. So why go to court in the first place when summons arrives. If all you have to do is put up with being arrested (at worse).
Why not throw the (summons = invitation) away as it in no way applies to the living soul. It's spam mail like the pizza take away menus.
I have wondered the same as the OP.:confused:
I have thrown out all summons I've ever received - nothing ever came of any of it.
I can't remember who it was that said it - maybe Jordan Maxwell - if you were keeping some money that a company had right to, and the law was completely on their side, they would basically never have a reason to be aggressive in their manner of collecting. There are people who for several years have received FINAL WARNINGs on things like TV license etc. and nothing has happened AT ALL except that the BBC keeps wasting money on postage to these addresses.
carl0599
07-11-2009, 03:58 PM
Who said a conditional acceptance wasn't?
Peace
These are posts that I have already made showing correspondence that I have sent and they have all ignored both the content and the law. Even the courts are not responding to the facts or 'maxims' (which are their own words and claimed foundations) which I have used seems maxims are only a one way thing! so it seems to me that maybe peaceful,lawful, rebelion might not be the way forward in resolving the issues which we face. They are the law as controlled by the benifactors namely the banks
davidicke.com/forum/ (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87214)
merlincove
07-11-2009, 05:57 PM
But then a freeman would not contract with da police and still get dragged to court (or released). The freeman would then not contract with the court. So why go to court in the first place when summons arrives. If all you have to do is put up with being arrested (at worse).
Why not throw the (summons = invitation) away as it in no way applies to the living soul. It's spam mail like the pizza take away menus.
I have wondered the same as the OP.:confused:
you miss my point.
Despite not entering into contract with the police, despite in the video link in my post you can clearly hear Darren saying, 'i do not understand, i do not understand,' Darren was still arrested and charged. Darren did not contract and he was taken to court. Remember these people are the pupppets of the state and when they see freemen rebutting their authority they are likely to get shirty, has has been proven.
They can arrest you for what they percieve as a crime, breach of peace is the usual, threatening behavior is another one, contempt of court, affray. The fact is that they can arrest you if they want, whether it is lawful or not doesn't matter when you have been arrested and are in a cell.
Say i'm driving my motor and i get stopped by the boys in blue, and i refuse to contract with them blah blah blah.
I can go down with all the usual speak:
'Am i obliged to give you my name, officer?'
'Am i free to go, officer?'
'Have you witnessed me commit a crime officer?'
'Am i under arrest officer?' etc etc.
And the officer in question decides he doesn't like not being in control and decides he's going to give my collar a feel and drags me off to the station. i can protest and duress all i like, but the fact is he has chosen to arrest me, he's a thug with a uniform and a big ego. And because my car isn't registered i find myself up before the beak the following day....
You see i have not entered into contract, at all, any where. But they can still drag you before the beak and no matter how much 'protest and duress' you shout about, being dragged up to the court house is something we need to prepare for, as Darren's case, and others here abouts will show.
The proof of this is in the video, Darren did not contract and still he was arrested.
2) So why go to court in the first place when summons arrives. If all you have to do is put up with being arrested (at worse).
Why not throw the (summons = invitation) away as it in no way applies to the living soul. It's spam mail like the pizza take away menus.
If you ignore it then you are contracting. thgat is the way their system works, you contract by acquiesence, and in such a case you would be fucked over faster than you could make a cup of tea.
You can contact the courts and explain that you do not wish to attend to their invitation or, prefferably, conditionally accept their invitation provided they can show you contracts / bills etc as per varificationj of the charges they offer. Chances are they won't be able to so then why attend?
Do not ignore a summons - or you acquiesse to their claims, ie if you do not challenge their claim then you are agreeing to that claim.
If i came round to your house and called you a thieving little so and so, and claimed that you had stolen my wallet - not only might i get a slap :rolleyes: but there is likely to be a discussion along the lines of, 'no i am not,' 'yes you are,' 'no i am not, and if you can't prove i stole your wallet, get out my house...'
Do you see my point?
:D
"fucked over faster than you could make a cup of tea". :D Like that. yes thanks merlincove I do see your point and I'd follow that advice in case of a summons arriving. Thanks for help :)
merlincove
08-11-2009, 04:34 PM
:D
just send em back with 'i do not wish to contract' / 'i do not understand this document, i over stand in due diligence,' or similar.
more valuable info here:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=84582
rob menard
08-11-2009, 05:56 PM
That is why a proper fee schedule in place is so important.
You are right, they have guns and can and will arrest. Whether they are right to do so is not the point, they do it anyway.
If you have no docs in place they have claim of colour of right and you have no remedy.
If you do have it in place, you then merely submit under protest and duress, activate your schedule and me nice and peaceful, knowing you are going to collect on your schedule.
A guy in Ontario was stopped by a cop. Cop asked if he was the guy with the COR and doing that reminded the stopped guy of his fee schedule. He thanked the cop and served him a bill for $1000. Cop returned with a cheque for that amount and whole different attitude.
You can cry about what is, or you can create that which you wish.
Rob
number_6
08-11-2009, 06:56 PM
A guy in Ontario was stopped by a cop. Cop asked if he was the guy with the COR and doing that reminded the stopped guy of his fee schedule. He thanked the cop and served him a bill for $1000. Cop returned with a cheque for that amount and whole different attitude.
Are you saying that the cop personally paid $1000 debited from the cop's own personal bank account, or the state paid?
merlincove
08-11-2009, 08:04 PM
That is why a proper fee schedule in place is so important.
You are right, they have guns and can and will arrest. Whether they are right to do so is not the point, they do it anyway.
If you have no docs in place they have claim of colour of right and you have no remedy.
If you do have it in place, you then merely submit under protest and duress, activate your schedule and me nice and peaceful, knowing you are going to collect on your schedule.
A guy in Ontario was stopped by a cop. Cop asked if he was the guy with the COR and doing that reminded the stopped guy of his fee schedule. He thanked the cop and served him a bill for $1000. Cop returned with a cheque for that amount and whole different attitude.
You can cry about what is, or you can create that which you wish.
Rob
Great post, rob, thanks
:D
moobs
16-11-2011, 06:27 PM
A guy in Ontario was stopped by a cop. Cop asked if he was the guy with the COR and doing that reminded the stopped guy of his fee schedule. He thanked the cop and served him a bill for $1000. Cop returned with a cheque for that amount and whole different attitude.
I totally believe this.
reverendjim
16-11-2011, 07:00 PM
as much as i'd like to believe this about a cop with a cheque for $1,000, i would have to see the COR, the fee sced, and a photo copy of the cheque. i mean, really. are you sure it wasn't a ticket, sometimes called a "bill", but this time called a cheque also a species of bill :) seriously, i am familiar with the theory, but i can not see a cop whipping out his cheque book, when he is more likely to use a ticket book and maybe a taser.
rumpelstilzchen
16-11-2011, 07:11 PM
I totally believe this.
Something appears to have gone a bit wonky with Rob.
In November 2009 he wrote:
activate your schedule and me nice and peaceful,knowing you are going to collect on your schedule.
A guy in Ontario was stopped by a cop. Cop asked if he was the guy with the COR and doing that reminded the stopped guy of his fee schedule. He thanked the cop and served him a bill for $1000. Cop returned with a cheque for that amount and whole different attitude.
to show that success where a fee schedule is concerned is determined by getting paid, but then a year later he wrote:
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059552631&postcount=181
So if success is determined not by getting paid (that is how a child would see a fee schedule as working) but by stopping others from ordering us about with impunity and without liability, then they work quite well.
it looks like rob is describing the attitude he displayed in his previous post as that of a child.
reverendjim
16-11-2011, 07:18 PM
Something appears to have gone a bit wonky with Rob.
In November 2009 he wrote:
to show that success where a fee schedule is concerned is determined by getting paid, but then a year later he wrote:
http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059552631&postcount=181
it looks like rob is describing the attitude he displayed in his previous post as that of a child.wait a sec...the cop supposedly paid buddy's fee..what happened next? does this mean the cop can now contract with him and expect performance? sounds like it....
reverendjim
16-11-2011, 07:27 PM
i just had a thought. lets say buddy has a fee sced. it goes like this:
being stopped 500
being asked for papers 3000
being removed from the car 20000
being ticketed 30000
being assualted 50000
this is supposed to deter the cop. but lets say the cop reasons thus. i cant touch this guy without activating his fee sced. but if i pay his fees i can expect performance. cop gets out his checque book....and says boy am i gonna have me a night. after all the checque will just come back nsf or he can cancel it because the freeman didn't perform correctly. besides...they can fight that out in court...
he goes back to the car...with a long list of things for the freeman to do....and a big rubber cheque....
just musing
:)
weeman
16-11-2011, 08:13 PM
:D
freemefast
16-11-2011, 08:33 PM
Cop returned with a cheque for that amount and whole different attitude.
So there is a paper trail to prove this happened then?
Great post, rob, thanks
:D
:rolleyes: ;) :D
britishnick
18-11-2011, 10:34 AM
If you ignore it then you are contracting. thgat is the way their system works, you contract by acquiesence, and in such a case you would be fucked over faster than you could make a cup of tea.
You can contact the courts and explain that you do not wish to attend to their invitation or, prefferably, conditionally accept their invitation provided they can show you contracts / bills etc as per varificationj of the charges they offer. Chances are they won't be able to so then why attend?
Do not ignore a summons - or you acquiesse to their claims, ie if you do not challenge their claim then you are agreeing to that claim.
:D
I've spoken to a couple of people recently who have been returning to sender (on envelope) summons... sellotape back up and send it back... They've had no knocks on the door. they are returning the summon, therffor NOT inoring it, they are not refusing it, they are returning.
they are not laying claim to the name
rumpelstilzchen
18-11-2011, 10:40 AM
I've spoken to a couple of people recently who have been returning to sender (on envelope) summons... sellotape back up and send it back... They've had no knocks on the door. they are returning the summon, therffor NOT inoring it, they are not refusing it, they are returning.
they are not laying claim to the name
Why have they received a summons?
ETA: Oh I forgot.
britishnick has me on ignore:D
reverendjim
19-11-2011, 09:31 PM
i just had a thought. lets say buddy has a fee sced. it goes like this:
being stopped 500
being asked for papers 3000
being removed from the car 20000
being ticketed 30000
being assualted 50000
this is supposed to deter the cop. but lets say the cop reasons thus. i cant touch this guy without activating his fee sced. but if i pay his fees i can expect performance. cop gets out his checque book....and says boy am i gonna have me a night. after all the checque will just come back nsf or he can cancel it because the freeman didn't perform correctly. besides...they can fight that out in court...
he goes back to the car...with a long list of things for the freeman to do....and a big rubber cheque....
just musing
:)was just fooling around there but, could this not backfire in just such a fashion....the fee schedule says you want me to perform ok, heres my fee. cop says i'll see your fee and require your performance. that could be bad. the schedule holder cant exactly back out now can he. unless he wants to end up back under statute...
jackieg
19-11-2011, 09:53 PM
was just fooling around there but, could this not backfire in just such a fashion....the fee schedule says you want me to perform ok, heres my fee. cop says i'll see your fee and require your performance. that could be bad. the schedule holder cant exactly back out now can he. unless he wants to end up back under statute...
I would venture that as long as the Chief of Police has a copy of the fee schedule and his officers are screwing around with your valuable time then I would suggest carrying a sample statement of claim showing what happens to officers who bill for frivolous charges and expect to get away scot free.
Put the fear of God into them and watch them transfer their property into their lawyers name.:rolleyes:
moobs
20-11-2011, 12:07 AM
It's kind of a moot point, though, seeing how no cop has ever paid a freeman's "fee schedule," and no judge has ever ordered one to.
jackieg
20-11-2011, 01:43 PM
It's kind of a moot point, though, seeing how no cop has ever paid a freeman's "fee schedule," and no judge has ever ordered one to.
Where is your evidence of that?
Lots of cops have been sued and ordered to pay.
moobs
20-11-2011, 05:41 PM
Being sued is something different to being "billed."
alisa2
20-11-2011, 06:34 PM
Everyone 'in the know' seems to recommend attending court in the case of a summons, making a special appearance and avoiding at all costs contracting with them - but why?
I don't think its a matter of 'recommending' not attending. Going to court is basically, FORCED attendance. That is, if you do not attend, they will get a default judgment against you. They FORCE you to answer. At every step, it's all about FORCE. They will get you either way.
alisa2
20-11-2011, 06:48 PM
And if anyone thinks that I am only trying to invoke FEAR here, you're wrong. If a lawsuit is filed against you, you will be forced to answer, and as a defendant, you'll have to pay their fees to do that, because the court will not allow you to submit an answer or motion without paying.
The whole system is based on FORCE, not law.
alisa2
20-11-2011, 08:03 PM
And why are they allowed to use force against the people? Here's the answer: We consent to it whenever we use the SSN.
The following was taken from the book The Discovery of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane:
"In demanding that men in Government be responsible for his welfare, a citizen is demanding control of his affairs by men whose only power is the use of force."
The key word here is WELFARE. By use the Social Security number, you demand that men in Government be responsible for your welfare.
"In trying to make any other person responsible for his welfare, he must try to transfer his control of himself to that other man, for control and responsibility cannot be separated." Rose Wilder Lane
Con't:
"If men in public office accept that controlling responsibility, they must use force, they have nothing else to use. Then the citizen must lose the use of his natural human rights; his exercise of free action and free speech, his legal right to own property, must be checked and curbed and prevented, by force."
Of course they DEMAND the SSN in almost every transaction. Without it, they have NO CONTROL. In knowing that, you now have a choice. If they ask for the SSN, just walk away if you do not agree to be controlled.
jackieg
22-11-2011, 01:03 AM
Being sued is something different to being "billed."
Correct.
If I bill you and you do not pay then a statement of claim is filed in court under the simplified procedure.
The possibility of winning is high.
moobs
22-11-2011, 02:35 AM
Correct.
If I bill you and you do not pay then a statement of claim is filed in court under the simplified procedure.
The possibility of winning is high.
Well, then, you must be able to provide citations for plenty of cases where this has happened.