Tags, 상세검색
PJ 16CHAPTER 15
REC #3 HATONN
TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 1990 11:00 A.M. YEAR 3, DAY 160
ANOTHER MAJOR VIEW FROM THE MOUNTAIN
This upcoming information is another aspect and a followup approach to use separately or in conjunction with that which you have been given to this point.
This takes into consideration that whereby you have mostly all believed that you live and function within and as "one" United States of America, NO, you do not. There are more than one and therein lies your recovery hope and direction. You must remember that if you live in any of the 50 states making up the Union of the United States, you are a Citizen of the united states of America. You are NOT a United States citizen. The difference is so incredible that it will change your stance from powerless hopelessness into a powerful positive position. You the citizens can have the last word if you get off your assets and move!
Most of this information will be repeated mid-year as we move into a comprehensive informative Journal which will deal with the entire matter of "income taxes" and the illegality of same.
I honor one known as H. Freeman for the information which follows. He asks that we utilize his materials to the fullest extent possible but requests that we not give statistical information regarding his person for privacy and security reasons.
The following few chapters will be mostly taken from lecture material and we will basically leave it unchanged. It is given in descriptive manner and I believe the readers can relate very well to the concepts given forth. Names and story-lines may be changed somewhat but the information and conceptualization are absolutely verified. The citizens of the world are greatly indebted to ones such as H. Freeman and one day soon these wonderful patriots shall he able to come forward for honor without fear for their very lives.
You on the planet known as Earth, are hostage to a few world bankers--a Cartel set forth on a path of Global domination and ownership. They have accomplished the task, for the world is bankrupt and all assets are held by these few. However, the game is not over, my friends, for the intent is to call a Constitutional Convention and replace your Constitution with the one we have referred to--and then it will be over--they will own the world.
If however, you ones open your eyes, take the instructions coming forth and move into action and stand firmly upon that rock which IS your Constitution, you can reverse it and reverse it really quite rapidly. Mr. Freeman, and ones working with him, have supplied us with back-up documentation which can eventually be made available to you. We will not, however, hold the Journal from publication awaiting all the copies and clearances, etc., for the additional material for you will always be able to get additional information from America West and you will have enough within the Journal to begin nicely and adequately. Study until you understand the concepts given forth in each lesson and method and you will be in knowledge of approaches and carry-through. Your backbone will grow in strength as you grow in truth.
GET SOME FREEDOM
Your Bible tells you that you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. Now that does not mean that you allow someone else to know truth and you tag along with it--it says that you shall learn the truth and then you shall be free. We can present the guidelines but if you run in and botch it up then you have been most foolish indeed. If you wish to play the game to perfection and win, you will accept that some others know more than do you and if you wish to utilize that knowledge--fine; if not, we are not interested in your ongoing arguments. If you are convinced these things are not valid and will not work--they won't--and you will make the others have a much harder path. We are not interested in any "Master of Debate"--if you have something to add of positive nature--salu, if not, please remove your input.
We are bringing you some Master professors and if you perceive you already know it all--so be it; spare us the misery of wasted time. What you do with these Journals or the information contained therein is your individual business and it is none of our business what you think of them. I do suggest that you know your facts as to whether or not a thing is valid until after it has been tried or your face may well be splattered with egg--our verifications of truth are usually quite accurate.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
There is some background information which you must understand. You are dealing with a situation that exists but, at all costs, the ones that have created the situation don't want it to be made known as to just what is the situation.
The point is that America is considered a bankrupt nation. It is owned by its creditors, The International Banking Houses. Further, if it is owned by its creditors, then the creditors own the legislative bodies--both the national congress, the state legislature, all executive officers, all of your courts and YOU ARE THEIR SLAVES.
And therefore, they have to have their own legislatures pass "public policy statutes" in the interest of the nation's creditors.
The judges all take silent judicial notice that America is a bankrupt nation and that is exactly what the situation is. As we explain things you will see how things come down and what you can do about it. Now understand--and I repeat; they are not yet ready to admit that this is true. At this moment the international bankers, as a group, have the entire world bankrupt. I can only ask that you go back to prior JOURNALS for I get so many complaints about repetition and the only way I can cut down on repeating is if you do your prior lessons well. The Communist world, the Free world, the Third world--all could be foreclosed. They could foreclose on every nation in the world for all nations in the world, in effect, are bankrupt.
Why don't they foreclose? BECAUSE THEY STILL DO NOT HAVE CONTROL OF ALL THE GUNS! BUT THEY ARE WORKING MOST DILIGENTLY TO GET RID OF THAT LITTLE INCONVENIENCE. Therefore, they have to stall for a while until they get things totally arranged and can then tell you that you are all slaves and there is nothing you can do about it; that they own the world and the world will simply do as they say. They are "legally" in that position but it wouldn't be expedient at this moment for The Conspiracy to so state. At this time they would run into too much opposition. You can imagine what would happen if you told the American people, at this moment, that they are slaves and there is nothing they can do about it and "you will do as we say". You are, however, treated as though you are slaves and actually they have already convinced you that you must do as they say.
What is in your favor is that you know that they are not going to admit that you are slaves at this moment and thus they have to "pretend" that America is still a sovereign nation and that the Constitution is still in force. They will ignore it or hide it but they dare not say it does not exist. They will, however, carry on in the cat and mouse game assuming the public will not be aware of the hoax.
Therefore, moving along with their pretending that your nation is still intact, you can move right along and benefit from their continuing pretense. You must play the game just as long as you possibly can.
LAW, EQUITY AND ADMIRALTY
Let us look at the difference in these terms. There are three jurisdictions mentioned in the constitution. The courts were set up by your founding fathers as courts of law, courts of equity and courts of Admiralty.
In defining the three, remember that we are speaking of "jurisdictions". The "common law" comes under what is called a "common law jurisdiction".
Equity is a jurisdiction of compelled performance and that comes under the "jurisdiction of equity". This is not 'law", it is the enforcement of contract obligations.
Admiralty is both civil and criminal but we shall refer to that later for we wish to first discuss "What is law?"
As an example; if you go into a state, for instance, and there is a sign which reads "BUCKLE YOUR SEATBELTS--IT'S THE LAW". Is it?
As a better example, Mr. Freeman uses another example of some people in San Diego who owned a Health Foods store. They sold herbs, peroxides, protein supplements and things of that type. They ran the business in their home.
Very recently, at 7:00 a.m., their place was surrounded by dozens of armed police. They demanded entry and the people, still in their night clothes, were arrested, handcuffed and taken to the police department. There was a daughter also in the residence and she was able to describe the scene that ensued.
The police took the peroxide and poured it into the toilet. Then they emptied all the tablets and pills, etc., into boxes and thoroughly mixed them to the point there could be no separation of the products. They completely trashed the stores, papers and generally devastated the area.
Of course it was a preset situation because when the people arrived at the police station the media was all over the place and these poor people were paraded up and down in handcuffs and were only allowed to change from their nightclothes and nothing else.
Now, remember that the police are only acting on orders--they are simply doing their job as ordered. Further, they make a big splash about the "possibility" of having illegal drugs, etc. They, of course, were sure to get rid of any product that could prove otherwise. "They were protecting the public from possible fraud and harm"! the headlines read.
THERE IS SOMETHING YOU MUST KNOW--ANYTHING THE GOVERNMENT DOES IS A "LEGAL" ACTION--ANYTHING! BUT--IT MAY NOT BE A "LAWFUL" ACTION! However, it will be PRESUMED TO BE A LAWFUL ACTION UNLESS IT IS TIMELY AND SPECIFICALLY OBJECTED TO.
You must hold the above statement up front for it is most important--timely and specifically objected to.
Now what happened in San Diego happens everywhere and I have told you about some other recent incidents. It is a shock to all American people but it is occurring in a thousand different ways all over the country.
People say, "How in the world can they do that"? Well, "ANYTHING THAT THE GOVERNMENT DOES IS A 'LEGAL ACTION'". You must know the difference between "legal" and "lawful". For instance, you can be charged with illegally distributing hydrogen peroxide, but is it necessarily "unlawfully" distributing hydrogen peroxide? You must KNOW these terms.
LAW DOES NOT COMPEL PERFORMANCE. The founding fathers of your nation did not want to create a nation which was just like the one that they had just fought a war from which to free themselves. They didn't want another King George or Caesar. They wanted a nation with protection of their rights and not to take away more rights. So, in creating a national government with a union of states, they were most careful to not give that government too much power.
In setting up the government they set it in such a way that congress, the legislative branch of the government, had no contact directly with the people. They only dealt with the STATES and the STATES DEALT WITH THE PEOPLE. There was no such thing as a law that congress passed that had any effect upon the people of your nation. They were isolated from it--they were protected by the NATIONAL CONSTITUTION AND ALSO BY THEIR STATE CONSTITUTION FROM ANY DIRECT ACTION OF CONGRESS. THAT IS STILL VALID LAW! AND ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT LAW DOES NOT COMPEL PERFORMANCE. Law is purely negative; you are free to do anything you please by law as long as you do not infringe upon the life, liberty or property of anyone else. It is only when you interfere with someone that law can take effect.
As an example: When you see a policeman out patrolling, that policeman is like a juke-box. As long as nobody goes near it is silent, but if you go over to the box and drop in a coin it plays music. Well, that is what your police officers are authorized to do in America. They just patrol the streets and anybody who has been damaged by someone, he must come to the officer and say, "That man damaged me and I want you to arrest him". He must then sign a complaint that the man damaged him. That is what the law is for -- to protect you from ones who damage you by interfering with your life, liberty or property.
Mr. Freeman describes the above: "I have to back out of my driveway every day. One time I looked in both directions and there weren't any cars there so instead of backing out short, I just took a big wide swing. Suddenly out of nowhere a car shows up and I backed right into the side of his car.
"Immediately I got out of the car and said, `Where did you come from'? and he said 'Well, I just pulled in here to park and you backed into me'.
"We visited a minute and then I had him follow me to the body shop to see about getting the dent out. Then after we got an estimate I asked him how he wanted the situation handled, to leave the car and have it fixed or would you prefer to have the amount he estimated and you take care of it? They were from out of town so he preferred the money. So I gave him the money and that was the last I ever saw of them".
Now, let's talk about the involvement of the police. "Suppose I backed into that car and then drove away. If they got my license number then they could go to any policeman and file a complaint and have me arrested. Now the policeman is like the juke-box, he has his coin and now goes out and arrests me, and brings me into court. The burden of proof is on the person who filed the complaint and he must prove that I backed into his car. If I denied the offense then he would have to show proof that I had actually been the one to commit the offense. It happens on Judge Wapner every day. If he prevails then the court can require me to pay the full damages.
Now, however, let us look at how law has "seemingly" changed. "Suppose you were parked right across from my driveway and suppose I backed out of my driveway like I had an overdrive in reverse and you had all sorts of heart attacks, etc.--but I stopped my car 1/16th of an inch short of your car and I simply drove away. BY LAW THERE IS NOT ONE THING YOU CAN DO IF YOU WERE NOT DAMAGED. THE POLICEMAN, BY LAW, COULDN'T DO A THING, EITHER, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL DAMAGE TO YOU. THERE MUST BE DAMAGE BEFORE A POLICEMAN HAS AUTHORITY TO ARREST ANYONE. Further there has to be a signed complaint filed by the damaged party.
The sad part is that in these days there is so much bribery and corruption that you can most easily be framed and set up as if you created damage and the actions of the court are to hold you as guilty until you can somehow prove your innocence. These are signs of the times and we cannot deal with all the "what ifs" in this dialogue.
Back to California and the seat belts. It is the law in California--but, that is not "law". "LAW" DOES NOT COMPEL PERFORMANCE.
For instance, "Freedom is the right of a man to make a fool of himself if he doesn't interfere with the life, liberty or property of anyone else". And who is the "God" who decides what is the definition of "fool"?
Well, in California the powers that assume to be don't want you to make a fool of yourself--after all, who gets hurt if you don't buckle your seat belt and you enter into an accident? The big guys just love you so much that they just don't want you to bump your head and they are going to look out after you whether or not you like of it. That is how it comes down to "law"--they say that they love you so much and want to protect your head so much that if they find you making a fool of yourself and not following the rule, they will relieve you of $50. Now--that is NOT "LAW", so then how is it enforced?
Look at what the real story is--. The International Banking Houses see the American motorists driving around in their automobiles and they see some fellows hitting their heads on the windshields and perhaps killing themselves. Therefore they say, "Normally we don't care about people, in general, but we own them and dead slaves don't produce anything--we must keep these fool slaves of ours alive so we can continue to get revenue out of them. Therefore--you make those fool slaves buckle their seat belts or it's going to be a fine". Then your congressmen get that instruction and they set about making these secure rules so you don't make a fool of yourselves.
Here is the point: There is a difference between public "law" and public "policy" and it is interesting where "public policy" came into force instead of "public law".
Mr. Freeman has a good example: He has not filed an income tax report since 1969. They wrote him a letter in 1974 and he responded and then he heard nothing for another five years. But then, they found that he was one of the founders of an organization of which they didn't approve and the organization had really undergone a lot of growth. So, as good little surveillance personnel the organization was infiltrated and they got the names of every one in attendance at a major meeting. Suddenly, every member of the organization was audited. Well, it pretty well broke up the organization for there were a lot of ones involved to simply avoid paying taxes and had no particular interest in whether or not it was Constitutional.
They did issue Mr. Freeman a notice of deficiency in the amount of $68,000. He didn't own $68,000. so how could he possibly owe such taxes under any circumstance?
This is a trick and here is a most important point and something YOU NEVER WANT TO DO--DON'T ARGUE THE AMOUNT. DO NOT EVER EVEN MENTION QUANTITY WHETHER IT BE $10,000. OR 10 CENTS. IT IS THE LAW THAT DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU AND YOU ARE ARGUING JURISDICTION. What do you care, if the law doesn't apply to you, whether you owe $10,000 or ten cents? IT IS THAT SIMPLE--DON'T ARGUE THE AMOUNT, ARGUE THE PRINCIPLE THAT IS INVOLVED.
THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE INCOME TAX IS NOT A TAX OF INCOME. It stated that the income tax is a tax on the exercise of a government granted "privilege" and the value of the privilege exercised is measured by the income of the person who exercises the privilege. That is what the Supreme Court has said that the income tax is.
Well, Mr. Freeman took the Supreme Court documents and went to see his IRS agent and tells the story this way, "After a long threatening interview, I asked him who is your superior? After a while he gave me the name of his superior and I wrote to him. Then I got a letter back and then I wrote to his superior and got a letter back. Finally I went down myself and each time they would tell me that they didn't know anything about law but the code says this and that and the other. If I had any questions I could just apply to tax court.
"Finally I went again, in person. This time I got the Problems Resolution Officer and I presented all my problems to him. He said the same as all the other ones in that 'I don't know anything about the law, Mr. Freeman, but you will either pay that amount or you'll go to tax court and there are no other points involved--that's it'. I suggested that they were bringing cases into court all the time so I wanted to know where all their attorneys were since no one seemed to know anything about law.
"He said, 'I am as high as you can go, Mr. Freeman--you can't go higher than me and I say you will pay that amount or you will go to tax court and that is final because the only one above me is the District Director'. I simply said, 'Thanks, where is he'? He said he was upstairs so I walked away and went up the elevator, got off and there was a young lady sitting outside the District Director's office. I went up to her and asked to see the District Director. She said she was sorry but he was out of the office and wouldn't be back for the remainder of the day. But whoops, I heard a man cough directly behind where she was seated and within the Director's office. Ah Ha--but don't be stu--foolish enough to counter what the lady tells you. You can be extremely sorry. Accept the secretary's word for it and don't push it.
"In this case I thanked her and walked away, took the elevator down and walked around into the Federal Building. I walked upstairs and the first office I saw to the right was Senator Simpson's office. I walked in and found a girl sitting there reading a novel and obviously not at all busy. I said to her 'When the Senator was running for office he was going to set these field offices up around the state so that any time we had a problem we wouldn't have to go down to Washington'. She just beamed all over and asked if there was anything she could do for me. I said, well yes, and I told her my problem and that I really thought the Director was in his office. I asked her to call up the IRS and say that this is Senator's Simpson's office and I'd like to talk to the District Director and, if you get him on the phone say this: 'This is Senator Simpson's office and I just called to find out if you're in. Could you stay there five minutes as I'm sending a gentleman over to see you'. It worked like a charm--he was in!
"I thanked her, walked back around and into the IRS building, got on the elevator and got off--the girl saw me and said 'Oh, you're so lucky, he just came in this minute'.
I walked past her and he met me at the door and said 'Good afternoon, Mr. Freeman, sit down. Do you like coffee? Cream? --and all the while I just admired his view and commented on his good taste in office furniture and he proceeded to produce some cookies and we each took one and had coffee and cookies and a nice little chat. Then he said, 'What is it you want to see me about, Mr. Freeman"'?
Now, I, Hatonn, want you to pay close attention to the following conversation.
"'I don't believe that you read all the mail that goes out of this office over your signature.' He said, 'Oh, Mr. Freeman, that is so true. I couldn't possibly read all the mail that goes out of this office because it goes out by the bags full'. I said 'That's what I thought, and do you realize that some of those working for you are sending out letters that contradict what the Supreme Court of the United States has declared? But they are not doing it over their name--they have your name on the bottom'. He said, 'Well, this is very interesting, Mr. Freeman. Do you have any particulars on that?' I said, 'Yes', and showed him the letters they had sent me and I showed him the Supreme Court cases of documentation and I said, 'See, the Supreme Court of the United States says this; that this is an excise tax and the tax is on the exercise of a government granted privilege'. And here, your own agent -- I don't know which man wrote this letter, but your name is on the bottom but he says this is a tax on income. This seems to put you in a bad light; it puts you in contradiction with the United States Supreme Court'. And I showed him a few more such documents.
"He said, 'I'm really happy you came here, Mr. Freeman. I really appreciate your visit. If you could leave those papers with me for about three days, you'll hear from me. I'm a little too busy to do justice to this right now but I'll guarantee that you'll get your papers back and you'll hear from me in three days'. I suggested he keep the papers since I had duplicates. We shook hands and parted best of friends and everything, then three days later he called me up and said, 'I think you'll be pleased, Mr. Freeman, to know that we have determined that your notice of insufficiency has been withdrawn and we have determined that you are a person who is not required to file an income tax and you won't hear any more from us'. I haven't heard another peep from them from that day 'til this".
The interesting part is that the arguments he utilized were from Supreme Court cases. He realized that all his collection of Supreme Court documents gave him real knowledge and therefore he began to help some of his fellow-patriots.
"So", Mr. Freeman continued, "I had a friend who was charged with willful failure to file an income tax. I had spoken to the group which he had been attending and I told him, 'When you get into court, subpoena me as your witness. When you get me on the stand, you ask what I said at these meetings and once you have that you can state that I had convinced you that you were not required to file an income tax, then when you didn't file, it was not willful on your part'. You see, a crime is not a crime unless it is willfully done. For example, even Hinckley, who shot Reagan, didn't understand the charges so he never went to trial. He just went stone crazy and never went to trial
--because he didn't understand the charges against him".
Well, if you don't understand the charges, nothing is willful. You see, you might accidentally shoot someone--say, while you're cleaning your gun and it fires while someone passes the window--that is not murder for it was not a willful act. The person might be just as dead but it is accidental and not willful.
Well, the IRS would have to prove that the action was willful, so he could get
Mr. Freeman on the stand and then he would be asked to tell the court what was said. Well, it went very well--they got Mr. Freeman on the stand and let him rattle on without interruption.
It appeared to be a cinched case and all were feeling celebration at recess and then all were recalled to the courtroom. But, in the final summation of the case the judge charged the jury thusly: "You will determine the facts of the case -- did Mr. S. file a tax return or did he not". Well, Mr. S. had openly claimed he had not filed a return so look where that left the jury. The 'law' requires you to file. That ended the case.
Mr. Freeman asked the judge by what authority he overturned the ruling of the Supreme Court? He said, "Those cases you gave me were old cases, prior to 1938. If you quoted cases after 1938 I would honor it but anything prior to 1938 I don't honor. Since 1938 they have passed 'public policy' statutes. All Supreme Court cases since 1938 deal with public policy and all cases prior to 1938 deal with 'public law"'. Nineteen thirty eight was the year they blended law with equity--well, how can you blend "compelled performance" with "freedom"? YOU CAN'T BUT THEY DID--IN OTHER WORDS, THEY BYPASSED FREEDOM.
1938 was also the year that the Swift vs Tyson, 1840 decision by the Supreme Court was overturned by another case when the Supreme Court ruled there was "NO COMMON LAW AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL". All these things happened in 1938 and must be kept in mind each time a stand is taken regarding the IRS. It does not mean there are not ways to manage the situation, it is just that you must know what you are doing and avoid your own entrapment on technicalities because all courts will try to mix statutes with laws.
Dharma, allow us a break please.
PJ 16CHAPTER 16
REC #2 HATONN
SUNDAY, JUNE 24, 1990 8:28 A.M. YEAR 3 DAY 312How did this come to pass? All judges have taken silent, judicial notice that America is a bankrupt nation. In bankruptcy, the debtor is the servant of the lender. The lender owns you. They own the nation--they own everything. If you don't follow the orders of your masters you will pay the penalty, whatever it is that "they" choose as the penalty. All your courts today want to know is "did you or did you not OBEY THE STATUTE? GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY"?. That, friends, is all they want to know and absolutely all with which they will deal--"according to the STATUTES".
ALL YOUR COURTS ARE ADMIRALTY COURTS
If you plead "not guilty", they are going to "simply prove" otherwise and, either way
--they fix it so YOU will NOT WIN! Either way "they" are going to win and either way you will pay the fine and penalties of not following "their" statute. That is the way the courts are now structured.
But, we remind you and you must retain upper-most in mind--THERE IS PRETENSE INVOLVED; THEY DARE NOT ADMIT THAT THE COURTS ARE OPERATED UNDER AN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. Why won't they admit it? Because if they did tell you that this court is an Admiralty court, the defense in Admiralty is quite different from your defense under the common-law. The defense in Admiralty is this: the judge will say, "Yes, you are in an Admiralty court". Then you reply, "Thank you, your honor", and, but your Honor, you must recognize that this court would have no jurisdiction over my person, unless there is a VALID INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CONTRACT THAT HAS BEEN BREACHED. I AM NOT AWARE OF EVER HAVING ENTERED INTO ANY INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CONTRACT
--SO I DENY THAT ANY SUCH CONTRACT EXISTS. I MUST INSIST, YOUR HONOR, THAT THAT CONTRACT BE PLACED IN EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE SO THAT I MAY CHALLENGE ITS VALIDITY; BECAUSE YOU KNOW, YOUR HONOR, NO COURT CAN ENFORCE AN INVALID CONTRACT".
See what a pickled jam you put him into? What is the international maritime contract which brought you into that court? IT IS THE NATIONAL DEBT! Therefore, they would have to bring that into the court and would have to show that the United States of America is a nation owned by its creditors. They own the Congress and they own all the legislative bodies; all state governments; all the federal government and the people are their slaves and they own all property--they even own your own house, etc. They can order you, as the slave, to do exactly that which they order you to do. Oh yes, this IS the situation, no matter how you feel about it.
They would have to expose this fact if they admitted that they are operating the court under an Admiralty jurisdiction. THEY HAVE SIMPLY DETERMINED THAT IT IS NOT EXPEDIENT AT THIS TIME, TO ADMIT THAT AMERICA IS A BANKRUPT NATION, OWNED BY ITS CREDITORS--BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY GUNS OUT THERE AND SOMEBODY MIGHT REFUSE AND THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL GUNS ARE ON "THEIR" SIDE BEFORE THEY MAKE ANY SUCH PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF THAT SITUATION.
But, they are operating EXACTLY on that principle and you are going right along with it because you apparently have not known any better. Remember: anything the Government does is a "legal action" and it will be presumed to have been a "lawful action" unless it is timely and specifically objected to--properly. So, you ones are going to have to make an objection, or you will just continue to be a slave and obey their orders and work for their benefit.
YOU MUST KNOW, HOWEVER--HOW TO OBJECT! You must object not only timely; for a lot of patriots object, but they don't do it specifically--they just do it "timely". Two major points are at work here: "timely" and "specifically".
TAKE TRAFFIC TICKETS
Since most of you don't have time to write papers to the courts in constant manner let us look at how you can come out of traffic tickets most quickly, if you have to go in there "orally". Don't argue with a policeman; he is just a bureaucrat. He has orders and he thinks hardly twice about killing you if appropriate and they think, furthermore, that they are serving God while they are doing it. DO NOT ARGUE WITH THE POLICEMEN!
But, who is giving him instructions? The prosecuting attorney and judges (who are licensed attorneys) are telling what the instructions shall be. So when you get in the court, the judge will read the charge; whether it's an IRS violation, OSHA, EPA, HUD, or just a traffic ticket--it doesn't matter, it is all "CRIMINAL" action.
Again, why does not the State charge you with a "civil" action? They could very easily say that your driver's license is a contract, that you gave up your "right" to drive when you accepted the "privilege" of driving--from the State. That is the consideration of a contract. You applied for the driver's license and that shows your agreement. Now you have the obligation to adhere to the codes as given forth to the letter of that code.
Why don't they make traffic offenses an "equity"? The reason they don't is that they will never tell you that your driver's license "is a contract" and THAT is what they are enforcing. Because if they did, that would be a "civil" action and a "civil" action between you and the corporate State has to go into a "FEDERAL" COURT. Art. 3, Sec. 2 of the Constitution says, "If the corporate state comes after a citizen of that same state in a civil action, the state cannot use its own corporate court to judge its own cause". You are entitled to impartial justice. So, it says "the supreme Court has original jurisdiction". Well, if every parking ticket would have to go into a Federal court, you can imagine why they don't want to call attention to this fact. They will NEVER tell you that your driver's license is a contract. This is because you would immediately say, "Well, I have the right to remove this to Federal court; goodbye Judge, we are going to Federal court"! So you can see that the Federals wouldn't like it and the politicians couldn't get anything out of it if it changed to the Federal and was removed from "local" jurisdiction. Especially with traffic offenses, they like the income pillaged from you, kept locally entrapped. They will NEVER tell you it is a CONTRACT. If it is not a contract, then it is a criminal action.
But, there are only two criminal jurisdictions mentioned in the Constitution: One is a criminal jurisdiction under the common-law and the other is the breech of an international maritime contract under the criminal aspects of an Admiralty jurisdiction
--these are the ONLY two criminal actions.
So, here is the way to handle a traffic ticket, or the IRS, if they brought you immediately into court and you have no time to file papers, correspondence, etc. Alright, if you come before the judge, he will read the criminal charges to you, and they always have to ask you, "Do you understand the charges"? If you remember Hinckley, he never had a trial because he shot Reagan but he "didn't understand the charges" so they couldn't bring him to trial. Therefore, when the Judge says, "Do you understand the charges"?, always tell the Judge, "NO, YOUR HONOR, I DO NOT"! Now, he will respond, "Well, what is so difficult about that? The statute so and so says 'you shall not drive past that school above 25 miles an hour and you are charged with driving 30 miles an hour; why can't you understand that"? You hang in there and respond, "Oh, your Honor, it is not the letter of the charge, it is the NATURE OF THIS ACTION that I cannot understand. Your Honor, the sixth amendment to the Constitution (and herein quote it), gives me the right to ask this Court the "NATURE OF THIS CRIMINAL, ACTION AGAINST ME" and upon my request it is the duty of the Court to SHOW ME the nature of this action". The Judge will then probably ask you, "Well, what is it you want to know"? ALWAYS ASK THE EASY QUESTIONS FIRST, that establishes that they are answering under your authority to ask. Then you say, "Well, your Honor, is this a civil or a criminal action"? We have told you why he is going to have to say it is a CRIMINAL action, because if he says it is CIVIL he is really in trouble because it will then go right out of his court into Federal Court. He MUST say that it is "criminal". So he says, "It is a criminal action." So, "Thank you, your Honor, let the record show that this Court has declared that this action against (your name) is a criminal action". "Now your Honor, I have another question in regard to the nature of this action". Well, he now sees that that one was easy to answer, "What is this problem that you have"? "Your Honor, the Constitution authorizes two criminal jurisdictions for this court; one is under the common-law but this cannot be a common-law criminal action because under the common-law THERE HAS TO BE A CORPUS DELICTI OR DAMAGED PARTY BEFORE THIS COURT CAN RECOGNIZE ANY JURISDICTION and since no one has been damaged--I didn't run over any school children, or bump into any cars--nothing happened to anybody--I just went 30 miles an hour where there was a school zone marked 25. But there was no damage and no one has complained of damage so without a sworn complaint from a damaged party, this court does not have a criminal jurisdiction under the common-law", and, "But your Honor, what really puzzles me is that the ONLY OTHER CRIMINAL JURISDICTION AUTHORIZED FOR THIS COURT is the breach of an international maritime contract under the criminal aspect of an Admiralty jurisdiction", therefore,
"I am not aware of having ever made or breached any maritime contracts, so I deny that any exist. So you see, your Honor, why I am puzzled about the NATURE of this criminal action against me. Can you explain to me what jurisdiction this court is exercising in this action against me"?
At this point the Jude will get just a little bit angry--but YOU DO NOT! He will then say something like this, "I am not allowed to practice law from the Bench. Now, if you want answers to questions like that, you get yourself a licensed attorney. Now, if you can't afford an attorney, the court must provide you with one, but that is a question for an attorney to answer and this court is not going to answer that question". "Oh, your Honor, I don't think anyone would accuse you of 'practicing law from the Bench' if you perform your duties under the Sixth Amendment and just tell me the jurisdiction in which this criminal action against me is to be tried. Really, I don't know how to defend this for I don't know which jurisdiction under which I am defending". The Judge will say, "Well, it is a 'statutory jurisdiction'". "Oh, thank you, your Honor. Let the record show that this Court has made a legal determination that it has authority to conduct a criminal action under a 'statutory jurisdiction'. Now, your Honor, I have never heard of that jurisdiction and the Constitution doesn't mention any such jurisdiction, so if you can tell me where I can obtain the published rules of the criminal procedure for 'statutory jurisdiction' I will be most appreciative". At this point the Judge is angry and turns from red to purple, and he will probably raise his booming voice, "I told you before, I am not answering questions of that nature from the Bench! I am not going to practice law from the Bench, and I told you that that is for a licensed attorney--if you can't afford one, this Court will provide one because you need one, and then you ask him those questions because I am not going to answer. Any further 'pushing' of this Court in that area, and I will find you in contempt of court". But, 'Thank you, your Honor, but just let the record show then, that this Court has made a LEGAL DETERMINATION THAT IT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A CRIMINAL ACTION UNDER A SECRET JURISDICTION THAT IS KNOWN ONLY TO THIS COURT AND LICENSED ATTORNEYS, THEREBY DENYING THE DEFENDANT THE RIGHT TO DEFEND IN HIS OWN PERSON".
Once you get that statement into the record THERE IS NO WHERE THEY CAN MOVE. In this instance the prosecuting attorney will probably step right forward and say, "I don't think there is enough merit in this case to waste my time or the Court's time in trying it; I move the case be dismissed". The Judge will respond, "Case dismissed".
Once in a while the Judge might say, "It is in the Law Library upstairs (or
where-ever)--the rules for criminal procedure for statutory jurisdiction".
There is no such thing but you had better make sure the Judge KNOWS that you looked it up. There is always a way to STOP or interrupt a court case--even if it is "Oops, your Honor, I have a biological necessity, I must go to the rest-room". They can't continue the case and all going on must stop with at least a ten minute recess. This gives you time to either collect your thoughts, check the reference or ask for the case to be continued until you can research the suggested references. You might just further request that someone help you with instructions as to how to find the laws, etc. Ask for an appointed lawyer to help you--that always makes the Judge agreeable and happy (sic, sic) for it will probably interfere with the upcoming case load in waiting. Actually, it makes him so angry that he may even follow you out of the court to cite you for "contempt of statute" if he can find any excuse whatsoever.
One Judge has traffic violators followed from his courtroom to see if they go drive after having a license revoked even on a temporary basis. Or, fine them if he can establish that they broke some statute involving a prior infraction.
It is excellent advice to follow, to go research the statutes as directed from the Judge. When the clerk in the Law Library can't find the statutes, get her to sign an affidavit stating, 'There is not now a copy of rules for criminal procedure for 'statutory jurisdiction' in the Law Library and there never has been such". You will find that most Higher court personnel, such a Judges, are most ego oriented and enjoy their God-ness as King of life and death and are most unpopular with lowly clerks, etc.
Now, if you don't have time or facilities to do this research, do the following: Go back into the court and when your case is called, say, "Your Honor, I'm appealing the legal determination made by this court, that it can conduct a criminal action under a statutory jurisdiction. And in my appeal I am leaving you, your Honor, as a witness in my favor and I will issue a subpoena "dutis pecum" (which means he must bring papers with him) in which you will be required to bring a copy of the rules of criminal procedure for statutory jurisdiction with you when you come to court". Then turn to the prosecuting attorney (who is always "in bed" with the judge) and, to make it a part of the court record, say, "And I am subpoenaing you, Mr. Prosecutor, as my witness to verify the fact that the Judge did, in fact, say that a copy of those rules are given in the Court library". This will instantly get the Judge and Prosecuting attorney off the case at the very least and new ones will have to be appointed.
Do not allow them to "slip through" if you have time to follow-up at all because you will do your brother citizens a whole bunch of good. It depends on your penalties, of course, but in some traffic situations--where there is alcohol involved, or drug charges which are most frequently "trumped-up" etc., jail time can be very lengthy and fines incredibly expensive--when there has actually been no damage or complaints involved whatsoever.
As you ones get into causing noticeable problems for the nerds of the "King' who make their own rules and set bounties for arrest, etc., you will be called in many times, very likely, in an effort to shut you up.
In the instance of Dharma, for instance, everything she has or will ever have, both she and all ones working in the group, will have nothing in their names to be set up or taken. The home and property have been under litigation for three years to the tune of now over $100,000. just in personal legal fees. If, however, the title had been cleared and placed in their name, drugs were planned to be planted on the property and the entire home and property confiscated as well as vehicles. GET EVERYTHING INTO THE NAME OF A CORPORATION; PLAY THE GAME MORE ASTUTELY THAN YOUR ENEMIES--THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TO HELP YOU. THERE ARE WAYS TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY IF YOU WILL BUT STUDY THESE INSTRUCTIONS AND FOLLOW THROUGH. DON'T THINK ANYTHING IS "TOO LITTLE" FOR YOUR ENEMY TO NOTICE--THERE ISNT ANYTHING THAT SMALL.
Remember, however, that these ones of the judicial system are trained in subterfuge and deceit, cover-up and evil greed and they WILL overstep their bounds and they will NOT want to come into public truth. These ones (here, the scribe, etc.) have "unseated" an incumbent Judge "Brent" (for we like to give credit for bad behavior) and now he is working through his prior law firm to "get them" for it.
HELP, PLEASE!
Which brings forth a request from me; please, someone from the legal profession come forth to assist these ones--but, abundance will have to come "after" the case because the typical approach of attorneys has happened--run the clients out of money and the case is finally lost on default and poverty.
In this case, the Judge previously belonged to the firm of Shea and Gould (yes indeed, very large), in New York. Then Jason Brent was transferred to the Beverly Hills branch; then, following donations to the Governor's election campaign of sizable amounts, Dukmejian appointed Brent to the court bench in Mojave, Calif. The Law Firm is said to have owned an interest in Santa Barbara Savings (the now seized S&L),the one suing these ones for the property. There was foreclosure against former owners and these ones were told to go to public sale and take care of the matter--ah ha, no sale was held. There is also collusion among the Auction company, California Newspaper Service Bureau, Inc., from Los Angeles, Santa Barbara Financial, Specialized, Inc. (a subsidiary), Home Federal Savings, and on and on until it looks like spaghetti. Absolutely every day brings forth new and wondrous revelations but a firm with thousands of lawyers can cover tracks very well.
These ones have a nice young man by the name of Hornback, in Bakersfield, who is a young member of Bunker, Byrum, & Kimball et al, but the older members of the firm have ordered him "out of it" for they know the workings of the pre-arranged sales, etc. Therefore, the charges for minute amounts of work (for very little is happening, save a three Judge panel sits on July 6th to consider overthrow of Brent's prejudicial "default" judgment which only allows for living in the house at twice rental value until such time as appeal can be heard--which can take as long as another three years.) Meanwhile they are precluded from improving the property, for which there are no more funds available at any rate, and live from packed boxes because the rules are that if Brent's default ruling over improper format of court papers is upheld--out--within some 72 hours. This case will be laid out in detail with names, places, rank and serial numbers in the Journal on Injustice; but we need help now as to HOW to earthly get this information hookup. The trail was easy until take over by the Resolution Trust Corporation for we had one feeding us information who is in service of and closes banks, etc., for the FDIC. Now the lid has come down and the worms have crawled back in their holes. Dharma and Oberli work better than 18 hours a day to get these Journals out and they are weary and have no more time for this game--HELP, PLEASE! A space cadet's word will not hold up in a United States Superior Court
--remember the rules above. Even if they have to move from the premises, the appeal is still valid so we will need the information at any rate. You can tell the lawyers for these ones' defense is being told to get rid of the case for the bill for April (in which nothing happened) was $9,500 and May in which even less happened, was $4,500.
It is serious, indeed, my friends--and these are the "good" attorneys.
The young man who represents these ones is named Hornback (the opposition attorney is named Steven Horn). Hornback's child drowned in the home swimming pool the week he accepted this case; God restored the child to a state of brilliance surpassing that which was present prior to the accident!! What a sad, sad predicament for a young man who is only performing to the best of his ability as taught by Law School. I have personally met with him and there is no failure on his part--but his firm proclaims him "nuts"! We shall see who has the last laugh. Unfortunately, he "finds no available time" to keep up with the Journals. So be it, for I suggest he really should keep up with the most recent ones. I remind you--it may appear God loses some of the skirmishes. No, he only sets it up so the war is faultlessly won! You ones will begin more and more, to join together and share talents--and you will prevail; it is the promise. And when you do, even in these seemingly small matters, it shall be spread across the land and the backlash will blossom and grow. If a "spotted owl" can shut down work in a forest, I think you might do as well if you ever get off your assets and link talents.
You think your work is not important enough to these dudes to "getcha"? Think again! NO MA ITER HOW CORRUPT YOU BELIEVE YOUR SYSTEM TO BE--IT IS IMMEASURABLY WORSE! AT ONSET OF THIS CASE IT WAS LAUGHED ABOUT AND SAID THAT "THIS IS THE MODUS OPERANDI" FOR GETTING FORECLOSED PROPERTY BECAUSE THE ENTIRE THING IS WORKED OUT BETWEEN THE "TAKING" PARTIES LONG BEFORE SALE DATE. THE RTC SET-UP TO TEND THE S&L's WAS PLANNED AND PROPERTIES SUCH AS THESE ONES' HAVE BEEN LONG SET UP SO IT WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE BANKERS AND THE S&Ls SIMPLY ABSORBED BACK INTO THE MAJOR BANKS--BRINGING ALL PROPERTIES, S&L's AND DEFAULTS BACK INTO ONE SHELTER OF THE TOP BANK CARTEL. CLEVER? OH INDEED! EASY, TOO, FOR THEY HAVE YOUR GOVERNMENT WIRED, BRIBED, CONTROLLED AND TRAPPED. IF ANYTHING IS DONE--YOU--WILL DO IT! "FUNNY THING" ABOUT THE ABOVE CASE; ANOTHER ALMOST DUPLICATE SITUATION HAPPENED LESS THAN A YEAR AFTER THESE ONES' FIRST NON-HEARING IN BRENT'S COURT--TO OUR COMPUTER RESOURCE, A VIET NAM VETERAN WITH ONLY ONE LEG, AND HE WAS ABUSED, CITED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AND JAIL TIME ORDERED BECAUSE OF "CONTEMPT OF COURT". HIS CAUSE? HE DEMANDED "A HEARING AS WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION". THIS FAMILY (THE STENDERS, BY THE WAY, HAVE 7 CHILDREN), WERE EVICTED FROM THEIR HOME ON LAST CHRISTMAS DAY! MORE FUNNY--DHARMA AND OBERLI WERE ALSO GIVEN EVICTION AND COURT HEARING DATES BETWEEN CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEARS AND GIVEN FIVE DAYS TO GET A NEW LAWYER TO FILE A COURT ANSWER ON NEW YEAR'S WEEKEND OF OFFICIALLY FOUR DAYS HOLIDAY. WHEN, BY THE WAY, THEY WERE TO HAVE BEEN IN PANAMA FINALIZING FUNDING, PRIOR TO YEAR END, FOR FACTORY CEMENT HOUSING MODULES AND COMPRESSED EARTH MACHINERY. SOME 30 MILLION DOLLARS DOWN THE TUBES AND NOW LOOK AT PANAMA'S MESS!
Another interesting point; the particular S&L's largest development loans, etc., were placed in this area of overwhelming growth.
At the onset of the case, friends wrote to Senator Thomas, Governor Dukemejian, Attorney General Van DeKamp and Supervisor Ben Austin, among many others, regarding the case as it was so incredible. Persons called from their offices suggesting a possible County Grand Jury hearing and two suggested possibly bringing to the attention in hearing format to the Attorney General. How interesting that it "died" on the vine like withering grapes in drought. You ones have a long, long way to go to set these wondrous manipulated messes to order. But you CAN--IF YOU WANT TO.
OH YES, INDEED, THESE ELEMENTS ARE OUT TO STOP YOU AND DON'T YOU EVER LEAVE THOUGHT OF IT FOR A SINGLE MINUTE. HOWEVER, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT AS HIGHLY POPULAR AS IS 007, YOU ONES WOULD LOVE PARTICIPATION IN THE EXCITEMENT AND WOULD LOVE TO STOP BEING ONLY "ARM CHAIR" POTATOES.
Another funny thing; this Judge is abusive, insulting, irrational and degrading, verbally--in court. This is recorded but somehow the tapes end up "lost and missing" when the victim sets forth to get transcripts. There is such collusion that always the victim is exhausted funds-wise and cannot go on with the legal work because the "hired" lawyers are in cahoots with the dastardly conspirators.
You either start pitching in--and talent and "knowledge" are the best contribution possible, or there will be no shred of defense left against this massive people crusher rolling down upon you.
Dharma, this chapter is quite long enough so may we please break it at this point.
